Stability: Chipsets, processors, etc.

[Condor Beedee]

What makes the most stable motherboard/cpu combo? I'm currently running an MSI Kt7Pro 2-a with an Athalon 1300 mhz chip and GeForce3. The problem is, it crashes intermittantly and I can't figure out why (it might be my power source which is only 250 watts). I'm not interested in upgrading this machine, but in the future, should I only buy Intel/Intel to insure ease of installation and solid, stable performance? I don't need to overclock for performance, I just don't want to have to download and install dozens of drivers (like I frantically have had to do for my VIA chipset along with a couple of special hacks to try and improve stability).

Any thoughts on the subject? It seems like Intel might still be the standard that Windows is designed to work with. I can't imagine with all the plethora of different chipsets, video cards, cpus, etc. that every combination can be as stable. Should I simply buy a large company's computer (such as Compaq, HP, Sony, Dell, etc)? Are they any more stable than a homebuilt? (They certainly cost more.)

Anyone's input would be appeciated.

Thanks,
Condor Beedee

 

[Peter]

No, you should combine stuff that works together. That's the trick. There are no inherently unstable components in the retail market (apart from the occasional screwup - for which you'll quickly see press coverage).
It is you, the system builder, in whose hand the stability lies.

Like with that 250W PSU. You KNOW it's inadequate. Why are you even asking?

That all said, the three main reasons for unstable systems today:

* Bad RAM. Above all.
* Inadequate (weak, poorly regulating) PSUs.
* Cooling issues, on CPU mainly.

 

[mechBgon]

Yeah, if you want a stable computer, buy quality-brand parts and also do a little research. If you want an example of one possible setup, here's one I like a lot: click. These have been working really well and I think I'll build similar ones for next fiscal year.

 

[Fallen Kell]

You shold also look at what OS you use if you want stability. I'll give you a hint, it isn't made by MS... But that enough of the flame/rant. Just about most quality products will work perfectly well. The only ones you will have issues with are ones which try to bend the rules for extreme speed/performance.

(on a side note about stability: I am/have been working on a P3 400 with 96 megs of RAM for 135 days now without needing to reboot or kill services (i.e. telnet server, ftp server, webserver, mysql server). I would call it stable on this OS, but when WinNT or Win2000 it crashes about once every 2-3 days, and with Win9x about every day...so you be the judge, its not always your hardware that causes instability)

P.S. Clarification, it has be up and running for 135 days straight, not implying that I turn it on and off every day or night like it could sound like from my above statement. Also it has only been 135 days because that was when I loaded a new version of the OS onto it, otherwise it would be over 290 days (which is approximatily when I was given the system and put linux on it in the first place).

 

[lycurgus]

At the risk of inviting flames, I would say that it's hard to beat an Intel processor on an Intel chipset (bettter yet, an Intel mobo, as long as you're not OC'ing 😉 ). However, that's not to say that you can't have a perfectly stable AMD system. Also, the mobo / CPU are far from the only cause of stability problems. Any component can screw up the whole system. I've read about people with problems that were traced to a bad modem! The rest of the system was fine and a bad modem caused system problems. Of course, RAM, HDD and O/S would be major sources of problems. As far as a major vendor like Dell et al, the only advantage there is the person putting it together and setting it up (presumably) knows what they're doing. That and the fact that if they suspect a bad component when putting it toghether they simply toss it and take another one off the shelf (not usually an option when you've order the components yourself over the internet). There's no reason to believe that Dell etc. have access to 'better' components. In fact they usually use lower end OEM stuff, and you can usually do better yourself if you buy component by component. Of course, again that assumes that you know what you're doing.

 

[floccus]

Hmm.. you want rock solid stability... Ok, ready to pay? Intel Xeons coupled with those nice server/workstation boards are the most stable you'll find. Designed to work 24/7 forever (well, 3 years max really) and not fail. If you have cable/dsl, then you're set to go with integrated Gigabit ethernet.

Of course, lets look at this in the real world... you can't afford that... so maybe you should look for a little more than just reliability.

 

[wicktron]

75% of the time, the cause for an unstable system is that thing thats between the keyboard and the chair.

 

[Shade4ever]

AMD is perfectly stable, provided that you build it properly. Stability issues come purely from use of less-than-adequate hardware (esp. Ram & PSUs), and Windows...and from what I've seen, primarily Windows.

Oh, and one other thing - I'm willing to bet that an Intel/Intel combo like you mentioned originally would still crash if you tried to run it off a 250W supply...surely your current machine must be worth something to you, why not invest in a decent one? I saw a mention of $15 300W name-brand PSUs in the Hot Deals thread, you might want to look.

 

[Condor Beedee]

To direct this back on track a little. The problem and concern I had was that I bought all of the recommended components from this website. A highly rated board, Crucial memory (that I run at default levels). Everything is set on my system to be stable, but I keep having it crash. Now, it may be that the power supply is the problem. I don't remember anyone talking about it as much 2-3 years ago when I put this together. But what also worries me, is that there are a lot of driver issues with the AMD and special private hacks (such as the Latency hack) that are supposed to fix all these problems. I would rather not buy another computer that needs these special fixes. I just want one that runs reliably.

The reason I haven't bought a new power supply for the computer is that I am planning to move in the next two months. I have to sell the computer in the move anyways and just don't want to mess with it. Once moved, I'm going to either put together another system, or buy one. I'm just tired of all the "tweaking" necessary to keep the thing running.

The thought occurred to me that Dell or whatever might know which components "matched" so that everything worked well from the start. It sounds like that probably isn't the issue as most quality manufacturers products should work without issue.

So there is one person sticking his neck out to say that Intel might be a more stable solution. It will have to run Windows XP as I'm used to it and don't have any interest in learning to use Linux (does Linux run Office?). The rest of you haven't had any real issues with AMD, despite which chipset? I really have come to dislike my VIA stuff because I feel I am always chasing faulty drivers.

Maybe I'm just repeating myself,but let me know if you have any other thoughts.

Condor Beedee

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: lycurgus
At the risk of inviting flames, I would say that it's hard to beat an Intel processor on an Intel chipset (bettter yet, an Intel mobo, as long as you're not OC'ing 😉 ). However, that's not to say that you can't have a perfectly stable AMD system. Also, the mobo / CPU are far from the only cause of stability problems. Any component can screw up the whole system. I've read about people with problems that were traced to a bad modem! The rest of the system was fine and a bad modem caused system problems. Of course, RAM, HDD and O/S would be major sources of problems. As far as a major vendor like Dell et al, the only advantage there is the person putting it together and setting it up (presumably) knows what they're doing. That and the fact that if they suspect a bad component when putting it toghether they simply toss it and take another one off the shelf (not usually an option when you've order the components yourself over the internet). There's no reason to believe that Dell etc. have access to 'better' components. In fact they usually use lower end OEM stuff, and you can usually do better yourself if you buy component by component. Of course, again that assumes that you know what you're doing.

I was whondering how long before a Intel Fanboy would come in

I have built about 60+ machines with AMD all the way back from K6-2 up to Athlon MP's and XP's. The only problems I ever had was some early K6-2 and Soundcard problems. Once I kicked creative out of the system I have never had any major problems.

Intel and AMD are just as stable as each other, BUT AMD has been winning the best bang for your buck, so 90% or so of the systems I build are AMD with 8% Intel and 2% Via/Cyrix (Like the Epia boards).

I am using a nForce2 board and a overclcked Athlon running at 200Mhz FSB and it is 100% stable.

Right now I would get a nForce2 board with a Athlon XP. For less than $190 you will have a fast chip that if you choose will overclock like a champ, and a board that comes with Ethernet, firewire, USB2.0, support for 400Mhz Athlons, and a GREAT 5.1 sound card.

 

[lycurgus]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: lycurgus
At the risk of inviting flames, I would say that it's hard to beat an Intel processor on an Intel chipset (bettter yet, an Intel mobo, as long as you're not OC'ing 😉 ). However, that's not to say that you can't have a perfectly stable AMD system. Also, the mobo / CPU are far from the only cause of stability problems. Any component can screw up the whole system. I've read about people with problems that were traced to a bad modem! The rest of the system was fine and a bad modem caused system problems. Of course, RAM, HDD and O/S would be major sources of problems. As far as a major vendor like Dell et al, the only advantage there is the person putting it together and setting it up (presumably) knows what they're doing. That and the fact that if they suspect a bad component when putting it toghether they simply toss it and take another one off the shelf (not usually an option when you've order the components yourself over the internet). There's no reason to believe that Dell etc. have access to 'better' components. In fact they usually use lower end OEM stuff, and you can usually do better yourself if you buy component by component. Of course, again that assumes that you know what you're doing.

I was whondering how long before a Intel Fanboy would come in

I have built about 60+ machines with AMD all the way back from K6-2 up to Athlon MP's and XP's. The only problems I ever had was some early K6-2 and Soundcard problems. Once I kicked creative out of the system I have never had any major problems.

Intel and AMD are just as stable as each other, BUT AMD has been winning the best bang for your buck, so 90% or so of the systems I build are AMD with 8% Intel and 2% Via/Cyrix (Like the Epia boards).

I am using a nForce2 board and a overclcked Athlon running at 200Mhz FSB and it is 100% stable.

Right now I would get a nForce2 board with a Athlon XP. For less than $190 you will have a fast chip that if you choose will overclock like a champ, and a board that comes with Ethernet, firewire, USB2.0, support for 400Mhz Athlons, and a GREAT 5.1 sound card.

"Intel Fanboy"?!? Ouch. Well I did say I expected to get flamed. I stand by what I said, but I did say it is possible to have a perfectly stable AMD system. If you've not had ANY issues with AMD, it's probably because you know what you're doing, and are smart enough to have avoided issues with 'problem' chipsets like the Via KT133 and KT266 (note, no 'A'). As far as 'bang for your buck', I agree, AMD all the way. BTW, you might be interested to learn that I'm currently running a Tbred on an nForce2 board. 🙂 Hey, I know a deal when I see one. 😉