At my university, we have in one of our many computer labs a mixture of AMD computers and Intel computers. I could almost see the AMD being less stable if they were clocked high, but sthe celerons are clocked twice as high as the AMD Athlon chips. The machines that are intel based never crash, but the one i am assigned to, and AMD, seems to get a blue screen every 30 minutes or so, same for the rest of my fellow students who use the AMD solutions. Is it just a flaw in their way of manufacturing the chips as a whole?
Why is intel so much more stable than AMD?
- Thread starter boredtodeath
- Start date
m4h......
you're such an amd fanboy, you should have their logo tattooed on your hairy, pasty a$$. the kid's just curious. take a midol and relax.
you're such an amd fanboy, you should have their logo tattooed on your hairy, pasty a$$. the kid's just curious. take a midol and relax.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I use a mix in my business, never had a stability question with AMD. I'm switching to all AMD because they seem to perform better at given price points.
Hardware (caused) instability is far more likely to be caused by ram (or a power supply) than a cpu.
My computer never crashes unless I download some pirated stuff and a terrorist takes over my computer to launch terror hack attacks on the unsuspecting American broadband users without firewalls or to set up a spam relay or p0rn site. However, I find that with my AMD computer sometimes I visit sites and get so many popups that I have to restart the computer and sometimes someone I know will use my computer and the home page will be set to a dirty site and I can't change it back.
Agreed. I've always been somewhat of an Intel fan in the past...but AMD has swayed me with their better price/performance ratio for the type of apps I run. Absolutely no stability issues whatsoever...and both of my rigs run 24/7 all year long.
Agree: Owned, built, used alot of different setup based on each platform. Has always something I've done *cough*, I mean user error, in the setup that has caused instability.
AdamK47
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 15,678
- 3,531
- 136
AMD can be equally as stable as an Intel system. AMD got a bad rap a long time ago with being unstable. It wasn't AMDs fault though, it was motherboard manufacturers. VIA and others at the time didn't have stable board chips and were using inferior quality parts. A lot of that has changed for the better now.
Reliability is 99 percent of the time not the processor but everything else you put into the computer. I mean, I work at a university residence hall and every problem I fix (I'm volunteer tech support for my residents...which means they knock on my door at 3 am when their Compaq BSOD's) is on a Intel based rig, but that doesn't mean I assume Intel processors just plain suck. Every instance of comp failure I see is either user error or ugly Dell BS (too little, too slow of RAM to run all their preinstalled crapware)...I don't attribute the issues any computer has to the single most stable part in the damn thing.
Your perverted fantasies of my firm, toned, smooth derriere have no effect on the fact that his school sucks at building AMD systems. Here's a few responses from people who don't:
Five to one, AMD > You. Shut it, no0b.
This post typed on an Intel-powered machine.
- M4H
intel is no more stable then amd.
notice how i was talking in present tense and not 10 years ago. also, overclocking is a horrible method for trying to test amd vs intel overclock stability when comparing less then 10 comps. overclocking is 100% never guaranteed and all chips are different.
you might as well change the topic title to "Why is amd so much more stable then intel?"
why? because both topics are lies.
notice how i was talking in present tense and not 10 years ago. also, overclocking is a horrible method for trying to test amd vs intel overclock stability when comparing less then 10 comps. overclocking is 100% never guaranteed and all chips are different.
you might as well change the topic title to "Why is amd so much more stable then intel?"
why? because both topics are lies.
Well I guess your community college doesn't know anything about computers. If you had any knowledge about hardware, then you'd know about the clock to performance difference of Athlons and Celerons. Dude, you're getting a Dell.
23000+ posts is a lot of posts. Must have internet access at work. Might work for the government as a manager in an office.
When you'll know enough about computers, you'll find out, that a chip with LESS MHz may be faster than a chip with more MHz (1.5GHz Itanium2 is faster than 2.4GHZ Athlon64 FX-53 is faster than a Pentium4 3.6GHz).
Oh dear God my Celeron 2.8 is faster than my FX-53 (2.4) so why does my FX-53 get better benchmark scores? SARCASM
AnonymouseUser
Diamond Member
- May 14, 2003
- 9,943
- 107
- 106
It is those cheap-as-hell power supplies they are using.
The Athlons had higher power requirements than comparable Pentium 3 & 4 cpus, but since Intel dominated the market most cheap-as-hell PSUs were built to the bare minimum requirements for the Intel CPUs. They simply weren't good enough for the Athlons.
Also, if the Celerons are twice as fast (MHz) as the Athlons, then those Athlon machines are old and the Celeron machines are new. FWIW, those old Athlons (with half the MHz) are probably just as fast as those new Celerons.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
No he said it was hairy and pasty. not firm. And by the way TMI!!!!
And instability is usually due to power supply or heat. And isn't midol for women's period cramps?
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
go away moron or do I need to post all the Intel chipset recalls over the years or 31 bugs found in p4 which will blue screen comp? Not that facts or statistics would mean anything to you since you're not too bright having too attend a community college instead of a real university. Buy Intel it's a good product. 875 is thier best chipset northwood thier best current chip.
Hmmm..O/T but I remember the old Cyrix days when tons of fan would constantly exhort that Cyrix was the cheaper and better..and keep ignoring the fact about the extra heat and out of spec AGP timings.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter