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
Facebook
Twitter