Help me upgrade: Intel or AMD?

axelfox

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 1999
6,719
1
0
Looking for a new mobo, processor, and HDD for a friends computer. Went to Fry's today to buy a Abit VHC-II mobo and P3 800 MHz for 239 (I think), but I had this feeling that I shouldn't buy from Frys. I also need about a 20GB. I wanna spend about 350, 400 is the max.

Anyways there is family friend who own a computer store, and his prices are OK; of course I could find cheaper, but I just want to know what I should upgrade to. The only reason to buy local is to support a friend and easy replacement if things go bad.

Stability is key, since I don't want to do tech support for the rest of my life. That being an issue, I was steering away from AMD and to Intel. He mainly does word proc, surfing, multitasking, but he's gonna move on to bigger stuff, so I'm thinking about a 700-800mhz processor. I dunno about mobos though. Duron? TBird? P3?

That being said, what are your recommendations, and if you have any, a reputable online store that maybe will give me a combo deal on mobo/proc or mobo/proc/hdd with super easy returns/exchanges.

thanks

I kinda wanna stay away from the Overclocking scene. My local guy only has Durons up to 750. His Duron boards are Azza and some other no namer. His K7/T-Bird boards include the Abit KT7 A and Asus A7V133. Can I use a Duron in the Asus A7V? I've heard that Asus has greater stability than Abit, though both brands are great in their own respects. His TBirds runs for 800 ($130) to 1.2Ghz ($260). If I get him an Asus A7V133 and a 800 Tbird, then it would cost less than $290, but then I'd only have whats left over for a HDD. Duron and A7V Mobo, then more money for the HDD.

 

mastaki11a

Golden Member
Jan 13, 2001
1,262
0
0
I hear mwave.com is really good, although I have no personal experience with them, also of people say they are good.
 

bigshooter

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 1999
2,157
0
71
I have a duron 600@1050 in my server. It has been up for months now, and the only problem i've had is when i fux0red active directory and decided to reinstall. No hardware issues. using Abit KT7
 

Imaginer

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
8,076
1
0
Locally, no matter what, AMD is always going to be the cheaper of the two of AMD and Intel.

My Athlon setup runs quite nicely. All you have to do is install one driver set that works well and not deal with it. Stability is just as good as my old P2 400.

So it is up to you. Follow a name brand that has been around longer, or get a cheaper product that is also great.
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
I've got 4 systems running right now......two AMD, 2 Intel.......I don't think there is a huge difference.......seems a lot of software is optimized for Intel though........I have also found that most compatability problems have been corrected on the AMD's.....Bottom line though......I have to say that the Intel systems are probably a little more stable if you figure in everything overall.....I don't know exactly why either, but I've built a considerable number of each and like I said, I have two of each running right now and if I had to do something "mission critical"........I'd have to choose one of the Intel systems.... ;)
 

Boonesmi

Lifer
Feb 19, 2001
14,448
1
81
i dont think that amd is less stable then intel. most times the problems people have with amd cpu's is because they are overclocking them
 

Quickfingerz

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2000
3,176
0
0
I really dislike when people say 'AMD less stable than Intel'. I guess if you include their networking products, that may be the case but as far as CPU's are concerned just look at the latest reviews for the most recent motherboards. AMD systems scoring stability off the charts.

go AMD I say 800 t-bird and maybe overclock.
 

smp

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
5,215
0
76
Yeah.. I'm with Quickfingers on this one.. I think that the only reason (sorry Tobeme) people think that intel is more 'stable' is cause that stupid intel inside jingle is going off in everyone's head all the time.. and blue men and stuff.. they just have thier propaganda down!! That's all.. Athlons are the sh!t.. My comp at home is super stable.. (unless I fvck with it).. I just set my freind up (who is by NO MEANS a computer nerd at all) with a duron system on a A7V... and he's had no problems.. none.. and it doesn't hurt to know how to install 4 in 1 drivers.. like.. you wouldn't go out and buy a car if you didn't know how to drive right? I think it's everyone's responsibility to know how to use computers before they go and buy em.. like.. it ain't THAT hard.. and they're fun.. especially AMD systems.. lot's of fun and stability if you leave it alone.. (which is hard for some of us to do :) )
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
I SAID overall! That's what I meant too! Yeah, if you hang a chip on a mobo and a video card.....I suppose you wouldn't have much of any problems would you? No, of course not! But, you go adding a nic, and a bunch of other hardware....SBL, Geforce......then add a bunch of software from who knows where........yes, I'll choose the Intel! What really bugs me is that some people can't take an even look at both chips! If you want flat out speed......yes, go for the AMD.....as for price, that line is becoming more blurred almost everyday, so, in this situation, where the man wants high stability and low maitinence, I will stick by saying Intel.....not because it's "better", but because more apps. & hardware lean toward Intel and it makes for an overall more stable system, especially for this situation! BTW.....I've built MORE AMD systems for people than Intel......because MOST people only care about SPEED......but in this instance, the case is different!;)
 

nortexoid

Diamond Member
May 1, 2000
4,096
0
0
"overall"...nice blanket term and official bullshit...

stability issue between via and intel chipsets (which is the issue at hand, not AMD CPU stability vs. Intel CPU stability) is a thing of the past...

duron 800mhz would be the best investment for your friend...it's insanely cheap and performance virtually on a par with t-birds and p3s.

not to mention their overclockability...you'd be hitting 1ghz+ effortlessly...stably...
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
don't know about that, there are still some more steps involved in getting a via chipset "optimized" where as intel's are for the most part plug and play.

also if you check arstech there is a thread going about a documented incompatibility between ati radeon cards and the via chipset, agp is something that via really cannot do as well as intel because that is "intels bag" so to say since they invented it and all.

I have seen stable amd solutions and I have seen stable intel solutions, the only difference is the people who implement these solutions, almost anyone or their brother can build a stable intel system, with amd it takes a little more "know how" in terms of knowing what your doing and the amount of research you put into hardware.
 

JorgeElPrimero

Senior member
Feb 13, 2001
240
0
0
I have had two intel computers and 2 amd computers. I will never EVER go with intel again. AMD has always been less expesive for the same performance. I have never had any less stability with my amds in fact I would say i have had more amds. If and when friend's ask me to build a computer for them I NEVER will put in an intel chip I feel like I am screwing them out of hard earned dough.

Enough said AMD
 

MGMorden

Diamond Member
Jul 4, 2000
3,348
0
76
I'd say it's a toss up. Right now if I had to buy a chip then I'd personally get a 1.33Ghz T-Bird, then again some of Intel's stuff is looking nice up the road too. You're not going to go wrong either way. I've owned quite a few chips before and can honestly say that I had no stability issues w/ AMD, Intel, or even IDT when I ran one. Cyrix was a different story though . . . :) (note though that the new Cyrix chip is actually an IDT core so don't apply this logic to current decisions, though I doubt anybody wants a Cyrix III anyways, but just saying, you know . . .)
 

Dan

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,080
0
0
axelfox: You definitely want to go AMD. As so many others have noted, it is where you get your best bang (or most MHz) for the buck.

You're wise to avoid Fry's. Since you're in SoCal, why not check out the shows? I believe the one in Anahiem was this weekend. (You can check their schedule at National Productions Computer Shows. If you decide to go this route look for Mega Technology Computer. (They are out of Walnut. No site that I can find but phone number is 909-595-3856.) I've bought several Abit mobo's and OEM Durons from them at the show in Reseda and got some awesome overclocker's.
 

axelfox

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 1999
6,719
1
0
I kinda wanna stay away from the Overclocking scene. My local guy only has Durons up to 750. His Duron boards are Azza and some other no namer. His K7/T-Bird boards include the Abit KT7 A and Asus A7V133. Can I use a Duron in the Asus A7V? I've heard that Asus has greater stability than Abit, though both brands are great in their own respects. His TBirds runs for 800 ($130) to 1.2Ghz ($260). If I get him an Asus A7V133 and a 800 Tbird, then it would cost less than $290, but then I'd only have whats left over for a HDD. Duron and A7V Mobo, then more money for the HDD.

Thanks
 

esung

Golden Member
Oct 13, 1999
1,063
0
0
Like Dan said, AMD gives you most bang for the buck ,and there's really no *overall* stability issue with AMD, as long as you know what you are doing, and since you won't be OC the CPU, it shouldn't be a problem.

as for the shows, I only go to two of them, the National Prodction at
the Pomona, or ACP swapmeet at OC(they had one every 2 month, next one is end of March). or you can even do willcall at mwave.com, since you are not too far away..

and yes, Avoid Fry's at all cost.. samething goes to Micro Center (you probably figure that out already) those people just don't know what they are doing as far as computer parts go..
 

Modus

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,235
0
0
There are only three factors in choosing a processor: price, performance, and reliability. By now, it's obvious to any intelligent person that AMD leads in the price/performance department. Still, some maintain that Intel systems show more stability or reliability. Is this the case?

System stability arises frequently as a hot topic in computer hardware discussion groups. One of its common permutations is "Intel vs AMD" -- that is, are systems based on Intel processors and Intel chipsets inherently more stable than those based on AMD processors and their supporting chipsets?

Logically, the first question to be asked is, what is system stability? In this age of complex, bloated operating systems, rushed software applications, myriad hardware possibilities, and user ignorance and frustration, computer crashes are common. Everything from a simple lockup to an "Illegal Operation" error to the dreaded Blue Screen of Death is accepted as par for the course in the computer industry. But the difference between a stable system and an unstable system is that the stable system will exhibit these symptoms far less frequently, and will tend to do so in response to specific, identifiable problems, as opposed to random, intermittent conditions.

What is the main cause of system instability? By far, software: operating systems, applications and drivers are so large and complicated these days, and share so many of the same resources, that it becomes difficult for the OS to manage them and keep small errors contained. Still, defective, poorly designed, or overclocked hardware can contribute to the mess (e.g. Intel's Pentium Classic FDIV bug, their i820 chipset, or their P3/1.13 GHz, respectively).

So are Intel-based systems with Intel chipsets any more stable than AMD-based systems with AMD or VIA chipsets? In short, no.

Why?

1) Not a single research study by an objective outsider, at any time or place in the universe, has established that either platform provides a modicum of added stability or reliability over the other. There are three reasons for this. First, no knowledgeable computer hardware expert seriously believes that there is enough of a stability difference between the platforms to warrant such a comparison. Second, because computer crashes are so difficult and time consuming to track, diagnose, and record, and because of the inherent challenge in defining the test parameters (i.e. what is normal system usage and how do you reproduce it?), no controlled scientific study has ever been undertaken. Third, the financial resources necessary for such broad research basically exclude any smaller groups from attempting it, leaving the job to industry heavyweights such as Dell, Intel, and Microsoft, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of ignorant consumer brand recognition.

So, seeing as there is no hard evidence in favor of either platform, we can only pronounce them equal. Certainly we cannot go with a "gut" instinct or base our decision on the financials or market status of either company. Like a court of law, both are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the discussion should end here. Just in case it doesn't:

2) AnandTech, bar none the most respected, unbiased computer hardware reviewer in the universe, has been examining the issue in depth since its genesis, and its conclusions are extremely valuable. Has AnandTech, or any other respected hardware reviewer, ever in the past two years criticized the stability or reliability of a shipping AMD product or platform? Reading through the archives, we can find nothing but glowing praise beginning with the Athlon and the first production-level AMD 750 boards. On the other hand, Intel's supposed world class reputation has been tarnished several times recently, particularly by two high profile hardware recall fiascoes.

There is actually no more effective endorsement of the stability and reliability of AMD/VIA platforms than the fact that AnandTech uses them as the sole platform for the web serving of its main site, entrusting them with a loaded job that is tied to their own success as an enterprise. What have been the results of this arrangement to use both Intel and AMD based systems behind the scenes at AnandTech?

"In August of 2000 we documented the largest server upgrade in the history of AnandTech. . . The significance of this particular server upgrade was that the five systems we sent up to our host were all using AMD Athlon processors. For the longest time AMD could not be taken seriously as a manufacturer of server class processors. The introduction of the Athlon changed all that; with the release of the Thunderbird core the Athlon was finally ready for prime time. . . We did not require a large L2 cache; we required a fast L2 cache and a high clock speed. The Athlon delivered on both of those requirements making it perfect for our needs. And over the past few months we have definitely put the setup to the test. In fact, four of the 1GHz Thunderbirds were more than enough to handle the load of AnandTech's ColdFusion based front-end. They did such a good job that we devoted our remaining dual Xeon based webserver (formerly www5.anandtech.com) to hosting the AnandTech Forums which have gone through an extreme growth-spurt of their own."

"We'll keep on adding more boxes to the server farm as the needs grow, but for now we're definitely happy being powered by both AMD and Intel based servers; how's that for the best of both worlds?"

Now obviously, there are other methods for testing system stability. But we're hard pressed to find anything more fitting than devoting both platforms to the duty of running one the largest non-adult, non-commercial sites on the Internet. And if AnandTech says that AMD's Athlon can be taken seriously as a stable server processor, what does that mean for the vast majority of computer users who simply want to run one on their desktop?

3) The majority of competent computer resellers and consultants find that a properly configured AMD/VIA system with all the recommended patches and BIOS updates is easily as reliable as a properly configured Intel system with all its recommended updates.

In reality, there are only two vital patches for VIA chipsets (the 4-in-1 Service Pack, and the AMD Win2K AGP Registry key) and two for Intel chipsets (the Ultra ATA Storage Driver and the INF Update). To say that "the Intel drivers work right off the Windows CD" is to claim that the extra thirty seconds and seven clicks required for VIA systems is such a burden as to give Intel victory in the ease of use department is ludicrous. The The difference is that VIA works towards constant incremental improvements, whereas Intel can more or less rely on Microsoft to support everything. Still, anyone not using the very latest drivers, patches, and updates from the Net for a new system build is begging for trouble. Do it. Forget about it. And know that the VIA side only demands a few extra clicks.

Similarly, the fact that motherboards sometimes require BIOS updates to correct functionality bugs or add new features is not a strike against either. It is the responsibility of a proficient system builder to understand this and investigate the possibility of upgrading the BIOS on even a brand new machine, if the release notes for the potential flash update warrant it.

There is a real danger here of certain people taking their limited personal experiences to be the absolute authority on a given topic. In consumer research, this is referred to as "small sample syndrome" -- if Bill tries Acme Auto Repairs once and receives poor service, he will tend to believe Acme Auto Repairs always provides poor service, regardless of their proven track record. There's a strong tendency for people to give more weight to negative hearsay than positive hearsay. It only takes a few bad recommendations from ignorant people to sway a large number of persons into going with the "safe, quality brand".

Those whose weak minded brand loyalty lead them to launch desperate attacks against alternative platforms from AMD and VIA play perfectly on the pre-conceived (and usually wrong) notion that "you get what you pay for". In reality, the computer industry has consistently shown this to be false -- you can just as easily get much more (i.e.. AMD Duron, nVidia GeForce2 MX) than you pay for or considerably less (RDRAM, Pentium3).

Take it from me, and the handful of other experienced resellers and consultants in this forum: AMD and VIA systems are no less reliable than Intel systems.

4) The so-called "plague of issues" with VIA chipsets is completely unfounded.

For instance, there is a widespread myth that VIA chipsets are incapable of reliable AGP 4x. This is absolutely false. Every single AGP 4x card in the universe works perfectly in that mode on VIA chipsets. The only "issue" is with nVidia's recent Detonator3 drivers, which contain a subtle bug that renders the feature unusable on VIA chipsets. But since every other AGP 4x card words perfectly, and since nVidia cards also did with the Detonator2 drivers, we can safely say the bug is on nVidia's side, and will be addressed shortly. Besides, AGP 4x provides absolutely no real world performance benefit over AGP 2x.

"But why do I see so many problems with VIA based boards on this and other forums?"

Simple: there are more VIA systems here! People here tend to be a bit better informed than your average computer geek, so they realise that, for most, there is absolutely no sane reason to purchase an Intel system today. Hence, they tend to buy KT133 boards and run AMD processors. So if 70% of AnandTech users are now building VIA/AMD systems, then logically, 70% of reported problems will involve VIA/AMD systems. Turn back the clock about 18 months and Intel looked terrible since the majority of complaints on this forum were people who couldn't get their BX motherboard to work right with certain RAM or an SBLive! card.

Actually, there hasn't been a single, repeatable bug in VIA's recent chipsets that has required a new hardware revision or complete recall, which is more than we can say for Intel. That tells you something: It tells you that those who claim unresolvable incompatibilities with VIA chipsets are usually just too lazy to install the appropriate patches and drivers and Windows updates that both VIA and Intel recommend for their chipsets.

5) Just in case AnandTech's "put our own business on the line" endorsement wasn't enough, have a gander at an interesting article at Tom's Hardware, historically the most visited hardware site: AMD Processors Vs. Intel Processors - Facts and Lies. It's refreshing to see an objective point of view from some one like Tom, even though he can be a bit arrogant at times. ;)

Another important piece of evidence is AnandTech's November KT133 Motherboard Roundup, where the majority of boards displayed BX-level stability, and a handful from Microstar, ASUS, and ABit displayed incredible reliability in a 24 hour torture test, with the cheap MSI K7T-Pro-2a crashing a grand total of zero (0) times, making it the most solid modern motherboard on either side of the Intel/VIA fence.

Modus
 

axelfox

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 1999
6,719
1
0
Sweet. I think I'm gonna go with a A7V mobo with a 750 Duron. What will a stock HS/F take it to? Hehe.

Thanks Guys

PS. I didn't want to read WHY cuz it was so dang long.
 

Changlinn

Member
Aug 24, 2000
155
0
0
<rant/>I hate to follow the heard but in this case they are right. Intel is like the nike of the cpu world, good brand name, in fact that is what you are paying for the cpu's brand name. AMD is more like an adidas shoe, started out as a crap cheap shoe and eventually everyone startd buying them realising they were good. UNfortunately adidas went the same way of nike eventually, and we may begin to see this with amd. They are good but as there advertising grows with there popularity you will start to pay for the privlage.
All I am saying is that you should recognise the quality that is available and pounce before it is too late. AMD is the cheapest at the moment. Intel is proven but there quality is slipping due to more money being spent on advertising than research. AMD is faster for your buck due to innovative thinking. Intel still thinks they own the market because they have the fastest cpu, but it consistently shows up as performing a lot worse than the amd.
In closing I was once an intel whore, consistintly singing their praises, but now I have ran an amd system faster and more stabily and easier to put together than all my intel systems.
I now class myself as an AMD sheep.</rant>
 

axelfox

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 1999
6,719
1
0
Well, the reason I wanted to go with Intel initally was because I remember that there were some compatability and stability issues with AMDs new line of chips when they came out and didn't know if they resolved them yet. I hadn't kept up with the hardware stuff in a while.