DDR doesn't do much for the P3 platform, that's why he was laughing.
CyberZer0 -- explain why the memory of choice has to be RDRAM?
CyberZer0 -- explain why the memory of choice has to be RDRAM?
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 857
- 126
Insane: Err, the Athlon didn't have DDR to begin with either so what's your point?
Burnt: RDRAM isn't the memory of choice. I've gone through pains to make it obvious that this is anti-via. Not anti AMD, not anti DDR, not anti anything but Via. If the P4 wasn't totally designed around requiring Dual-Channel RDRAM then Via's choice to make a P4 chipset would still be a bad idea.
Burnt: RDRAM isn't the memory of choice. I've gone through pains to make it obvious that this is anti-via. Not anti AMD, not anti DDR, not anti anything but Via. If the P4 wasn't totally designed around requiring Dual-Channel RDRAM then Via's choice to make a P4 chipset would still be a bad idea.
"Err, the Athlon didn't have DDR to begin with either so what's your point? "
My point was you said the P3 needed DDR while using DDR with a P3 yielded almost no benefit over using regular SDRAM. You are correct the Athlon didn't use DDR until recently, but it has a different design that actually utilizes the bandwith of DDR better than the P3 did. Even so, the regular Thunderbird core does not get as much benefit from DDR as the new Palomino core Athlon 4/MP's do as they were meant to be paired with DDR.
Also, I never said Via has not had their problems. I was pointing out that the Via solutions out now perform excellent and are extremely stable. I have an Iwill KK266-R that has a Via KT133A chipset along with the 686B southbridge. I run it 24/7 overlclocked with a FSB of 165mhz, and a full contigent of peripherals, and it has not even been rebooted in almost 6 months...and that was just to install a new piece of hardware. According to your reasoning, there is no such thingas a stable Via chipset. I know for a fact there are a lot of people here that would dispute that.
My point was you said the P3 needed DDR while using DDR with a P3 yielded almost no benefit over using regular SDRAM. You are correct the Athlon didn't use DDR until recently, but it has a different design that actually utilizes the bandwith of DDR better than the P3 did. Even so, the regular Thunderbird core does not get as much benefit from DDR as the new Palomino core Athlon 4/MP's do as they were meant to be paired with DDR.
Also, I never said Via has not had their problems. I was pointing out that the Via solutions out now perform excellent and are extremely stable. I have an Iwill KK266-R that has a Via KT133A chipset along with the 686B southbridge. I run it 24/7 overlclocked with a FSB of 165mhz, and a full contigent of peripherals, and it has not even been rebooted in almost 6 months...and that was just to install a new piece of hardware. According to your reasoning, there is no such thingas a stable Via chipset. I know for a fact there are a lot of people here that would dispute that.
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 857
- 126
Perhaps I was a little harsher on stability. But unexplained crashes are that much more complicated & hard to diagnose on a Via system. Those types of stability issues are much more generally categorized as incompatibility issues, because it is usually due to a specific peice of hardware or software that just "doesn't like" Via.
The PIII was redesigned w/ a 133FSB for 133Mhz memory, and just as future Athlon's were redesigned for newer DDR technologies the PIII could have also (Although Intel has a history of not renewing much & reusing almost everything is new processor designs). The PIII did need DDR more than RDRAM, it was simply never properly given DDR like the Athlon was. It got RDRAM only because the P4 would require it & Intel is known for trying to force smooth transitions to new platforms. I guess they were hoping it would make RDRAM common & cheap for the P4s launch
Edit: Oh yes! And this same "PIII was not made for DDR" thing DIRECTLY correlates to the whole "P4 was not made for DDR" thing. Only supports that point although Via will obviously try to say "faster & cheaper DDR solutions for a P4 system" when we are talking about an already slow (Per clock) platform that will be much slower to be economically sane.
Via claims they have no interest in renewing their Intel liscence so by making this board they are prompting a lawsuit (They MUST have reason to believe they'll win).
The PIII was redesigned w/ a 133FSB for 133Mhz memory, and just as future Athlon's were redesigned for newer DDR technologies the PIII could have also (Although Intel has a history of not renewing much & reusing almost everything is new processor designs). The PIII did need DDR more than RDRAM, it was simply never properly given DDR like the Athlon was. It got RDRAM only because the P4 would require it & Intel is known for trying to force smooth transitions to new platforms. I guess they were hoping it would make RDRAM common & cheap for the P4s launch
Edit: Oh yes! And this same "PIII was not made for DDR" thing DIRECTLY correlates to the whole "P4 was not made for DDR" thing. Only supports that point although Via will obviously try to say "faster & cheaper DDR solutions for a P4 system" when we are talking about an already slow (Per clock) platform that will be much slower to be economically sane.
Via claims they have no interest in renewing their Intel liscence so by making this board they are prompting a lawsuit (They MUST have reason to believe they'll win).
CyberZer0,
You've taken a perfectly good thread and thrown it off on a tangent. That's OK in itself, but your tangent is a common one already beaten to death on AnandTech's forums. And on top of that, you're wrong. Why? Read on.
Reliability reduces down time and increases productivity. CPU's themselves are notoriously reliable, with extremely low RMA rates. As I and many other computer consultants and resellers can attest, CPU's are sent back defective even less than SDRAM chips, which carry a lifetime warranty. These RMA rates are easy to measure and, for CPU's, usually end up being statistically insignificant. It appears both Intel and AMD have excellent quality control to weed out bad batches of chips.
Far more important to a systems reliability and stability is its motherboard and chipset platform. The quality of this subsystem is not so easy to measure. It tends to be a hot topic among computer hardware enthusiasts, and is hard to quantify like performance. Are systems based on Intel processors and their chipsets inherently more stable than those based on AMD processors and their chipsets?
Well, 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" 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.
So are Intel-based systems with Intel chipsets any more stable than AMD-based systems with AMD or VIA chipsets? In short, no.
Why?
Well, for one thing, the so-called "issues" with AMD/VIA systems are usually not such.
With the recent explosion of do-it-yourself system building and Internet discussion forums, the temptation is to attribute every defective board or tricky configuration to an inherent inferiority of brand X to brand Y. At the same time, another person with contrary experience will claim the opposite: that brand Y is inferior. Thus a number of mostly unfounded criticisms have been leveled at VIA chipsets, and used to justify opinions that they are "second rate" or "inherently inferior". Let's tackle them one at a time.
The SBLive resource hogging and data corruption problem on 686B southbridges: fixed. Without the slightest support from Creative Labs, VIA went ahead and developed a fix in collaboration with the hardware community. That fix has been incorporated seamlessly in version 4.31 of the VIA 4-in-1 drivers. And since any competent system builder always uses the very latest drivers for all hardware, the problem shouldn't show up in future PC's. Considering the strange conditions that trigger the problem, and how Creative Labs has been completely uncooperative in resolving something they are at least partly responsible for, VIA's response time here has been excellent. The issue surfaced less than four months ago, and a patch was found within weeks. No high-profile campaign by famous hardware sites. No public recall. No defective hardware revisions. Just a simple software fix. Actually, there hasn't been a single, repeatable bug in VIA's recent chipsets that has required a new hardware revision or complete recall. Intel, take note.
VIA's 4-in-1 service pack is an elegant solution to a terrible lack of support on Microsoft's part. It demands all of thirty seconds to install, and is no more time consuming that Intel's own INF Updater. 4-in-1 issues only arrise when people feel compelled to upgrade to the latest VIA release at the drop of a hat, or pick and choose which of its components to install, regardless of what VIA's instructions actually say.
There is also the widespread myth that VIA/AMD chipsets are incapable of reliable AGP 4x operation. This is absolutely false. AGP 4x cards work perfectly in that mode on the KTxxx chipsets. The only "issue" is with nVidia's recent Detonator3 drivers, which contain a subtle bug that in some cases renders the feature unusable on VIA chipsets. But since every other non-nVidia AGP 4x card words perfectly, and since nVidia cards also did with the Detonator2 drivers, the bug is obviously on nVidia's side. Besides, AGP 4x has been shown to provide absolutely no real world performance benefit over AGP 2x. There is no stability or performance loss versus Intel systems.
Similarly, there is no repeatable USB problem with VIA chipsets that was not fixed by the VIA USB filter or Microsoft Win98SE USB Patch. Simple RTFM instructions round out the solutions.
Regarding "thermal issues", it is true that Athlon systems dissapate more heat. Heat, however, is only an issue once it affects stability, or forces you to spend more on cooling. In the case of the Athlon, it does NOT. The chip is perfectly stable under normal operating temperatures, and compatible SocketA HSF units are available for under $5. It's fine to say that AMD chips run hotter, but if that heat doesn't affect stability and doesn't demand any extra measures besides the active HSF cooling that CPU's have needed for the past six years, then where's the "issue"?
There were some reports of "core cracking" on early SocketA chips due to improper HSF installation. Having built over 200 AMD systems, I can tell you that it would take a MAJOR screwup to crack a core. Unless the person installing the HSF is terribly rushed and negligent, there is no reason it has to be a problem. AMD's step-by-step picture guide has gone a long way toward helping inexperienced do-it-yourself'ers calm down and take it easy during tricky bits like this. Regardless, the same delicate procedure should be followed on both Intel and AMD systems, to prevent chipping and scratching. Trained baboons have done tougher stuff.
Even though AMD has decided to add an on-die thermosistor to the Athlon4, it wasn't strictly necessary: all current Socket A boards will automatically monitor CPU temperature and fan speed, immediately shutting down the system through ACPI if there's a major spike in heat or a fan failure.
You know, to best set up a stable system, the procedure is the same regardless of what platform you're using:
- purchase and install a power supply and CPU fan recommended by your CPU manufacturer
- install the HSF according to AMD's step-by-step picture guide, which is also the best method for Intel systems (apply some kind of thermal transfer compound in a thin layer before starting)
- locate the latest non-beta flash BIOS from the motherboard manufacturer and apply it
- set the appropriate BIOS settings according to the motherboard manual and/or manufacturer's website FAQ
- install windows
- download and install the very latest non-beta chipset drivers (VIA 4-in-1 service pack and USB filter for AMD systems; Intel INF Updater and Ultra ATA Storage Driver for Intel systems)
- go to WindowsUpdate.com and get every single Microsoft security fix and product update
- download the very latest non-beta drivers for your sound, video, modem, network, and other peripherals
- install these
The above procedure should be followed by anyone wanting a stable system -- Intel or AMD regardless. As you can see, an AMD/VIA system demands no significant effort over an Intel system, provided you are interested in maximum performance and stability out of both, and are not content to simply install Windows and start hammering away.
Another huge myth is that AMD systems are great for "savvy" users, while newbies are better off with Intel. In fact, no computer illiterate person is capable of properly setting up either an AMD or Intel system from scratch. System building, Windows installation, and driver configuration is invariably beyond these people, and is (rightly) left to some one with professional experience. So regardless of the research necessary for a stable AMD or Intel system, the ignorant end user is not going to know or care about the intricacies of system setup. They'll simply demand stability and reliability, which both AMD and Intel provide.
"But why do I see so many problems reported with AMD systems these days?"
The reason you see so many forum posts asking for AMD help is simple -- many people are buying AMD!
Smartly, few people who visit these forums are building Intel systems. A look at new system rigs posted in the last six months shows that less than 20% of the AnandTech systems built at any given moment are Intel based. It stands to reason, then, that only 20% of problems reported will involve Intel systems, while the vast 80% bulk will involve AMD systems. This has nothing to do with the reliability of either platform. It's simple statistics.
By the same token, the Celeron 300a looked like a terrible chip because about 30 months ago, all you saw on this forum was people struggling to get their Intel BX board to work with some generic stick of RAM or a weird SBLive IRQ problem. The flavor of the month always looks bad when you head to the support forums, and the Athlon is no exception. But statistically, competent system builders have as many problems with Intel systems as with AMD. It just happens that Athlons are popular these days.
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".
From an early age, we're ingrained with the notion that "you get what you pay for". But in reality, the computer industry has consistently shown this to be false -- you can just as easily get much more (i.e.. AMD Duron, ATi Radeon LE) than you pay for or considerably less (RDRAM, P4 1.3 GHz).
Take it from me, and the handful of other experienced resellers and consultants in this forum (Russ, PCResources, JohnnyGURU): AMD and VIA systems are no less reliable than Intel systems. No controlled study, at any time or any place in the history of the universe, has proven otherwise. What little information we do have on stability and reliability shows that AMD/VIA platforms are just as stable as their Intel counterparts.
What have top hardware reviewers had to say about the stability of VIA/AMD platforms?
AnandTech, bar none the most respected, unbiased computer hardware reviewer in the universe, has examined Athlon, P3, and P4 chips since they were first released, and has never once 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, one of which required public intervention from the hardware community.
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?
"Eight months ago we asked the question of whether or not Athlons could be used as servers, and the answer was an astounding yes. . . 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?
Another important piece of evidence is AnandTech's November KT133 Motherboard Roundup, where the majority of boards displayed their usual Intel 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-2 crashing a grand total of zero (0) times, making it (at that time) the most solid modern motherboard on either side of the Intel/VIA fence.
Also see Anand's FIC AD11 AMD 760 review. This board, one of the first AMD 760 products produced by a second-tier brand and still one of the cheapest AMD 760 boards, ran an amazing 34hr before crashing under the torture test.
And from Anand's ASUS A7V133 review: "We used to run the stability tests for 24 hours, but last time we had to run for 48 hours before we finally gave up on the MSI K7T Turbo crashing. This time around we also ran for 48 hours to prove that the A7V133 is just as stable as the K7T Turbo. There is no doubt the [VIA-based] A7V133 is an incredibly stable motherboard."
Tom's Hardware, historically the most visited hardware site, said in their recent KT133A Motherboard Roundup, "The most important finding was the enjoyable fact that each of the tested boards ran 100% stable even at the fastest possible memory timing settings. VIA's upcoming DDR chipsets may not look too impressive right now, but the Apollo KT133A is a matured, fast and solid product that offers good performance."
Tom's Hardware also recently published AMD Processors Vs. Intel Processors - Facts and Lies. Among other things, they made the following points:
"AMD Processors are significantly less expensive than Intel processors although they are at least on par in terms of performance. - FACT"
"AMD processors are incompatible. - LIE
Not that the average guy who just heard that phrase would know what the heck 'incompatible' is, but it sounds really bad, doesn't it? Well, even the people who do know that 'incompatible' means that a product wouldn't work reliably with other components (which of course is bad) are wrong if they accuse AMD's Athlon or Duron processors of it. In our labs we are testing all kinds of Athlon platforms with all kinds of different components and I can definitely say that I cannot see any difference between the compatibility of AMD products and platforms compared to the same from Intel."
"Chipsets for AMD processors are inferior to Intel chipsets. - LIE
Yeah, sure, the earth is flat and politicians are honest ... I am still amused when I see people posting the above message in news groups or as their response to articles. How many more times does Intel need to screw up their chipsets (i820, MTH, ...) until you guys get the message? . . . Incompatibilities are more a problem of the motherboard BIOS than of the chipset right now. Thus both chipset makers, Intel as well as VIA, are actually in the same situation."
Modus
You've taken a perfectly good thread and thrown it off on a tangent. That's OK in itself, but your tangent is a common one already beaten to death on AnandTech's forums. And on top of that, you're wrong. Why? Read on.
Reliability reduces down time and increases productivity. CPU's themselves are notoriously reliable, with extremely low RMA rates. As I and many other computer consultants and resellers can attest, CPU's are sent back defective even less than SDRAM chips, which carry a lifetime warranty. These RMA rates are easy to measure and, for CPU's, usually end up being statistically insignificant. It appears both Intel and AMD have excellent quality control to weed out bad batches of chips.
Far more important to a systems reliability and stability is its motherboard and chipset platform. The quality of this subsystem is not so easy to measure. It tends to be a hot topic among computer hardware enthusiasts, and is hard to quantify like performance. Are systems based on Intel processors and their chipsets inherently more stable than those based on AMD processors and their chipsets?
Well, 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" 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.
So are Intel-based systems with Intel chipsets any more stable than AMD-based systems with AMD or VIA chipsets? In short, no.
Why?
Well, for one thing, the so-called "issues" with AMD/VIA systems are usually not such.
With the recent explosion of do-it-yourself system building and Internet discussion forums, the temptation is to attribute every defective board or tricky configuration to an inherent inferiority of brand X to brand Y. At the same time, another person with contrary experience will claim the opposite: that brand Y is inferior. Thus a number of mostly unfounded criticisms have been leveled at VIA chipsets, and used to justify opinions that they are "second rate" or "inherently inferior". Let's tackle them one at a time.
The SBLive resource hogging and data corruption problem on 686B southbridges: fixed. Without the slightest support from Creative Labs, VIA went ahead and developed a fix in collaboration with the hardware community. That fix has been incorporated seamlessly in version 4.31 of the VIA 4-in-1 drivers. And since any competent system builder always uses the very latest drivers for all hardware, the problem shouldn't show up in future PC's. Considering the strange conditions that trigger the problem, and how Creative Labs has been completely uncooperative in resolving something they are at least partly responsible for, VIA's response time here has been excellent. The issue surfaced less than four months ago, and a patch was found within weeks. No high-profile campaign by famous hardware sites. No public recall. No defective hardware revisions. Just a simple software fix. Actually, there hasn't been a single, repeatable bug in VIA's recent chipsets that has required a new hardware revision or complete recall. Intel, take note.
VIA's 4-in-1 service pack is an elegant solution to a terrible lack of support on Microsoft's part. It demands all of thirty seconds to install, and is no more time consuming that Intel's own INF Updater. 4-in-1 issues only arrise when people feel compelled to upgrade to the latest VIA release at the drop of a hat, or pick and choose which of its components to install, regardless of what VIA's instructions actually say.
There is also the widespread myth that VIA/AMD chipsets are incapable of reliable AGP 4x operation. This is absolutely false. AGP 4x cards work perfectly in that mode on the KTxxx chipsets. The only "issue" is with nVidia's recent Detonator3 drivers, which contain a subtle bug that in some cases renders the feature unusable on VIA chipsets. But since every other non-nVidia AGP 4x card words perfectly, and since nVidia cards also did with the Detonator2 drivers, the bug is obviously on nVidia's side. Besides, AGP 4x has been shown to provide absolutely no real world performance benefit over AGP 2x. There is no stability or performance loss versus Intel systems.
Similarly, there is no repeatable USB problem with VIA chipsets that was not fixed by the VIA USB filter or Microsoft Win98SE USB Patch. Simple RTFM instructions round out the solutions.
Regarding "thermal issues", it is true that Athlon systems dissapate more heat. Heat, however, is only an issue once it affects stability, or forces you to spend more on cooling. In the case of the Athlon, it does NOT. The chip is perfectly stable under normal operating temperatures, and compatible SocketA HSF units are available for under $5. It's fine to say that AMD chips run hotter, but if that heat doesn't affect stability and doesn't demand any extra measures besides the active HSF cooling that CPU's have needed for the past six years, then where's the "issue"?
There were some reports of "core cracking" on early SocketA chips due to improper HSF installation. Having built over 200 AMD systems, I can tell you that it would take a MAJOR screwup to crack a core. Unless the person installing the HSF is terribly rushed and negligent, there is no reason it has to be a problem. AMD's step-by-step picture guide has gone a long way toward helping inexperienced do-it-yourself'ers calm down and take it easy during tricky bits like this. Regardless, the same delicate procedure should be followed on both Intel and AMD systems, to prevent chipping and scratching. Trained baboons have done tougher stuff.
Even though AMD has decided to add an on-die thermosistor to the Athlon4, it wasn't strictly necessary: all current Socket A boards will automatically monitor CPU temperature and fan speed, immediately shutting down the system through ACPI if there's a major spike in heat or a fan failure.
You know, to best set up a stable system, the procedure is the same regardless of what platform you're using:
- purchase and install a power supply and CPU fan recommended by your CPU manufacturer
- install the HSF according to AMD's step-by-step picture guide, which is also the best method for Intel systems (apply some kind of thermal transfer compound in a thin layer before starting)
- locate the latest non-beta flash BIOS from the motherboard manufacturer and apply it
- set the appropriate BIOS settings according to the motherboard manual and/or manufacturer's website FAQ
- install windows
- download and install the very latest non-beta chipset drivers (VIA 4-in-1 service pack and USB filter for AMD systems; Intel INF Updater and Ultra ATA Storage Driver for Intel systems)
- go to WindowsUpdate.com and get every single Microsoft security fix and product update
- download the very latest non-beta drivers for your sound, video, modem, network, and other peripherals
- install these
The above procedure should be followed by anyone wanting a stable system -- Intel or AMD regardless. As you can see, an AMD/VIA system demands no significant effort over an Intel system, provided you are interested in maximum performance and stability out of both, and are not content to simply install Windows and start hammering away.
Another huge myth is that AMD systems are great for "savvy" users, while newbies are better off with Intel. In fact, no computer illiterate person is capable of properly setting up either an AMD or Intel system from scratch. System building, Windows installation, and driver configuration is invariably beyond these people, and is (rightly) left to some one with professional experience. So regardless of the research necessary for a stable AMD or Intel system, the ignorant end user is not going to know or care about the intricacies of system setup. They'll simply demand stability and reliability, which both AMD and Intel provide.
"But why do I see so many problems reported with AMD systems these days?"
The reason you see so many forum posts asking for AMD help is simple -- many people are buying AMD!
Smartly, few people who visit these forums are building Intel systems. A look at new system rigs posted in the last six months shows that less than 20% of the AnandTech systems built at any given moment are Intel based. It stands to reason, then, that only 20% of problems reported will involve Intel systems, while the vast 80% bulk will involve AMD systems. This has nothing to do with the reliability of either platform. It's simple statistics.
By the same token, the Celeron 300a looked like a terrible chip because about 30 months ago, all you saw on this forum was people struggling to get their Intel BX board to work with some generic stick of RAM or a weird SBLive IRQ problem. The flavor of the month always looks bad when you head to the support forums, and the Athlon is no exception. But statistically, competent system builders have as many problems with Intel systems as with AMD. It just happens that Athlons are popular these days.
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".
From an early age, we're ingrained with the notion that "you get what you pay for". But in reality, the computer industry has consistently shown this to be false -- you can just as easily get much more (i.e.. AMD Duron, ATi Radeon LE) than you pay for or considerably less (RDRAM, P4 1.3 GHz).
Take it from me, and the handful of other experienced resellers and consultants in this forum (Russ, PCResources, JohnnyGURU): AMD and VIA systems are no less reliable than Intel systems. No controlled study, at any time or any place in the history of the universe, has proven otherwise. What little information we do have on stability and reliability shows that AMD/VIA platforms are just as stable as their Intel counterparts.
What have top hardware reviewers had to say about the stability of VIA/AMD platforms?
AnandTech, bar none the most respected, unbiased computer hardware reviewer in the universe, has examined Athlon, P3, and P4 chips since they were first released, and has never once 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, one of which required public intervention from the hardware community.
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?
"Eight months ago we asked the question of whether or not Athlons could be used as servers, and the answer was an astounding yes. . . 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?
Another important piece of evidence is AnandTech's November KT133 Motherboard Roundup, where the majority of boards displayed their usual Intel 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-2 crashing a grand total of zero (0) times, making it (at that time) the most solid modern motherboard on either side of the Intel/VIA fence.
Also see Anand's FIC AD11 AMD 760 review. This board, one of the first AMD 760 products produced by a second-tier brand and still one of the cheapest AMD 760 boards, ran an amazing 34hr before crashing under the torture test.
And from Anand's ASUS A7V133 review: "We used to run the stability tests for 24 hours, but last time we had to run for 48 hours before we finally gave up on the MSI K7T Turbo crashing. This time around we also ran for 48 hours to prove that the A7V133 is just as stable as the K7T Turbo. There is no doubt the [VIA-based] A7V133 is an incredibly stable motherboard."
Tom's Hardware, historically the most visited hardware site, said in their recent KT133A Motherboard Roundup, "The most important finding was the enjoyable fact that each of the tested boards ran 100% stable even at the fastest possible memory timing settings. VIA's upcoming DDR chipsets may not look too impressive right now, but the Apollo KT133A is a matured, fast and solid product that offers good performance."
Tom's Hardware also recently published AMD Processors Vs. Intel Processors - Facts and Lies. Among other things, they made the following points:
"AMD Processors are significantly less expensive than Intel processors although they are at least on par in terms of performance. - FACT"
"AMD processors are incompatible. - LIE
Not that the average guy who just heard that phrase would know what the heck 'incompatible' is, but it sounds really bad, doesn't it? Well, even the people who do know that 'incompatible' means that a product wouldn't work reliably with other components (which of course is bad) are wrong if they accuse AMD's Athlon or Duron processors of it. In our labs we are testing all kinds of Athlon platforms with all kinds of different components and I can definitely say that I cannot see any difference between the compatibility of AMD products and platforms compared to the same from Intel."
"Chipsets for AMD processors are inferior to Intel chipsets. - LIE
Yeah, sure, the earth is flat and politicians are honest ... I am still amused when I see people posting the above message in news groups or as their response to articles. How many more times does Intel need to screw up their chipsets (i820, MTH, ...) until you guys get the message? . . . Incompatibilities are more a problem of the motherboard BIOS than of the chipset right now. Thus both chipset makers, Intel as well as VIA, are actually in the same situation."
Modus
Well said Modus. I too have never had a problem with any of my AMD systems, whether they had AMD (750) or VIA (KT133) chipsets.
About the PIV die shrink:
I will be terribly disappointed if the only arch. improvement is a larger cache. It seems like the 'race' to 2.0ghz will be won by Intel, but will it be as exciting as the race to 1ghz? Sadly, when I think of the PIV at 2.0ghz, I am not that impressed.....
About the PIV die shrink:
I will be terribly disappointed if the only arch. improvement is a larger cache. It seems like the 'race' to 2.0ghz will be won by Intel, but will it be as exciting as the race to 1ghz? Sadly, when I think of the PIV at 2.0ghz, I am not that impressed.....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter