Blue Screen of Death

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: mindless1
The thread should be locked, there is nothing useful about it or the line of thinking.

I agree.

 

[n7]

I experience BSODs all the time.

But that's because of nV's crappy drivers, or because i was clocking the CPU/RAM too high

 

[wordsworm]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: mindless1
The thread should be locked, there is nothing useful about it or the line of thinking.

I agree.

It's of no surprise that myocardia and mindless feel this way as both are employees and shareholders of Intel.

But in all seriousness, are you afraid that my poll might show that there might be some correlation between stability and the CPU? I figured it was a long shot. Nonetheless I wanted to see which CPU user suffers the most from BSOD. My guess is that Intel's memory controller is the problem, whereas I suspect AMD's on-die controller is far superior, and therefore less problematic. The crashes have all been reported relating to memory. However, I am using the same exact sticks I used with the AMD. The only thing different between the two setups is the CPU and the motherboard.

 

[zsdersw]

Your poll doesn't show squat because it has two glaring omissions: motherboard/bios and chipset. Those two things are infinitely more responsible for system stability than whether there's an Intel or AMD chip in the CPU socket.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
My guess is that Intel's memory controller is the problem, whereas I suspect AMD's on-die controller is far superior, and therefore less problematic. The crashes have all been reported relating to memory.

And what reasoning are you using to make that guess? Your "evidence" of the memory controller being the suspected culprit is based on two entirely irrelevant things:

1. Using the same sticks of RAM from the AMD setup in the Intel setup.

2. Vista's system rating score going down a bit in the memory dept. on the Intel setup.

Why are they irrelevant? Consider the following:

1. The same sticks of RAM will perform and behave differently in a different motherboard, especially when the different motherboard features a different chipset. Your poll doesn't take motherboards or chipsets into account.

2. Vista's system rating scores have nothing to do with stability. A lower score doesn't mean the components are more likely to cause a BSOD. The scores are a judgement of performance, that's it.

 

[zsdersw]

My Windows Experience Index scores are as follows:

Processor: 5.7
Memory: 5.9
Graphics (Aero): 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 5.3
Primary hard disk: 5.6

My video card is a 256MB 7600GT.. so does that mean my video card is more likely to cause a BSOD (were I to ever get one)? No, it doesn't.

 

[wordsworm]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
Your poll doesn't show squat because it has two glaring omissions: motherboard/bios and chipset. Those two things are infinitely more responsible for system stability than whether there's an Intel or AMD chip in the CPU socket.

The poll has a lot more omissions than that. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way of manipulating the poll to get more information. For example, I would have liked to have people include information about the amount of RAM on their system.

I never said that Vista's rating had anything to do with BSOD. That's a really dumb inference. I just noticed that memory seems to be handled much differently under Intel and AMD. All of my BSODs seem to be related to memory. Both of these assertions are correct. Since both of these setups had the same RAM, it becomes apparent that AMD deals with memory better than Intel does. As far as I know, this is nothing new, it's 'common knowledge.' AMD chips have memory controllers on the CPU and Intel chips have the controller on the motherboard. This, again, is common knowledge. Whether or not any of this would have an effect on a system crashing is a definite leap. To be honest, I'm a little surprised that my survey has indicated a higher percentage of BSOD occurring on Intel than on AMD. Some may wish to suggest that there must be another key factor that is causing this. Would this mean that developers of drivers for AMD are able to write a more stable product than for Intel?

BSODs

5/21 Intel

3/18 AMD

What gets me about some of the replies to my post is how offended people seem to have gotten. I guess that's what some might call a 'fanboy' reaction.

 

[lopri]

This report on Phenom and one of the cores failing is kinda worrisome.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=175878

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
The poll has a lot more omissions than that. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way of manipulating the poll to get more information. For example, I would have liked to have people include information about the amount of RAM on their system.

Then you should disregard this poll and make a new one.. or don't use a poll at all to get information like this.

I never said that Vista's rating had anything to do with BSOD. That's a really dumb inference. I just noticed that memory seems to be handled much differently under Intel and AMD. All of my BSODs seem to be related to memory. Both of these assertions are correct.

Actually, here's what you said:

"I thought that the reason *might* be because of issues with the memory controller. Even though I upgraded from an AMD (4,000) to an Intel (Q6600), MS rates my system lower than before because AMD has the on-die controller. The slower RAM speeds dragged the score down. Of course, other benchmarks have given me about a 30% increase in speed. That's why I made this post."

.. which means that if the Vista ratings were more in line with what you got on the AMD system you wouldn't have made this poll/thread.. which suggests that the Vista rating anomaly was significant enough to you to conclude the memory controller is related to the BSOD's you're receiving.

Nowhere in anything you've mentioned does it suggest that the BSODs are related to memory because, as I've said before, using the same sticks of RAM doesn't really mean anything because each motherboard and chipset handles memory a little differently.

Since both of these setups had the same RAM, it becomes apparent that AMD deals with memory better than Intel does.

And what exactly does that mean, "deals with memory better"? My E8400 system on an MSI Neo2-FR P35 motherboard, with 4GB of DDR2-667 (4x1GB) memory gets a 5.9 on the Vista ratings; the maximum I think it gives. By your reasoning, the Intel memory controller on my computer's motherboard "deals with memory better".

 

[AmberClad]

Has the OP even stated his specs yet, other than "Nvidia chipset"?

Originally posted by: wordsworm
For example, I would have liked to have people include information about the amount of RAM on their system.

Intel Vista 64 no I haven't

6GB DDR2-800 Total
2x1GB Wintec AmpX (5-5-5-15, 1.8V) + 2x2GB Buffalo Select (5-5-5-18, 1.8V)

 

[mindless1]

Originally posted by: wordsworm

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: mindless1
The thread should be locked, there is nothing useful about it or the line of thinking.

I agree.

It's of no surprise that myocardia and mindless feel this way as both are employees and shareholders of Intel.

But in all seriousness, are you afraid that my poll might show that there might be some correlation between stability and the CPU?

No, but that an unscientific poll is quite likely to cause the wrong conclusion and could not possibly arrive at the right conclusion for the right reason.

I figured it was a long shot. Nonetheless I wanted to see which CPU user suffers the most from BSOD.

Or more accurately, which CPU coincidentally happened to be in a system, which is merely a sign of which is sold and deployed in greatest numbers.

My guess is that Intel's memory controller is the problem, whereas I suspect AMD's on-die controller is far superior, and therefore less problematic. The crashes have all been reported relating to memory. However, I am using the same exact sticks I used with the AMD. The only thing different between the two setups is the CPU and the motherboard.

This is not the place for a grand tutorial on memory stability, but briefly any random 2 samples of motherboard may not have the same memory stability, regardless of AMD having on-die controller that's not all there is to memory stability by a long shot. A bluescreen references a memory address not because you have a fault OF the memory, rather it points out what address had the problem value. There's a big difference in that windows bluescreen faults are usually software, driver related.

Instead of guessing and continuing on a tangent you need to first, actually find the source of your problem, and next, reserve a poll about bluescreen problems to those who have also found some correlation of a common factor. The poll as is, is completely invalid to draw any conclusion about BSOD because Intel has always sold more processors by a wide margin.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
It's of no surprise that myocardia and mindless feel this way as both are employees and shareholders of Intel.

But in all seriousness, are you afraid that my poll might show that there might be some correlation between stability and the CPU? I figured it was a long shot. Nonetheless I wanted to see which CPU user suffers the most from BSOD. My guess is that Intel's memory controller is the problem, whereas I suspect AMD's on-die controller is far superior, and therefore less problematic. The crashes have all been reported relating to memory. However, I am using the same exact sticks I used with the AMD. The only thing different between the two setups is the CPU and the motherboard.

Says the paid shill from AMD. BTW, I posted that on my A64, which I'm extremely happy with. It just can't hold a candle to my Q6600, performanc-wise, but that's another story, for someone intelligent enough to understand it.

 

[wordsworm]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: wordsworm
It's of no surprise that myocardia and mindless feel this way as both are employees and shareholders of Intel.

But in all seriousness, are you afraid that my poll might show that there might be some correlation between stability and the CPU? I figured it was a long shot. Nonetheless I wanted to see which CPU user suffers the most from BSOD. My guess is that Intel's memory controller is the problem, whereas I suspect AMD's on-die controller is far superior, and therefore less problematic. The crashes have all been reported relating to memory. However, I am using the same exact sticks I used with the AMD. The only thing different between the two setups is the CPU and the motherboard.

Says the paid shill from AMD. BTW, I posted that on my A64, which I'm extremely happy with. It just can't hold a candle to my Q6600, performanc-wise, but that's another story, for someone intelligent enough to understand it.

"...someone intelligent enough to understand it." You mean, like someone intelligent enough to spell 'performance' correctly?

 

[wordsworm]

Or more accurately, which CPU coincidentally happened to be in a system, which is merely a sign of which is sold and deployed in greatest numbers.

Actually, I was quite surprised to see as many AMD people respond.

The poll as is, is completely invalid to draw any conclusion about BSOD because Intel has always sold more processors by a wide margin.

Funny.

Really, you don't need to have an equal number of both in order to come up with a representative ratio. Do you think math is unscientific? In any case, how does any poll conducted in these forums represent a perfect scientific collection of data? I don't see how these forums are the equivalent of a scientific publication. It's mostly a motley of amateurs who have an interest in technology, and a few people who live in both worlds.

I'm not an AMD or Intel fan. It's not like music where I like the sound of one better than the other based on a feeling. I really don't care one hoot for either one of them. It wasn't until 2 years ago I even started taking AMD seriously. Even though they'd split from Intel, I was still thinking of them as a clone company following after Intel. It's only in recent years that I've come to realize that in many ways they're superior to Intel, even if they don't always win the benchmarks. Now, let's be serious. We all know that Via is going to be the king of the CPU hill in about 5 years. It's rock-paper-scissors!

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
But in all seriousness, are you afraid that my poll might show that there might be some correlation between stability and the CPU? I figured it was a long shot. Nonetheless I wanted to see which CPU user suffers the most from BSOD. My guess is that Intel's memory controller is the problem, whereas I suspect AMD's on-die controller is far superior, and therefore less problematic. The crashes have all been reported relating to memory. However, I am using the same exact sticks I used with the AMD. The only thing different between the two setups is the CPU and the motherboard.

Come on man, you can't seriously think a CPU is causing the BSOD? If Intel CPUs caused BSODs don't you think someone would have noticed by now? If the Intel memory controllers caused issues with Vista don't you think one of the millions of people who use them would have noticed by now?

 

[mindless1]

This thread needs to be locked. wordsworm has made zero effort to try and pinpoint the problem, instead only doing random nonsensical things. If all we ever did was fixate on one part, the vast majority of computer problems could never be solved.

Step away from the computer wordsworm, have a beer and see a movie. Think about how many years people have had BSODs and that it wasn't the processor unless something were obviously wrong like extreme overclock, overheating, failing motherboard, etc. - all obvious potential problems.

You can't get back the time you have wasted, but you can move forward still.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: mindless1
This thread needs to be locked. wordsworm has made zero effort to try and pinpoint the problem, instead only doing random nonsensical things. If all we ever did was fixate on one part, the vast majority of computer problems could never be solved.

Step away from the computer wordsworm, have a beer and see a movie. Think about how many years people have had BSODs and that it wasn't the processor unless something were obviously wrong like extreme overclock, overheating, failing motherboard, etc. - all obvious potential problems.

You can't get back the time you have wasted, but you can move forward still.

Ditto, please somebody PM a mod, this amounts to trying to create a flame war, and has no value or basis in fact.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
"...someone intelligent enough to understand it." You mean, like someone intelligent enough to spell 'performance' correctly?

Oh, the poor baby is so new here, he's never seen a key mis-strike. Good try, but no, I was implying "someone intelligent enough to be able to swap motherboards in their computer, without getting BSOD's". BTW, why no response to this?

Originally posted by: myocardia
Says the paid shill from AMD.

Is that the official AMD way of dealing with being called out now? Just completely ignore it, and maybe it will go away? You know, kind of like their responses to this type of press coverage:

AMD stops Barcelona shipments and how awesome Hector's "Kentsfield killer" did against the Kentsfields

 

[AmberClad]

I wonder if we have the beginnings of another EdzAviator on our hands here :roll:...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
I wonder if we have the beginnings of another EdzAviator on our hands here :roll:...

I was thinking more along the lines of OCHungry.

 

[adairusmc]

I don't think wordsworm is getting a "BSoD" error, but is instead experiencing an ID10T error. His problem exists entirely between his keyboard and his chair.

 

[Lobsang]

Originally posted by: Binky
Both of my home systems were more stable on AMD chips with mild overclocks. The current Intels are both extremely overclocked. Whether it's the overclock or the platform, I don't know. The AMD's were older single core chips, which also may be a factor.

Maybe, just maybe, that could have something to do with it. Try backing off your 'extreme' overclock and see if it helps.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: Lobsang

Originally posted by: Binky
Both of my home systems were more stable on AMD chips with mild overclocks. The current Intels are both extremely overclocked. Whether it's the overclock or the platform, I don't know. The AMD's were older single core chips, which also may be a factor.

Maybe, just maybe, that could have something to do with it. Try backing off your 'extreme' overclock and see if it helps.

As been stated before, DIFFERENT POSTERS!! same avatar

have you tried drivercleanerpro? give it a shot it cant hurt.

and what are your system specs, what was and wasn't upgraded. may be as simple as an undered powered psu.

 

[Lobsang]

Originally posted by: dawp
As been stated before, DIFFERENT POSTERS!! same avatar

D'oh! Sorry, that threw me.

 

[wordsworm]

For all you hecklers out there, if you really figure I'm a flamer or troll, or whatever garbage you've got in your wits, then don't bother posting comments. Real trolls and flamers feed off of negative comments. I just wanted to know what percentage of users who have AMD/Intel systems suffer from BSOD. Here you guys come out flaming me. Sticks and stones are so childish. Grow up.