Poll: AMD/VIA vs. Intel/Intel for Stability ?

[Biggs]

I do believe Anandtech uses dual Xeon processors to power these forums now. But they did say they would have opted for a dual AMD solution if it were available today.

 

[Mem]

<< AnandTech - Web Server 1

Processor(s): AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) 1GHz
Motherboard(s): Microstar K7T Pro
RAM: 3 x 256MB Corsair PC133 SDRAM
Hard Drive(s): Western Digital 20.4GB Ultra ATA/66
Storage Controller: On-board VIA 686A
Network Card(s): 2 - Intel Pro/100 Server Adapters
Case: 4U 19&quot; Mushkin Rackmount
Operation System: Windows 2000 SP1



AnandTech - Web Server 2

Processor(s): AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) 1GHz
Motherboard(s): Microstar K7T Pro
RAM: 3 x 256MB Corsair PC133 SDRAM
Hard Drive(s): Western Digital 20.4GB Ultra ATA/66
Storage Controller: On-board VIA 686A
Network Card(s): 2 - AMD 10/100 PCI Adapters
Case: 4U 19&quot; Mushkin Rackmount
Operation System: Windows 2000 SP1



AnandTech - Web Server 3

Processor(s): AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) 1GHz
Motherboard(s): Microstar K7T Pro
RAM: 3 x 256MB Mushkin PC133 SDRAM
Hard Drive(s): Western Digital 20.4GB Ultra ATA/66
Storage Controller: On-board VIA 686A
Network Card(s): 2 - AMD 10/100 PCI Adapters
Case: 4U 19&quot; Mushkin Rackmount
Operation System: Windows 2000 SP1



AnandTech - Web Server 4

Processor(s): AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) 1GHz
Motherboard(s): Microstar K7T Pro
RAM: 3 x 256MB Mushkin PC133 SDRAM
Hard Drive(s): Western Digital 20.4GB Ultra ATA/66
Storage Controller: On-board VIA 686A
Network Card(s): 2 - AMD 10/100 PCI Adapters
Case: 4U 19&quot; Mushkin Rackmount
Operation System: Windows 2000 SP1 >>




There you go Biggs.

 

[Finality]

From personal experience via chipsets are not very stable. I'd prefer a rock solid BX over my current P3V4X.

 

[Noriaki]

As long as you have a powerful enough power supply and in some cases RAM is kinda picky then AMD can be quite stable.

I'm running an old Asus K7M AMD751/Via686A board and it has excellent stability. I think in the PC platform stability comes much more from what OS you use than what platform. As long as you use high quality components for any combination.

An Intel platform has excellent stability, but so does a properly set up AMD platform. I'd worry much more about what OS you're running than what hardware. Hell if you know what you're doing you can get Win98SE running just fine. There are still memory leaks and you can't run 24/7 for ever or you'll have no RAM left, but my Win98SE machine hasn't crashed in months and months...
Just get a good mobo (Asus, Gigabyte or Tyan are my personal favourites and in the case of the KT133 MSi is also excellent), good RAM, and a good PSU and your system will be fine.

However you might want to consider Intel CPUs with ServerWorks chipsets....(like the Asus CUR-DLS) the ServerWorks chipsets are supposedly exteremely reliable...they also offer alot of RAM and on onboard SCSI/LAN

Oh yes...I would just like to interject at this point, that neither AMD or Intel systems are really terribly stable. If you stability try a Tandem system or even an AS/400, there are pretty small 400s available VMS systems are pretty solid to...anything from Sun (and man those new SunBlade are damn fscking sexy....) hehehe but you just asked for a comparision of Intel/AMD and I think they are pretty even.

 

[Pakman]

I think this poll is whack. Basically, people are voting for their favorite brand. There is no way AMD/VIA chips are more stable or reliable than Intel's. They are pretty much equal in everything except in ease of setup. Intel wins that one by a margin just because you don't have to install drivers for the chipsets and such. I voted for Intel just on that fact. And before you guys flame me of being pro Intel, my main system is an AMD...

 

[BigLance]

Hey LXi, thanks for being a prick like always !

 

[BigLance]

&quot;As long as you have a powerful enough power supply and in some cases RAM is kinda picky then AMD can be quite stable.&quot;

Well then, it is not quite as easy to setup or use as an Intel machine then ? So you voted Intel right ?

Remember, this is not a &quot;Well AMD might take a little more time to setup, but they sure are cheap !&quot; NO ! This is only about stability and ease of use.... not price, not speed... AMD obviously wins there.

 

[nortexoid]

it's a matter of components/drivers used....

my system never crashes (barring quarky power management - but who needs it anyway on a desktop?).
but i have had this system crash like crazy before i started using the ref. vortex drivers instead of diamonds...

depends.

(i wear them.)

 

[mschell]

I'd really love to use a AMD/Via combo but can't stand the constant 4 in 1 driver updating Via puts you through. With Intel chipsets, you load the drivers from the CD and you're done. Any hardware you add works. Via chipsets can be a bummer when a new piece of hardware you just purchased has (unresolvable differences) with the chipset. You hope the next 4 in 1 release might fix the problem but the driver update just screws something else up. Athlon systems give more power for the $$ but you need a $400 video card to take advantage of it. I think AMD itself could do a better job at producing a good chipset but they are more intrested in making CPU's IMO - M.

 

[nortexoid]

Everyoen complains about the VIA 4-in-1 driver updates...

I like them - it gives one something to do during his/her spare time every month.

I know i had fun trying to remedy DMA problems on my secondary IDE device.

 

[TheZaZ]

I totally agree with Pakman and mschell on this. The driver updates you have to do can be a real pain in the azz. I would know. I have an Intel system and a AMD system. The Intel is much more reliable by a good margin. Now don't get me wrong I love both my systems. They both are great and I really like AMD too. AMD has nice fast processors that don't set you back alot. But this poll is just based on reliability so Im going with Intel/Intel on this one.

 

[Stephen24]

Intel kicks the living shlt out of amd/via.

 

[Dulanic]

<< I'd really love to use a AMD/Via combo but can't stand the constant 4 in 1 driver updating Via puts you through. With Intel chipsets, you load the drivers from the CD and you're done. Any hardware you add works. Via chipsets can be a bummer when a new piece of hardware you just purchased has (unresolvable differences) with the chipset. You hope the next 4 in 1 release might fix the problem but the driver update just screws something else up. Athlon systems give more power for the $$ but you need a $400 video card to take advantage of it. I think AMD itself could do a better job at producing a good chipset but they are more intrested in making CPU's IMO - M. >>



The VIA 4 in 1 drivers are relatively new of corse they need updates! But for the most part all they keep doing is giving better performance! Of corse Intel doesnt need to update drivers on such an old chipset like BX! Stability wise they are about equal, AMD freaks say AMD, Intel freaks say Intel, knowledgable people say they are about equal. Hell my friend who never ever put together a PC put together a MSI Pro2A and 1Ghz AMD with no problems at all!

 

[peemo]

You must also disregard the system builder, the software and the user.

 

[Dulanic]

<< Intel kicks the living shlt out of amd/via >>



You need to do some research man. Anand doesnt use the MSI/AMD (VIA/AMD) cause its not stable! Ive had my 2nd AMD box up for 4 months running Win2K as a server! Dont tell me VIA/AMD is unstable, because with KT133 its just NOT true. They are about equal.

 

[Leo V]

I have a new Tbird 1100 retail and the vaunted MSI K7T Pro2A with 512MB RAM. It's not 100% stable under Win98SE as of now. Anand's few hours of testing won't reveal problems that weeks of usage uncover. No overclocking or undervolting--everything is exactly at spec. Fresh install, multitasking within 1 hour of bootup--freeze. This may be Microsoft's pathetic multitasking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it involved VIA's chipset. I'm very upset about this :|

As much as I'm grateful to AMD for this $230 processor, I wouldn't risk using my machine as a 24/7 server. Instead, I'm devoting an Intel CuMine 600 with an Intel motherboard using an Intel chipset to that task.

 

[Noriaki]

<< Well then, it is not quite as easy to setup or use as an Intel machine then ? So you voted Intel right ? >>



*shrugs* It's no more difficult to put in good ram as it is to put in bad ram. You might select your components a little more carefully. I suppose you could walk into your local store and buy whatever crap ram and PSU you wanted, and some generic brand motherboard and the intel would probably work better. But if you're building a system for stability your not going to do that on either side.

I voted them even.

If you want your question to be what is the easiet system to set up using cheap assed bottom of the barrell components then I'll vote Intel. And that is a perfectly valid question, building a system for my uncle or my dad or whatever I used the cheapest components I can find, and that's usually bet suited to an Intel CPU/Chipset. You being a reader of Anandtech I assumed you'd care more about your rig than my dad would so I imagined you'd use higher quality stuff either way you fly. And under that assumption they are even.

And as for the Via 4 in 1 thing...newer intel chipsets need drivers to you know...

 

[BigLance]

LXi,

&quot;Have fun chewing on these results, buddy. Time to face reality.&quot;

Reality huh ? Well... reality seems pretty good to me buddy!

 

[formulav8]

LOL. Is the guy that started this thread the same guy that said everyone would say intel?

 

[borealiss]

<< . It's not 100% stable under Win98SE as of now >>



haha leo. there's your problem ;P

 

[jpprod]

I voted equal. My Tbird 800MHz/K7Tpro system made out of suspiciously flaky components is heads and shoulders above my previous Celeron/BH6 rig in terms of stability. However, from my experience, Intel systems can be equally stable.


LeoV: I have a new Tbird 1100 retail and the vaunted MSI K7T Pro2A with 512MB RAM. It's not 100% stable under Win98SE as of now. Anand's few hours of testing won't reveal problems that weeks of usage uncover. No overclocking or undervolting--everything is exactly at spec.

If you've factured out motherboard/chipset and driver issues - and there shouldn't be any with K7Tpro2A/KT133 - seemingly random crashing could very likely be caused by faulty RAM. I noticed you have quality RAM, but even then a stick could be bad.

 

[Leo V]

Jukka, it's definitely not the RAM--I've used a high-quality 64MB stick before, same problems. Adul just suggested trying the latest beta BIOS and 4-in-1 drivers, so that'll hopefully fix the problem. (He suggested the ATA100 southbridge being at fault, which makes sense because HDD access was always involved.)

Suppose the instability will get fixed. That still doesn't cancel the fact: this VIA-based AMD motherboard shipped in a factory configuration that permitted sporadic crashing. Furthermore, no final (non-beta) drivers were released to remedy this issue for over a month and counting. I'm still supposed to use an unsupported beta BIOS and drivers if I want stabilitity! This means the next time I buy a VIA-based motherboard--as I must in order to use an AMD Thunderbird--I'll have no assurance it won't spontanously destroy my data while I'm working

I'm just as thrilled about AMD's new processors as anybody, but I will not close my eyes to blatant instability and defects in the supplied chipsets, be it VIA's fault, AMD's, or anyone else's.

 

[Dulanic]

<< Suppose the instability will get fixed. That still doesn't cancel the fact: this VIA-based AMD motherboard shipped in a factory configuration that permitted sporadic crashing. Furthermore, no final (non-beta) drivers were released to remedy this issue for over a month and counting. I'm still supposed to use an unsupported beta BIOS and drivers if I want stabilitity! This means the next time I buy a VIA-based motherboard--as I must in order to use an AMD Thunderbird--I'll have no assurance it won't spontanously destroy my data while I'm working >>



No offense but Im gonna say its not the MB/CPU thats your problem. Ive built to date over 30 PCs using the MSI Pro2A (Same board you have) and have never had a single problem, whether its a peice of hardware, the slots you have your PCI card it, or other things.... they are not shipping setups that are not stable from factory. (Asus did with 1004 BIOS but thats the only one I know of) But I can personally say Ive used that MSI board alot and never had a problem that wasnt something I caused (Sharing IRQs that shouldnt be shared). If it is the MB or CPU then its a bad board. If you didn't want to tweak with your PC, which is something that occasionally happens building your own, you should have bought prebuilt.

 

[Leo V]

Dulanic, I doubt you've exhausted all possible combinations of legitimate hardware in your systems. I do know what I'm doing however, and I have set everything correctly. Your suggestion that I go buy a Dell if I want stability is fightin' words, because retail components require same quality standards as systems built out of them. A retail, supported product operated at spec has no excuse for malfunction (barring defectiveness, in which case it's replaced.) I'm not stating for 100% that the KT133 chipset is the problem, but it damned near looks like it.

Installed beta 4.28 drivers, everything running a-ok so far. I'll do some further torture testing to see how things go.

 

[BigLance]

WOW ! This sure is interesting !

You know LXi, after you and your AMD zeolets repeadily told me how much better AMD is over an Intel platform (for price, speed and stability this makes me feel all tingly inside
I don't want anyone else to think I have something against AMD (for those who didn't see the other post) But this does prove one point I was trying to make. Thanks everyone for voting...