Why is intel so much more stable than AMD?

boredtodeath

Banned
Aug 11, 2004
53
0
0
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?
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
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.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: boredtodeath
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?

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.
 

assemblage

Senior member
May 21, 2003
508
0
0
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.
 

charloscarlies

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2004
1,288
0
0
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Because your university sucks at buying/building AMD?

Flamebait.

- M4H

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.
 

TStep

Platinum Member
Feb 16, 2003
2,460
10
81
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Because your university sucks at buying/building AMD?

Flamebait.

- M4H

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.
 

ZobarStyl

Senior member
Mar 3, 2004
657
0
0
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.
 
Jan 31, 2002
40,819
2
0
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
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.

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:

LOL, second that.

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.

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.

AMD can be equally as stable as an Intel system.

Five to one, AMD > You. Shut it, no0b.

This post typed on an Intel-powered machine.

- M4H
 

Mik3y

Banned
Mar 2, 2004
7,089
0
0
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.

:D
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,103
16,015
136
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
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.

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:

LOL, second that.

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.

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.

AMD can be equally as stable as an Intel system.

Five to one, AMD > You. Shut it, no0b.

This post typed on an Intel-powered machine.

- M4H

Agreed (without the personal slams)
6 to one !
 

Adn4n

Golden Member
Aug 6, 2004
1,043
0
0
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.
 

assemblage

Senior member
May 21, 2003
508
0
0
23000+ posts is a lot of posts. Must have internet access at work. Might work for the government as a manager in an office.
 

ALIEN3001

Member
Jun 24, 2004
30
0
0
but sthe celerons are clocked twice as high as the AMD Athlon chips.
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).
 

AnonymouseUser

Diamond Member
May 14, 2003
9,943
107
106
Originally posted by: boredtodeath
Is it just a flaw in their way of manufacturing the chips as a whole?

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.
 

imported_RobJ

Member
Jul 27, 2004
90
0
0
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
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.

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:
- M4H


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.

 

orangat

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,579
0
0
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.