Originally posted by: Auric
I still have more confidence in Intel chipsets. Almost never hear of any problems with 'em in themselves or compatability-wise. The only thing I can really recall is not being able to use more than 2 of 4 DIMM slots on ill-fated RDRAM systems (?) many years ago which in itself was not disasterous. Indeed, such oversights and worse seem disturbingly commonplace from third-party designs.
Speaking of memory controllers, I don't know if Intel ever fixed this (or just switched to DDR2 and left this problem behind them) but a couple of years ago Intel chipsets could support 4GB of DDR across 4 DIMM slots if you used DIMM's that were only single sided. Personally, I haven't seen single sided 1GB DDR DIMM's.
Originally posted by: AuricIt has been said that AMD's integration of the memory controller has eliminated many of the problems from that camp but still others seem to persist from casual observation of enthusiast forums. I understand the DIY element increases the potential for user caused problems so the perception can be skewed simply by third-party AMD based chipsets being the flavour du jour amongst that crowd but it still seems niggly issues persist with any third-party (AMD or Intel) design as other hardware manufacturers (add-in cards &c.) continue to design to all-Intel systems which says something about standards not really being standards in the real world.
Memory compatibility issues vary from board to board, not chipset to chipset. I see issues in both camps.
Originally posted by: AuricThus I am still wary of VIA, SIS, ULI, NVIDIA, ATI, et alli. I can see there is appeal for primarily game or low-cost systems but to me any trade-off in reliabilty or compatability is not worth a few dollars even if they also claim a few percent higher performance as well. I would however consider an AMD designed chipset if that was offered as a viable feature and cost-effective alternative to Intel's but for the mo' that seems unlikely when considering it means products intended for servers only versus the whole range.
Actually, especially when it comes to video cards, probably the most problematic of all compatibility issues, the best combination for an nVidia video card, is an nVidia chipset. And an ATI video card, an ATI chipset. And both of these chipsets were originally offered for AMD platforms.
Originally posted by: AuricIntel has played socket/slot games to foil competition to the detriment of their own customers but even so if purchased at the right time I have found there to be adequate longevity for my humble needs, particularly with the i440BX and i865PE. Intel has certainly blundered recently in allowing competition to catch up and even surpass in some areas but increased product parity is a Good Thing for end-users as it drives both technical advancement and lower prices (or at least more bang for the rupee). It seems both camps will be offering compelling products this year which should provide a good buying point for those of us keen on mobo's with a few years of CPU/GPU upgradabilty.
Agreed. I go whichever way the wind blows and never have hardware issues. Then again, with years of experience fixing other people's PC's, I find most problems that are blamed on compatibility issues are contributed to user error (not doing research) or just plain mis-diagnosis (a bad hard drive causing lock ups that are blamed on CPU stability. A cheap PSU being blamed on a inherently flawed chipset, etc.)
With Intel stock down, I say BUY BUY BUY! You know it's going to go back up. It always does! New CPU's will be released, there's always the server market which is reluctant to go the Opteron path and there's more to Intel's market than CPU's.
Facebook
Twitter