POLL: Amd vs. Intel stability based on your experience.

[Oyeve]

Of the five PCs I have at home (all intel BTW) I really only use 2. One is an Intel P4 with an intel chipset on the mobo, the other is an Intel P3 with a VIA chipset. I have many more problems/issues with the VIA system than the intel system. I cant speak for AMD as I havent touched one since my 233mhz amd chip literally blew up because the fan died on the HS. Anyway, I feel that you cant blame the processor because of crappy chipsets (VIA) for any stability problems. I would LUV to see an AMD chip on a MOBO with an Intel chipset. Wouldnt that kick ass?

 

[vash]

I use Intel at work and AMD at home (have had Intel at home too). Both are similar for stability. My chipsets at home range between KX133 (Athlon Classic 700mhz), KT133 (1.0Ghz Socket A, 100Mhz FSB, AMD 760+VIA (1.53Ghz XP).

vash

 

[bozo1]

I use both and have never had any stability problems with either.

 

[ed21x]

i had an amd k6-2- that was really unstable. Now, my roomate's athlon is as stable as a rock, so is my intel p4. case in point, they're both at about the same stability Similarly, they both costed about the same and perform at the same level.

 

[KpocAlypse]

Poll might be biased, flawed whatever, but personally i think both are just as stable as the other.

Stabilty in my mind does not come with the CPU, it comes from the Chipset, OS, and the user(and what the user installs).

 

[PlatinumGold]

i have both. i didn't answer the poll because it didn't seem to give me that choice. I have both an xp1700+ w/ an ECS board VERY STABLE. I also have a P4 1.6a w/ the MSI Ultra board (i know i'm a cheap sh!t). i find both to be exceedingly stable. i haven't had a single problem i could attribute to either system as being an issue of stability.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I am personally on my third Intel platform; they've always been solid-as-a-rock. I have no personal experience with AMD platforms, though a few of my friends that do have replaced their hardware with much more frequency than I.

My father's PIII-866/ASUS CUSL2 has been kind of problematic since the get-go. First, it was a DOA retail PIII-866. Second, some how the printer burned out the onboad parallel-port, so now it uses a PCI parallel card. We always cross our fingers when we try to "Print" as we are still not very confident. Otherwise, the system works fine.

 

[Jman13]

My last Intel machine was my Gateway P2-350, which had stability problems and hangs from time to time, but nothing serious. Most of those problems I attribute to Win98 anyway. Once I loaded XP RC2 on it, it was a very stable machine. My AthlonXP system on VIA KT266A has been the most stable system I've ever owned. I love this thing. I've only had crashes when I pushed one component too far...(i.e. I try pushing my GF3 core clock into the stratosphere) but I'm basically doing that UNTIL it crashes. Other than that, it runs for days, weeks on end, only rebooting when software requires it.

Jman

 

[smp]

You should of added a "I hate P4 vs. AMD threads".

 

[Rand]

I would not for an instant blame instability on the processor alone. RMA rates on bad processors are incredibly low for both Intel and AMD.
Platform differences are most often the measure of stability.
And in that either an AMD or Intel platform can be rock solid, or extremely unreliable.
I'm running an Intel system now that I deem is completely stable, but I've no doubt at all that there are AMD systems out there that are every bit as reliable.
I've seen and built many stable AMD/Intel systems, and I've no doubt at all that with the right hardware either platform can be 100% stable.

The processor alone EXTREMELY seldom impacts relative reliability in a properly ventilated and cooled environment.
I worked for years in a computer store, and I can count on one hand the number of processors from all manufacturers combined that ever went back for RMA purposes.

A well built system can be perfectly stable irregardless of the microprocessor manufacturer.

 

[kgraeme]

I blame the chipsets not the CPU.

 

[RPB]

i use both amd and intel cpu's and for chipsets intel, amd, via, and sis, and must say that they all make for stable rigs if there setup properly.

 

[LXi]

I blame the motherboard manufacturer, not the chipsets, not the CPUs.

 

[y2kc]

I've built AMD boxes for friends, I've recommended AMD to folks that wanted me to spec-out a PC for them...but (call me a fanboy if you must) on my machines, intel only. I almost broke down, but thank god for Northwood..... and with the (up to) 57% drop in price coming on the P4 line, I don't see that changing.

 

[rudder]

So does VIA still suck?

I run a p3 800mhz on a soyo board. It uses the via apollo pro133a chipset. I originally installed win2k on it last year and now run XP. I can honestly tell you, I do not remember ever having a blue screen or the pc even locking up. I am not a heavy 3d gamer, but still play my share occasionally. At least in this combination the VIA chipset is stable.

 

[StageLeft]

Thanks for the input guys/gals. I read half and will read more later. THe reason I posted the questions as such is because commonly AMD has had to live up to Intel for stability. I'm sure there are some people who think that intel is LESS stable, but very very few people because Intel setups have always been generally better or at least as good as AMD.

I also realize that the CPUs are fine and it's basically just the motherboard and chipset you're using... but since intel and amd have to use different boards the question isn't really all that bad even if not technically accurate.

 

[Red Dawn]

I've built numerous systems using both Platforms and I've only had problem with defective Motherboards. When they were replaced the systems ran like a champ.. AMD and Intel.

 

[mchammer187]

my 850 was more stable that my 266A setup but my KM133 was just as stable as the 850

the 850 and the KM133 (both Abit, that might be the difference)

have never crashed (besides from overclocking too far)

 

[CraigRT]

I have used both, and continue to use both. At this current time, the AMD rigs are more stable than the Intels. only in some cases though, some of the Intel rigs run fabulous, and some are just not as good... while all my AMD rigs seem to be just peachy.. all are on VIA chipsets. (AMD) all Intel PC's are using 1 variation or another of the 815 chipset.

my PC's at home are on VIA chipsets and 1 815 chipset, they pretty much all run rock solid with no problems/ glitches.

 

[Rand]

<< So does VIA still suck?
>>



Not always, my system is rock solid even heavily overclocked with a far out of spec PCI bus.
And it's based on the old VIA Apollo Pro 133A chipset, I have absolutely no complaints whatsoever and couldnt be happier both the chipset or motherboard (Soyo SY-7VCA). She's served me beautifully for quite a while. And while I often view Intel as the best chipset manufacturer in the world, I do not in the least regret choosing VIA over an Intel based chipset when I initially purchased this motherboard.

In some instances VIA is quite nice, and I've built no shortage of VIA based systems and I'd feel completely comfortable purchasing VIA in the future for my own system.
That said, I could definitely recognize why some may dislike VIA, and I can't also recognize very definite areas in which they could stand to improve.

But as things stand, I'm using a VIA motherboard right now, and I have a fairly high opinion of both the VIA KT266A, and VIA P4X266A.
Noteably my view of the KT333 isnt terribly high though.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

I have a P3-450 on a BX board (used to be my main comp) and that thing was a rock, even in Win98. Now I'm running an Athlon 1600+ @ 1575 MHz on an ECS K7S5A and this thing has been very solid so far under WinXP. I made sure to stay away from Via however as there seemed to be compatibility issues. I say either is just as good with the right chipset

-Ice

 

[BFG10K]

Old VIA chipsets (pre-KT133a) are absolute crap in terms of stability. Newer chipsets are better but I still have to give Intel the thumbs up, especially in light of the recent latency problems surfacing on newer VIA chipsets.

 

[Priit]

<< Old VIA chipsets (pre-KT133a) are absolute crap in terms of stability >>



Well, I have a bunch of those boxes with "absolutely unstnable" chipsets running as basic web surfing machines and routers with no problems. I also have 3 servers with durons and KT133-based mobos that get more load than any usual windoze desktop ever would and all of them has been running over a year with no crashes. I once had several K6-x processors on VIA MVP3 based AOpen mobo and I had maybe 1-2 crashes a year (and even those probably alpha/beta drivers I had put into kernel). My machine was crunching numbers 24h a day without problems...

 

[Mitzi]

I have used both types of processors over the years and both are just as stable as the other if paired with the right components.

 

[Mitzi]

I have used both types of processors over the years and both are just as stable as the other if paired with the right components.