I find both are equally stable if configuired right the only difference is in my opinion via take longer with more dowwnlaods etc to configuire properly on both amd and intel processors. I think via is a culprit but one set up correctly is stable as intel. The problem is that via can give you a head ache. Anyown rember the p3v4x and g400. This is an example of hardware that i finally got stable but took about 2-3 hours of my life. THis is independant of amd or intel though.
<< Let me ask you this, why would you want to stick Generic parts such as no name power supplies and cheap memory in a Top of the line Cpu and expect Top of the line results? >>
Invalid argument! The fact remains though that Intels will run on it(power supplies) while AMDs will not.
<< Also last time i checked VIA also makes P3 boards too that also take advantage of 4in1 SP. >>
Also invalid. The poll was asking about Intel/Intel and AMD/VIA... not Intel/VIA.
<< I wonder why no one ever says anything about the P3 1.13Check it getting recalled last summer for Instability on benchmarks that the Athlon passed with flying colors? When is the last time you heard an Athlon Being released onto the market and then being recalled for Instability issues? >>
Yes, they were recalled. So what? Does that apply to all Intel chips? Does that mean just because 1 intel processor was recalled make my Celeron system unstable? My Intel system is just as stable if not more than my AMD system. When's the last time someone cracked the CPU of an Intel chip trying to get the heatsink on? Or when's the last time an Intel chip burned up because of improper installation of the HSF? That fact still remains that Intel systems in general are easier to set up than AMD.
<< Or when's the last time an Intel chip burned up because of improper installation of the HSF? >>
Oh gee, lets figure that one out. Hmm improper installation when its done by the end user, yeah just blame AMD and VIA for something the END USER did wrong. There are too many hardware websites that have basic and advance reviews and guides on how to properly install a heatsink. You can't make your own guide lines,Fook up and then point the Finger at those 2 companies. If You don't go by their easy to follow recommendations and basic instructions then who fault is that?
<< Yes, they were recalled. So what? Does that apply to all Intel chips? >>
This is your problem, i asked you how many times has AMD released a CPU that was recalled for instability? But yet you haven't giving me a numerical figure yet, and i am still waiting untill you can do that you have no way of stating that amd/via set ups are not stable. Like i said before If anand chose to use AMD/VIA combo in his server then use some form of common sense because those servers stay on 24/7 365 and haven't failed on him yet not one crash and i think they been up for about 4 to 5months now.
Have you ever Built an AMD/VIA system? If not then you need not apply to this thread.
I hate wading into a thread this late, but there's some serious misinformation being spread that needs to be addressed. Since this is a recurring discussion, I think I'll take this opportunity to construct a new "cut and paste" post similar to my winmodem and partitioning diatribes:
----- Tear along perforation -------- avoid low quality glue and mindless flames -------
System stability arises frequently in computer hardware discussion groups as a hot topic for discussion. One of its more 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 chipsetes?
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 much less frequently, and will tend to do so in response to a specific, identifiable problem, 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 (for example, 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 computer hardware reviewer for that matter, ever in the past year and a half 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 production-level AMD 750 boards. On the other hand, Intel's supposed world class reputation has been tarnished several times and especially by two very 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 three vital patches for VIA chipsets (the 4-in-1 Service Pack and IDE Busmaster Driver, 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 one (1) extra patch required for absolute stability on a VIA based system constitutes such a burden as to favor Intel in the usability category is ludicrous. And to say that "the Intel drivers work right off the CD" is also weak because so do the VIA drivers. 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 and 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 one extra double-click.
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.
"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, by and large, simply 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.
--------- tear here ------------------ cut and paste -----------------------------------
Modus
----- Tear along perforation -------- avoid low quality glue and mindless flames -------
System stability arises frequently in computer hardware discussion groups as a hot topic for discussion. One of its more 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 chipsetes?
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 much less frequently, and will tend to do so in response to a specific, identifiable problem, 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 (for example, 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 computer hardware reviewer for that matter, ever in the past year and a half 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 production-level AMD 750 boards. On the other hand, Intel's supposed world class reputation has been tarnished several times and especially by two very 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 three vital patches for VIA chipsets (the 4-in-1 Service Pack and IDE Busmaster Driver, 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 one (1) extra patch required for absolute stability on a VIA based system constitutes such a burden as to favor Intel in the usability category is ludicrous. And to say that "the Intel drivers work right off the CD" is also weak because so do the VIA drivers. 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 and 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 one extra double-click.
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.
"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, by and large, simply 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.
--------- tear here ------------------ cut and paste -----------------------------------
Modus
.
VIA sucks anyway.
Just look - it managed to show how a DDR platform can suck.
There's nothing wrong with AMD CPU's (other than overheating and being too fragile); but VIA chipsets are like bags of bugs.
heh... I bet VIA chipsets are designed with Cyrix III in mind
And for those who want a definition of stability:
1. I shalt plug whatever card in whatever slot and it should work without patches
2. I shalt load whatever operating system and it should work without problems (patches allowed)
3. I shalt overclock my system to whatever speed CPU and RAM allows and Bridges should not overheat or cause problems
4. I shalt use cheap-ass Power Supplies and it shouldn't complain
5. It should boot no matter what
6. It shouldn't die
VIA sucks anyway.
Just look - it managed to show how a DDR platform can suck.
There's nothing wrong with AMD CPU's (other than overheating and being too fragile); but VIA chipsets are like bags of bugs.
heh... I bet VIA chipsets are designed with Cyrix III in mind
And for those who want a definition of stability:
1. I shalt plug whatever card in whatever slot and it should work without patches
2. I shalt load whatever operating system and it should work without problems (patches allowed)
3. I shalt overclock my system to whatever speed CPU and RAM allows and Bridges should not overheat or cause problems
4. I shalt use cheap-ass Power Supplies and it shouldn't complain
5. It should boot no matter what
6. It shouldn't die
Well, this thread is about nothing, everyone that has ever built a stable Athlon system knows that it can be done, there are many of us here...
But do Athlon owners state that AMD/VIA is more stable than Intel, no they do not, they are satisfied with the fact that they managed to build a stable, fast system without having to pay Intel dollars for it...
If you cannot get your Athlon system stable, then there might be something wrong with your setup, or you might be doing it wrong... As a system supplier in the very high-end i deliver multi-CPU solutions with unusual mem-bandwidth for Athlon CPU's, how long do you think that i would last without stability... not one single day....
Anyone who states that an Athlon system isn't stable has bad HW or bad computer knowledge... the thing that bugs me the most is that people who probably never tried the AMD setup still state that it is bad, "cause my teacher, friend or whatever told me so"....
I have built thousands of rock stable Athlon systems, and i do believe that i know of what i speak...
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
But do Athlon owners state that AMD/VIA is more stable than Intel, no they do not, they are satisfied with the fact that they managed to build a stable, fast system without having to pay Intel dollars for it...
If you cannot get your Athlon system stable, then there might be something wrong with your setup, or you might be doing it wrong... As a system supplier in the very high-end i deliver multi-CPU solutions with unusual mem-bandwidth for Athlon CPU's, how long do you think that i would last without stability... not one single day....
Anyone who states that an Athlon system isn't stable has bad HW or bad computer knowledge... the thing that bugs me the most is that people who probably never tried the AMD setup still state that it is bad, "cause my teacher, friend or whatever told me so"....
I have built thousands of rock stable Athlon systems, and i do believe that i know of what i speak...
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
DeathroweR
I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand that a more powerful CPU will require more powerful HW....
A better powersupply is cheap, even if you have to buy a 450W power supply with the Athlon setup it will still be more power for less money compared to an Intel setup...
The Athlon is power hungry, we all know this, does it matter, no it doesn't...
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand that a more powerful CPU will require more powerful HW....
A better powersupply is cheap, even if you have to buy a 450W power supply with the Athlon setup it will still be more power for less money compared to an Intel setup...
The Athlon is power hungry, we all know this, does it matter, no it doesn't...
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
<< Well LXi, you told me to CHEW on the Results, looks like about ~31% of the results support AMD and the other 65% support INTEL or Both.. and That's the Reality ! >>
ehhh, and what you said was that the Intel setup was MORE stable than the AMD/VIA setup, i voted for "just as stable" or whatever it said...
The AMD people here are usually convinced that the AMD is just as stable as the Intel setup, you didn't think so....
You were the one that stated that the Intel setup was MORE stable... that was the only reason you could thing of as to why you would buy a Intel setup... wasn't it??
So all votes that are not AGAINST the AMD setup are AGAINST you, right...
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
DeathThroweR,
<< VIA sucks anyway. Just look - it managed to show how a DDR platform can suck.>>
And since Intel managed with the i820 to show how a Rambus platform can suck, I'd say they're even. BTW, you're completely clueless if you think it's VIA's fault DDR doesn't do much for the P3. Read the bloody article.
<< There's nothing wrong with AMD CPU's (other than overheating and being too fragile) >>
Anyone who thinks AMD's chips are too fragile is a ham-fisted clutz. You don't need the hands of a brain surgeon to overcome the monumental difficulty of NOT crushing your CPU out of existence. Just be careful. And don't use a Socket 370 Orb on a Socket A chip. Not too tough to do.
<< VIA chipsets are like bags of bugs >>
How profound.
<< And for those who want a definition of stability >>
An incredibly flawed and absurd defintion.
1) You mean like those people who expected their SDRAM to work when they plugged it into an MTH? Oh, I forgot, that doesn't count. I guess you'd better abandon your love child devotion to a monopolist meagcorp, because no Intel chipset can guarantee that.
2) Fine with VIA or Intel. Really doesn't matter.
3) There is absolutely no need for worry about bridges overheating when overclocking VIA boards -- like all computer hardware, stability will be lost far before temperature becomes dangerous.
4) Guess what? In the past few months I've done about 50 builds, almost all using AMD chips, and every single system has used a dirt cheap, generic, bottom of the barrel 17" ATX case with a non-aproved 300W power supply. Price? $25 US, taking orders now
5) This is a little nuts. "No matter what?" I can think of a lot of what's! Send me your stable Intel system. I'll show you what it's like when a system won't boot no matter what
6) Unlike your contribution to this thread, which deserves such a fate.
Modus
<< VIA sucks anyway. Just look - it managed to show how a DDR platform can suck.>>
And since Intel managed with the i820 to show how a Rambus platform can suck, I'd say they're even. BTW, you're completely clueless if you think it's VIA's fault DDR doesn't do much for the P3. Read the bloody article.
<< There's nothing wrong with AMD CPU's (other than overheating and being too fragile) >>
Anyone who thinks AMD's chips are too fragile is a ham-fisted clutz. You don't need the hands of a brain surgeon to overcome the monumental difficulty of NOT crushing your CPU out of existence. Just be careful. And don't use a Socket 370 Orb on a Socket A chip. Not too tough to do.
<< VIA chipsets are like bags of bugs >>
How profound.
<< And for those who want a definition of stability >>
An incredibly flawed and absurd defintion.
1) You mean like those people who expected their SDRAM to work when they plugged it into an MTH? Oh, I forgot, that doesn't count. I guess you'd better abandon your love child devotion to a monopolist meagcorp, because no Intel chipset can guarantee that.
2) Fine with VIA or Intel. Really doesn't matter.
3) There is absolutely no need for worry about bridges overheating when overclocking VIA boards -- like all computer hardware, stability will be lost far before temperature becomes dangerous.
4) Guess what? In the past few months I've done about 50 builds, almost all using AMD chips, and every single system has used a dirt cheap, generic, bottom of the barrel 17" ATX case with a non-aproved 300W power supply. Price? $25 US, taking orders now
5) This is a little nuts. "No matter what?" I can think of a lot of what's! Send me your stable Intel system. I'll show you what it's like when a system won't boot no matter what
6) Unlike your contribution to this thread, which deserves such a fate.
Modus
On the subject of VIA, stability, and Tomzilla's observations:
"Errors in the New VIA-Southbridge?
In the last motherboard article, we observed a strange effect. The boards we presented in this article with the new ATA/100-Southbridge admittedly performed very well during hard disk-intensive applications in the office field (Sysmark results), but the new Southbridge seems to have a negative effect on the Northbridge of the KT133 chip set."
I happen to own the most-affected MSI Pro2A, how the heck am I supposed to feel about this? And, my Win98SE is still not completely stable. Anyone want to help me, hmm?
"Errors in the New VIA-Southbridge?
In the last motherboard article, we observed a strange effect. The boards we presented in this article with the new ATA/100-Southbridge admittedly performed very well during hard disk-intensive applications in the office field (Sysmark results), but the new Southbridge seems to have a negative effect on the Northbridge of the KT133 chip set."
I happen to own the most-affected MSI Pro2A, how the heck am I supposed to feel about this? And, my Win98SE is still not completely stable. Anyone want to help me, hmm?
<< Anyone who thinks AMD's chips are too fragile is a ham-fisted clutz. You don't need the hands of a brain surgeon to overcome the monumental difficulty of NOT crushing your CPU out of existence. Just be careful. And don't use a Socket 370 Orb on a Socket A chip. Not too tough to do. >>
Some wise words there from you too Modus...
You have written many good posts here lately, they are long, but i take the time to read them carefully as they are always worth the time...
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
<< I happen to own the most-affected MSI Pro2A, how the heck am I supposed to feel about this? And, my Win98SE is still not completely stable. Anyone want to help me, hmm? >>
As i am such a nice guy, i would like to help you, please send me a private message and let's see if we cannot sort out your problems, ok?
BTW to get Win98SE completely stable is not possible, it is not stable in itself, do the linux-switch..
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
Thanks for the offer, is it OK to email you? I'm currently learning the ropes for Linux, it's my other OS.
I've just noticed Tom's Hardware motherboard benchmarks... I can't help noticing that my MSI Pro2-A is the slowest KT133 motherboard in just about everything, due to an apparent bug in VIA's new Southbridge. It's actually >3% slower than the older, cheaper Pro2, how terrific. Thanks, VIA! I'm really glad I paid for your incompetence again! It's swell to release a defective follow-up product, just as Anandtech gives Editor's Choice to the Pro2A's predecessor :|
I'm going to go punch a wall, then I'll send Patrick an email, okay?
I've just noticed Tom's Hardware motherboard benchmarks... I can't help noticing that my MSI Pro2-A is the slowest KT133 motherboard in just about everything, due to an apparent bug in VIA's new Southbridge. It's actually >3% slower than the older, cheaper Pro2, how terrific. Thanks, VIA! I'm really glad I paid for your incompetence again! It's swell to release a defective follow-up product, just as Anandtech gives Editor's Choice to the Pro2A's predecessor :|
I'm going to go punch a wall, then I'll send Patrick an email, okay?
<< I can't help noticing that my MSI Pro2-A is the slowest KT133 motherboard in just about everything, due to an apparent bug in VIA's new Southbridge. Thanks, VIA! I'm really glad I paid for your incompetence again! >>
Well, you will NEVER notice the performance hit and you have chosen the most stable motherboard with the VIA chipset, so do not feel to bad about your buy...
If you send me a private message (almost wrote massage) you will recieve my private e-mail adress.
BTW, do not hit that wall, you just have to fix it up later, believe me, i know... ;-)
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
Modus -
I'm not devoted to Intel; I just don't like VIA.
BTW - that'll probably make you laugh - my BP6 crashes randomly in Win2K ("driver IRQ not less or equal".
About you bringing up ANY RDRAM platforms - WHO in good mental health would use them?
About my points of stability - they weren't outlined to prove Intel is better. About boot regardless what - I meant crazy changes in the BIOS, not lack of a CPU.
As to T-Birds not being fragile - I'll take your word for it (for now).
About my "bug" comment - tell me what chipset would make the system freeze while intalling DX after loading their own (4in1) drivers.
About Apollo Pro 266 review - are you telling me that it's P3's fault that VIA-based DDR board consistently underperforms an Intel SDR board? lol
~ Now you tell me:
-- What's up with bus-mastering PCI slots (how many)
-- What's up with the memory controller
-- How does VIA manage to continuously make CPU's underperform (I'm pretty T-Birds would fly much higher; look at how their P3 platforms suck)
PCResources -
I would get a 1KWatt power supply; it's just that things like PROVEN piss me off. What if tomorrow they say that it's your power company's problem that the system keeps shutting down?
ARE YOU USING AN AMD-PROVEN WALL OUTLET?
I'm not devoted to Intel; I just don't like VIA.
BTW - that'll probably make you laugh - my BP6 crashes randomly in Win2K ("driver IRQ not less or equal"
.About you bringing up ANY RDRAM platforms - WHO in good mental health would use them?
About my points of stability - they weren't outlined to prove Intel is better. About boot regardless what - I meant crazy changes in the BIOS, not lack of a CPU.
As to T-Birds not being fragile - I'll take your word for it (for now).
About my "bug" comment - tell me what chipset would make the system freeze while intalling DX after loading their own (4in1) drivers.
About Apollo Pro 266 review - are you telling me that it's P3's fault that VIA-based DDR board consistently underperforms an Intel SDR board? lol
~ Now you tell me:
-- What's up with bus-mastering PCI slots (how many)
-- What's up with the memory controller
-- How does VIA manage to continuously make CPU's underperform (I'm pretty T-Birds would fly much higher; look at how their P3 platforms suck)
PCResources -
I would get a 1KWatt power supply; it's just that things like PROVEN piss me off. What if tomorrow they say that it's your power company's problem that the system keeps shutting down?
ARE YOU USING AN AMD-PROVEN WALL OUTLET?
<< About you bringing up ANY RDRAM platforms - WHO in good mental health would use them? >>
I would, not the Intel implementation of RB though... Maybe P4... Obviously you do not have a clue as to what RB memory can do in the correct implementation...
<< I would get a 1KWatt power supply; it's just that things like PROVEN piss me off. What if tomorrow they say that it's your power company's problem that the system keeps shutting down? >>
Yeah... silly me, maybe we should all buy Intel CPU's because the power companies might only support them later on... And we should all use low-RPM disks, because they are less power consuming... i could go on, but i think you get the point...
You could probably get your T-bird up and running with the same power supply that you use for your Intel setup, it's just that AMD will recommend things that are overpowered, which would mean better stability...
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
But indeed, my Tbird1100 crashed like a dog with a 230W power supply. More specifically, it worked just fine until I tried something I/O intensive. Those particular type crashes were fixed with a 300W PSU that I'm using now.
Riiiight...
RamBust would be the second great mistery for me afeter " How people breed? "
RamBust would be the second great mistery for me afeter " How people breed? "
<< RamBust would be the second great mistery for me afeter " How people breed? " >>
Well, as i am a family provider i can tell you how people breed, but i leave it up to you to find out...
RB tech can be quite fast if you combine it into 8 channels with 800Mhz, just figure it out, what's the bandwidth?
LeoV, ok, the Athlon is a bit power hungry, but is that really any problem? Most 250W supplies that are delivered with all good cases cant run an Athlon....
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
Hey Patrick,
How do I know you didn't adopt those 8 kids ?
And how about a price quote on that RDREAM setup?
Anyway, it's time for me to build a new system; I hoped that the dual AMD760 would hit the market by that time; but they're still debugging it.
I would vote for AMD/AMD. It's time for them to make/market their own chipsets. VIA has to concentrate on Cyrix platforms now
How do I know you didn't adopt those 8 kids
?And how about a price quote on that RDREAM setup?
Anyway, it's time for me to build a new system; I hoped that the dual AMD760 would hit the market by that time; but they're still debugging it.
I would vote for AMD/AMD. It's time for them to make/market their own chipsets. VIA has to concentrate on Cyrix platforms now
I'd say they're pretty much the same. Both the KX and KT133 chipsets have had time to mature and we're seeing the second wave of KT133 motherboards coming out now. Things can only get better with the KT133A chipset as well.
BTW, Intel's own motherboards are the rated as most stable (non-overclocked) systems by several HW sites.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 410
-
Facebook
Twitter