POLL: Amd vs. Intel stability based on your experience.
- Thread starter StageLeft
- Start date
Case in point, the fact that Anandtech server farm relies HEAVILY on AMD platforms.
True, but didn't all the MSI VIA boards (a quite popular board and well reviewed on Anandtech) need replacement?
True, but didn't all the MSI VIA boards (a quite popular board and well reviewed on Anandtech) need replacement?
NFS4
No Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
<< Case in point, the fact that Anandtech server farm relies HEAVILY on AMD platforms.
True, but didn't all the MSI VIA boards (a quite popular board and well reviewed on Anandtech) need replacement? >>
The problem with the MSI boards was a compatibility issue involving a certain video card being used in the systems...I don't even think that MSI had a solution for the problem.
<< True, but didn't all the MSI VIA boards (a quite popular board and well reviewed on Anandtech) need replacement? >>
I only heard the IBM GXP's needed replacement.
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
So does VIA still suck? I only ventured to AMD once with K6-2 and it was a terrible experience but I've not touched them since. I know that "most of the time" AMD seems stable from what I hear but you hardly ever hear about people with intel setups having to get some recent drivers so that their video card will work or doing some "work around" for some weird problem.
I'm interested in lots of votes here though. Keep em coming!
I'm interested in lots of votes here though. Keep em coming!
You should have specified processor or platform.
Speaking strictly about the CPUs themselves, there is no difference. Both AMD and Intel CPUs are solid as a rock.
The differences in the stability and reliability and compatibility departments are where the two divide. Unfortunately for AMD, consumers are still (by and large) plagued with faulty, poor core logic -- namely the infamous VIA. The Intel platform, OTOH, has -- if nothing else -- very solid core logic to couple with the processors. AMD had a good thing in 761; they screwed themselves royally coupling it with VIA's ubiquituous 686B south bridge. Perhaps if AMD would return to the core logic arena ...
Speaking strictly about the CPUs themselves, there is no difference. Both AMD and Intel CPUs are solid as a rock.
The differences in the stability and reliability and compatibility departments are where the two divide. Unfortunately for AMD, consumers are still (by and large) plagued with faulty, poor core logic -- namely the infamous VIA. The Intel platform, OTOH, has -- if nothing else -- very solid core logic to couple with the processors. AMD had a good thing in 761; they screwed themselves royally coupling it with VIA's ubiquituous 686B south bridge. Perhaps if AMD would return to the core logic arena ...
I use both Intel and AMD, and I have seen many different processors running. I've had an AMD 386 once, never noticed it was an AMD until I opened the box after a year.
They appear to be stable, all of them, my only problems ever were normally related to memory.
So, my vote:
I use both, and both are about equally stable.
They appear to be stable, all of them, my only problems ever were normally related to memory.
So, my vote:
I use both, and both are about equally stable.
I run two AMD systems and two Intel systems (and one 1.13ghz laptop). Overall the AMD systems have had more stability problems than the Intel by far. But the true probably isn't the chips themselves, it's their chipsets/motherboards that we run them on. AMD is at a loss because of this. I love my AMD, but damn some of the minor problems i've run into are annoying. Intel chipsets on the other hand are pretty good overall.
The chips themselves are great.
The chips themselves are great.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,066
- 4,712
- 126
Family computers: Mix of AMD and Intel (mostly AMD K6-2 and Via for the motherboard).
My computer: Intel.
Work computers: Intel.
I use both. The AMD family computers crash more often than the rest (including the family Intel computers). However that doesn't mean anything since maybe it is user problems (much of my family knows very little about computers) or maybe it is due to VIA problems.
The fact is that many add-ins are tested thouroghly with Intel CPUs and motherboards - these are often rushed through an AMD system test. Thus there should be a statistical difference in the number of problems with an AMD system and an Intel system (examples: VIA and some Sound Blaster cards or Anandtech's "compatibility issue involving a certain video card"). The problem lies in the 3rd party manufacturers not testing properly (and it isn't AMD's fault).
There is a difference when you overclock. Most people agree that AMD chips give off more heat and have poorer thermal protection capabilities. Thus the chance of thermal problems is greater with an AMD system. This is user error and is not AMD's fault.
I won't go into problems that people reported with earlier AMD chips - AMD has fixed these problems long ago. The remaining stability differences are due to user errors or poor testing of 3rd party manufacturers.
Everyone's definition of stability is different. I can turn on the most unstable computer and run one program for months without a hitch (such as a web server or constant computation like RC5). That fact that it can run 1 program for months means nothing (since it might crash when running any other program). A good stability test requires many different programs opening, running, then closing. Unfortunately when people discuss stability they usually focus on the fact that at least 1 program can run for months (without ever doing a good stability test)...
My computer: Intel.
Work computers: Intel.
I use both. The AMD family computers crash more often than the rest (including the family Intel computers). However that doesn't mean anything since maybe it is user problems (much of my family knows very little about computers) or maybe it is due to VIA problems.
The fact is that many add-ins are tested thouroghly with Intel CPUs and motherboards - these are often rushed through an AMD system test. Thus there should be a statistical difference in the number of problems with an AMD system and an Intel system (examples: VIA and some Sound Blaster cards or Anandtech's "compatibility issue involving a certain video card"). The problem lies in the 3rd party manufacturers not testing properly (and it isn't AMD's fault).
There is a difference when you overclock. Most people agree that AMD chips give off more heat and have poorer thermal protection capabilities. Thus the chance of thermal problems is greater with an AMD system. This is user error and is not AMD's fault.
I won't go into problems that people reported with earlier AMD chips - AMD has fixed these problems long ago. The remaining stability differences are due to user errors or poor testing of 3rd party manufacturers.
Everyone's definition of stability is different. I can turn on the most unstable computer and run one program for months without a hitch (such as a web server or constant computation like RC5). That fact that it can run 1 program for months means nothing (since it might crash when running any other program). A good stability test requires many different programs opening, running, then closing. Unfortunately when people discuss stability they usually focus on the fact that at least 1 program can run for months (without ever doing a good stability test)...
I have used both intel and amd systems and don't have a preference either way. I am not made of money, so I usually go with whatever gives me the best bang for buck. I know intel is heralded for its' stability, however, Amd systems have matured quite nicely and like NFS4 says, if you know "what the hell you are doing 
", stability shouldn't be an issue. One thing I have learned is to use quality parts, from good manufacturers with good drivers when putting a system together. This alone will eliminate 99% of stability issues...
GPJ
", stability shouldn't be an issue. One thing I have learned is to use quality parts, from good manufacturers with good drivers when putting a system together. This alone will eliminate 99% of stability issues...GPJ
A lot of the newer Athlon boards (like nForce boards and some SiS boards) have been very reliable, stable, and high-performing.
From my experience (Includes a K6-2 on ALi Aladdin V, Celeron on SiS 630S, Duron on VIA KM133, and Celeron 533 on Intel 810), they're all stable, with the exception of ALaddin V, I had nothing but trouble on it, but the other 3 are identical in stability (notice nbo difference between SiS and Intel chipset).
All my stability problems with computers have been releated either with faulty hardware (bad RAM, dying HDD etc) or M$Windows. There's usually a little bit more fuss with getting things to work under M$Windows with non-Intel hardware but once you have gone through the restarting sequence that comes with driver installation, there's almost no difference.
I have 4 Generations AMDs up and running here.
486-133, k6-3/400, SlotA 800 and XP1700+
I bought them because AMD has better "bang for bug".
Over time, the stability has been much improved but i think
thats mostly due to the software I use. My last platform is running 2K and is really able to do 24/7 while i play games or install some software.
At work, we have intel only.
btw, ever heard of socket 924 ?
http://www.digit-life.com/news.html#1017645568
I have both AMD and Intel systems. The AMD systems I own are much more stable than the Intel ones. The problem with the Intel systems is hardware related. My dual p3 has a crappy mobo (with a VIA chipset) and I believe that is causing the problems there. The p133 I have is an old Dell and it is about time to retire it. The Intel systems at work are fine. I think they are both stable as long as you pay attention to what hardware you are getting.
My last foray into Intel was back during the Celeron 300a times. Built several 300a's and a couple P2-400's. The few problems I encountered was a bad BH6 mobo and a temperamental Viper550 video card.
Since then I've done all AMD and all VIA chipsets. Never run into any stability problems with these either, at least that weren't caused by my tweaking.
Epox, ECS, Shuttle, and Asus motherboards.
Like was said above, it helps if you know what you're doing.
amish
Since then I've done all AMD and all VIA chipsets. Never run into any stability problems with these either, at least that weren't caused by my tweaking.
Epox, ECS, Shuttle, and Asus motherboards.
Like was said above, it helps if you know what you're doing.
amish
What about an 'I use both' option?
As far as I can tell stability is the same with Intel and AMD.
Edit: Whats with the slanted questions? You can only vote for 'Intel is more stable, or AMD is just as stable.
As far as I can tell stability is the same with Intel and AMD.
Edit: Whats with the slanted questions? You can only vote for 'Intel is more stable, or AMD is just as stable.
HEY SKOORB!!! YOUR POLL IS BIAS AND FLAWED,
you ask the question "I use AMD and AMD is just as stable" (bias toward intel)
you dont have any thing that says I USE AMD AND AMD IS MORE STABLE
not trying to flame but just pointing out something that i feel is a flaw in your poll
you ask the question "I use AMD and AMD is just as stable" (bias toward intel)
you dont have any thing that says I USE AMD AND AMD IS MORE STABLE
not trying to flame but just pointing out something that i feel is a flaw in your poll
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
I use Intel\IBM at work and AMD\VIA, which I built, at home. I have had no problems with either product
I agree this poll is biased.
I agree this poll is biased.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter