Originally posted by: HelliKoid
Oh, Ok thanx then i´ll go for tha amd64, any compatibility problems?or heating issues of tha amd?
thanks
No. My own experience with A64 is rather minute, at current, since we are just acquiring them. But I have progressively moved a bit into AMD country, during the last 20 months. And my take on this is that it's just as likely to be the other way round. We had an archaic simulation app, admittedly DOS, that crashed on P4. Ran just fine on AMD. We've also had problems with throttling P4. (Still do, in fact.)
And I'm sometimes wondering how much MS Windows is blamed for things that might have something to do with the long list of hardware bugs, that Intel specifies for each member of the P4-family, and which they propose you should code around.
To be fair, I should say that these hardware bugs are so rare, that it's not something that anyone should really consider. And Intel's testing is to be complimented for finding them. And AMD have hardware bugs too, of course.
AMD has been cooler than Intel since the T-bredB (roughly A-XP2100+ I think). And right now, they are much cooler than Intel.
You basically get a heat issue if/when your cooling arrangements are broken/flawed someway, or insufficient.
On Intel, such a problem is hidden as poor performance (throttling). On AMD, you will get a dramatic notice that you do have a problem, and can do something about it. That's the primary reason PC-manufacturers prefer Intel.
There's lots and lots of Intel users out there who have "heat issues". There's no AMD-users, since those that did have "heat issues", returned back to the builder, which is what builders don't like.
There have been known issues with some old chipsets for AMD. But there have been lots of issues with Intel chipsets too. Latest I heard about, was 875 not working correctly under high IDE-IO load. So what? Intel issued a bios fix. Hardware bugs exist. Only a fool believes otherwise.
And manufacturing quality problems exist too. What is Intel's record lately? 1 Million recalled systems, ½ million recalled chipsets.
Any statement you hear about any kind of "reliability/quality" disadvantage for AMD, is, IMO, urban legends, myth or just plain lies. Looking at my own experience and circle of contacts, there hasn't been a single issue with any AMD system. They all work flawless. Including an old 350MHz K6-2. Have we had issues with Intel during the same period? - You bet! The comparision is not fair, of course, since it contains much more Intel, and many flawless Intel systems as well. But it's just idiotic, to expect problems with AMD.
There's hordes of posers, parasiting on the tech-ignorance of the business world. Most of them are in some way paid by Intel or Dell. You can recognize them easily by their Intel-uber-alles-BS-statements, and religious fervor with long, pompous statements around the selfevident fact that 'time is money', and the desirability of stability.
- Ignore them! One of them prize idiots posted here at AT some time ago, claiming Xeons outperformed Opterons, thanks to their HyperThreading. Jeez.. :roll: He refused to answer any technical questions or substantiate his claims, which BTW contradicts common knowledge. I just mostly lurked on that thread, but he got the treatment he deserved.
Ask yourself this: - Would Ferrari, the superiour team in the non-plus-ultra, superiour technology contest in the world, Formula 1 racing, be using AMD 64 for all engineering, including their, in field, laptops, - If they didn't work properly?
My general CPU recommendation right now is A64. It's simply too good to be passed over.
Facebook
Twitter