Which CPU brand to get??

[ezdriver]

I was all set to get an AMD XP 1800+ system, then read some posts about AMD CPU failures and the lack of quality control in their product. I then looked at the Intel line, and boy, what a price difference that is! I love gaming (that will be the main use for my rig) and want speed AND stability. My question is......discounting overclocking, what is the AMD failure rate compared to Intel. I don't want to buy a system and have to continually worry about replacing the CPU. I don't overclock either. Thanks.

 

[ku]

i've never heard of consistent failure in AMD products.

 

[TechTalkie]

AMDs rule.....they are NOT consistent of quality or stabilty.In fact couple an athlon with a board from asus and you are ensured rock-solid stability even a an 100mhz+ overclocked speed.....a definete plus for your games

 

[Kingofcomputer]

<< I was all set to get an AMD XP 1800+ system, then read some posts about AMD CPU failures and the lack of quality control in their product. >>

AMD cpu failures - that must be some idiots didn't install the heatsink and fan properly.
Lack of quality control - that must be the same idiots didn't use a good power supply and heatsink and fan.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Pick any you can afford. You'll be happy with either one.

 

[sanz]

Pick any you can afford. You'll be happy with either one.

Short, accurate and to the point. One of the best reply I've seen in a long while.

 

[Snoop]

<< I have an AMD rig right now, and wish I was on Intel... I'm even thinking of gettin' a puny Celeron instead of my 1GHz Duron. Reasons? Stability, stability, stability, stability, stability... Need I go on? >>


Yes, go on and give some evidence to back those claims.
IMO, the stability problems experianced on most AMD systems, is not the AMD CPU or even the chipset, but is in fact the ignorance of the builders. Intel has more leverage to get their chipset drivers etc. incorporated into products, thus when building Intel systems less legwork is required for setup, so newbs 'I wont mention any names' have less of a problem achieving a stable setup. AMD systems require a tad more thought, a person new to computers can easily setup a stable system, but need to spend a little more time learning the basics, ie. chipset drivers, bios settings, etc.
If you dont mind spending a little time to actually learn about building computers, go with AMD.
If you rather not bother spending time to learn how to properly build/assemble/config a system, just slap it together and load windows, and dont mind spending more and getting less, go with intel.

 

[Ionizer86]

Buy an AMD CPU. If you crush one XP1800+, you go buy a new one. The two together cost less than a P4 2.0ghz. Of course, the chance of crushing the CPU is 0.001% if you have at least half a brain (like all of us) and the chance is 1% if you don't have a brain.

Stability is chipset dependant. If you want stability to go along with the XP1800+, may I recommend the AMD760 chipset and the GA-7DXR or MSI K7 Master motherboard (never owned either, but read good reviews).

 

[Ausm]

<< I have an AMD rig right now, and wish I was on Intel... I'm even thinking of gettin' a puny Celeron instead of my 1GHz Duron. Reasons? Stability, stability, stability, stability, stability... Need I go on?. >>



I think you need more firepower then that to back up your reasons

I think AMD systems are VERY stable in the hands of a competent person

Ausm

 

[Kjazlaw]

AMD systems ARE stable... i've setup my own and about four others for some rather computer-incompetent people. HOWEVER... i upgraded from a bx-based p3-800 to a tbird 1.33 GHz on a kt266 ddr chipset and noticed almost zero difference. a little faster boot time (who cares) and faster gaming performance. ahh, the subjective "feel" factor... to me it felt like my intel system was just as fast if not faster. plus, i've never "felt" quite comfortable with this via chipset. i also hate having to install additional drivers to optimize performance and such. i don't have any evidence, i just felt better with an intel system which is why i'm switching back. yeah yeah, i'm biased and i have no real solid reasons, but that's the whole point. who's going to notice 10 points on a cpu benchmark or even 100? it's all about making a decision and being comfortable with that.

 

[Wind]

AMD. Cheaper & perform better than equivalent clock Intel. Stability...i think Intel might just have tht "slide" edge. But being normal user...u won't notice the different.

AMD issues (most discussed): -
1. Heat issue (O/Cing related...so not concern you).
2. Fragile core (Intel is as fragile as well AMD if u install wrongly)
3. Power hungry...true. Generally AMD CPU use more power than Intel. W/ 300W PSU...most probably not an issue.
4. Chipset support. AMD based chipset is maturing. No rpobs here.

U decide.

 

[DARTHSINDER]

Always used AMD, and always will, Intel is too expensive and doesn't live up to hype.

 

[ezdriver]

Thanks for all your input and info everyone. Making the jump from Intel to AMD is a big one (for me!), but if speed and price are in the equation, then ya just gotta do it. My set-up will be:

Athlon XP 1800+
ASUS A7V266-E board
ASUS GF3 "Original"
Micron PC-2100 512MB
SB Audigy X-Gamer
IBM 40GB HD

I'll just put 'er all together (with a little extra TLC) and keep my fingers crossed. Cheers!

 

[veryape]

You will be fine with AMD. The only reason it seems to you that there is a lot of problems with the AMD line of processors is because the same people keep rehashing the same old stories and just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and......well, you get the point. They have one problem with an AMD processor, usually their fault due to inexperience building systems or overclocking inexperience, and that problem gives them the idea that since they screwed up that somehow AMD is responsible and since it's their first time not using an Intel they feel the need to bad mouth AMD.

Most people here can tell you that if you do your research before building you should be quite happy with your AMD build. I have had my Athlon Classic for over two years, it's overclocked and I have had absolutely no problems with it at all. So do your research, because that is the most important part of the equation.

 

[FrustratedUser]

<< Pick any you can afford. You'll be happy with either one.

Short, accurate and to the point. One of the best reply I've seen in a long while. >>



[Bowing and saying thank you]

 

[slicksilver]

<<

<< (never owned either, but read good reviews). >>



ECS K7S5A also got only excellent reviews. But I'm not brave enough to get this board... >>



I took the biggest risk of my life by ordering this...........Considering that I live in India (we dont have a ECS distributor here) and got it imported from the USA, I was scared to death on whether it would work or not..............BUT THE IMPORTANT THING is that it WORKED........I haven't used any better board than this .........my board is ROCK SOLID and STABLE.........I'm lucky that I got an old rev 2 board.........I believe most the the rev.4 boards give problems with the amd 1.4ghz processor..........

ezdriver::

Whatever you do get the AMD processor..........Tell you what, Amd is the best thing that happened to me in my computing life(I've upgraded from the shi!!y celeron)..........Whatever Intel does , Amd does it better

Best of luck mate

Raj

 

[Insane3D]

Enjoy your new system. If you need any building tips or help, feel free to send me a PM (private message) with any questions you might have. I will be glad to help and make your new system build as smooth as possible.

 

[rbaibich]

I'd choose AMD, but with a twist: get a good MoBo. Almost every stability problem I encountered with an AMD processor was, in fact, caused by the MoBo chipset. I have an Athlon 1 GHz running w/ an ASUS A7V133 MoBo (Via KT133a based) and it's the most stable system I ever made.

 

[CraigRT]

I don't give a crap what anyone says about AMD and stability.. IF IT'S NOT STABLE, IT'S EITHER NOT SETUP RIGHT, OR SOMETHING IS DEFUNCT!

I have an AMD Athlon T-Bird 1333@1500 (150 FSB) CAS2 memory settings and everything running 100% solid for weeks at a time (at least).. absolutely Zero stability issues whatsoever, after having a rig like this, there is absolutely NO need to go back to Intel and pay more for something that is not as good. I don't know what people manage to do, to get bad stability out of AMD rigs, but all of the ones I have built or seen offer kick ass performance, and are totally stable..

I would get the XP1800+ if I was you, just make sure all the other important components like motherboard and memory, are of good quality (and PSU) and you'll have a kick ass stable rig that is lightning fast!

bottom line: Neither of the CPU's are fault for being unstable, either Intel or AMD can be unstable in the right circumstances. or both can be running perfect, it's not the CPU maker's fault. my last 2nd last intel based system based on an Asus P3B-F was not as stable as my latest AMD rig, yet everyone used to say that was one of the best BX boards around.. i'm MUCH more pleased with my K7T Turbo LE...

 

[ezdriver]

Thanks, Insane, just may take you up on that sometime.

 

[Zoltarc]

I have an AMD Thunderbird 750 @ 900. I can bump up the FSB and the CPU can handle it fine. No "crappy AMD stability" stuff at all. This PC is on 24/7 and can break 30+ days uptime easily (provided I don't go to a LAN )

I have built several AMD rigs in the past months. The latest is an AthlonXP 1600 and the oldest is a Duron 650. All are LAN PCs and have been pushed to their limit with NO problems what so ever. You can't say AMD has poor quality control. That can't be the case. CPUs are extremely sensitive and delicate devices. AMD can't afford to get bad press. Before the Athlon came out the company just made copies of Intel chips. Now they are turning heads and reaming the P3s/and P4s clock for clock and not clock for clock.

If AMD has poor quality control I?m sure there would be more posts saying ?Oh dear I bought a Athlon because it was cheep, and now its died.? However unless I am going crazy I haven't read any like that. I?m sure I read that AMD has a very modern fabrication lab. These labs are expensive and no one wants to invest billions in something that?s going to turn out ?crap? chips.

I?m not an AMD zealot, I like Intel?s too. But in my opinion AMD?s quality control is equal to or better than Intel?s.

If your having problems then I would say that there is a very good chance that something else is broken or YOU are at fault.

 

[sandorski]

Kjazlaw: Installing additional drivers is what you'll need to do with new Intel mobo's too. Unless you go to WinXP, then even SocketA mobos don't need "additional" drivers. The reason the BX didn't require drivers, is because they were already part of the Win98+ driver set. BX did have performance enhancing drivers, you just never had to install them manually.

 

[Daovonnaex]

The main cause of supposed AMD instabilities whom install coolers (Vapochills especially) improperly that apply too much pressure to one point on the die, thus causing fissures in the core. The P4 has a steel heat spreader that keeps it from cracking so easily, but if you remove the spreader, it's as fragile as any other. AMD processors run so hot because they're trying to wring nine operations per clock cycle out of a very antiquated x86 architecture that should've been replaced years ago, whereas Intel's P4 only does 6 operations per clock cycle.