Poll for THUNDERBIRD Vs P3

[pen^2]

not if you get anything other than kt7 that is. i'd guess you wanna get on hte safe side...

 

[Ben]

With the current Thunderbird prices, I'd have to question your sanity if you bought anything else.

 

[LXi]

Come on Epox? And Abit? Please, Epox is fine, I shudder when I hear Abit. No matter how good they are they have crappy quality control, crappy reliability and crappy RMA policy. Avoid. MSI is the way to go.

 

[pen^2]

yeah... MSI is top notch. i can hardly wait for the KT7Pro2 launch. but dont count abit out just yet tho; it seems abit really picked up their biz and there havnt been too many complaints about ka7 or kt7. in fact board reviewrs and anandtechers seem to prefer kt7 to the asus kt133 board

 

[ndee]

All you guys out there:
If a System isn't stable, WTF has this to do with the CPU???????????? Why not crappy RAM? Why not crappy MoBo? Why not crappy graphics card? Why not????? I think both, Intel CPUs and AMD CPUs are stable, the problem is, which other parts you use in your computer. For sure, an Intel P3 700 with Brand stuff in it is more stable than an Thunderbird with all no-name components. And there you see, that not only the cpu makes the diffrence, the components make the diffrence between a stable and an unstable system.

My 2 Cents

 

[PCResources]

The problem with AMD and stability is not a CPU problem, it's a mobo problem, use a good mobo and you will not have any instability...

The mobo connects everything in the computer, so if it isn't well designed, then you will have all kind of problems, video, RAM, IDE controller, PCI and AGP bus.

This has nothing to do with neither the CPU or the chipset, or any other part for that matter. So stay away from the mobo's who have these probs (yeah, that's Abit).

Go for ASUS or MSI boards, those are usually the most stable ones...

I have recently built 16 servers running Athlons and T-birds, that's how much faith i have in the stability of an AMD system.

As for PIII, the only people pushing for them are the ones owning them, they just wanna defend their ego, so they don't look stupid for spending more money on less performance.

 

[Sharkmeat]

Bortherman use the word dumbfvck wisely.I never knowk people for something they may not have control over,I,m sure PCgamer used the numbers that the benchmarks sothware reported.Lets just say the sothware is the problem not the people.Are they realy dumbfvcks!!.re-read your post;you make the call.

QUOTE: PC GAMER maybe is honest after all... the problem is then they are dumbfvcks!

 

[LXi]

Yea sure, PCGamer only knows how to kiss Intel's ass and you only know how to kiss PCGamer's ass.

 

[CraigRT]

I have a PIII 700 @ 959
(haven't tried higher yet)
and i love this CPU.. i got a pretty good deal on it and it's a sweet-ass CPU.. with my GeForce 2 i get amazing FPS in Q3.. try 144 at 1024x768 full texture, 16 bit, gibs on.
my friend has a T-Bird 800 on an A7V, he doesn't like it.. not very stable and long bootup times (sorry that's what he tells me don't be gettin all mad)

my Intel system is major solid and very fast booting, etc.
however,
if I were to build a new system it would be on an MSI K7T PRO 2
with a T-Bird 1GHz

 

[AdamK47]

Hey! I have a good idea. Get the CPU that you feel is best for you.

There, that should narrow it down.

 

[LXi]

The guy has already decided to go with AMD.

 

[pen^2]

<< I,m sure PCgamer used the numbers that the benchmarks sothware reported.Lets just say the sothware is the problem not the people >>


people on this board are screaming you shouldnt even use 3dmark for benchmarking. using 3dwinbench and stuff is just retarded, period. Ok, so spreading false information by the use of improper software could be taken either way: igonrance, or malicious intents. i dont care which one it is, the fact is none on this board is dumb enuff to take PCgamers word for anything. Why dont you start a poll thread and see what the fellow anandtechers think of that godly magazine of yours? Hell, I thought even quoting from tomsahardware would be somewhat biased.