Why is intel so much more stable than AMD?

[assemblage]

I have a Cyrix 6x86MX-PR200GP 75/150 2.9v. I'll sell it for... wait omg it's not in the box. Somone stole it!

 

[orangat]

Heh I had the K5-150 and wished I got the Cyrix until Quake came out.

 

[flexy]

you are either a troll or very uninformed.

Same with the eternal "Via is bad" debate - i have/build AMD/Via systems for a long time and never had a problem with it - even with overclocking the *** out of my systems.

My current system (which i will replace soon with A64 Socket 939) is AMD Xp1800 (oced to XP 1900) and a Soyo Dragon VIA KT266A board. Incredible stable and dependable system.

 

[WT]

but sthe celerons are clocked twice as high as the AMD Athlon chips

What do you mean by that ? Are you saying the Celeron's are 2.8ghz and the Athlons are 1.4 ? Dunno if you were just exaggerating or you are in fact correct, but the AMD would probably still compete with a Celeron at that speed. Its just not a fair comparison at all, similar to saying a Mac is more stable than a WinXP PC.

 

[RussianSensation]

It's called the causal attribution error. If you view AMD cpu as a human being, then you are trying to determine whether the behaviour (instability in this case) stems from mainly internal or external causes. For AMD to be unstable, high consistency and consensus must occur. In other words, you cannot simply suggest that AMD is less stable based on 1 inference or an opinion coming from you, a very narrow source in a sense that you viewed a small subsample in the whole sample space. I suppose, it is human nature to simply assume that because 1 or few AMD cpus are unstable, that all of them are unstable. In other words, the fundamental attribution error is more likely to occur since it is far easier to expain someone's (or in this case something) actions in terms of his or her traits than to recognize the complex pattern of sitational factors that may have affected his or her actions.

In this case, you have to consider other factors which could have affected the stability of the computer system such a damaged motherboard, faulty BIOS, corrupted operating system, poor quality power supply or overheating caused by insufficient airflow due to poor case design or ineffective cooling equipment.

 

[AkumaX]

dude, everyone knows a celeron is the best value processor, and ghz speed is better than everything

 

[Gannon]

Geez looks like we have a lot of religious hardware fanatics in here. The guy asks a simple question and the flaming begins.

AMD's used to be less stable then INTEL, way back in the day in the pre-athlon days. Things have changed a lot since then. I personally agree with everyone in the thread saying that the reasons the system crash could be for any number of reasons. Correlation does not equal causation!

Everyone has had BSOD's on INTEL and AMD for any number of infinite reasons, ever try swapping out motherboards on a winXp and athlon system without doing any registry/driver and other "pruning"? you can bet on a nice big BLUE SCREEN on either of them depending on what devices / hardware was installed prior. In my opinion there definitely are quality control issues with *all* hardware, especially the very first revisions or releases of processors, motherboards, and totally new bus/peripheral connection technologies. It's just a fact of life nothing will *ever* be perfect, thats why you wait for a while before jumping in. But this has nothing to do with processor stability, there are so many factors you got to narrow it down before saying "X is 'crap', Y is 'better'".

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: AkumaX
dude, everyone knows a celeron is the best value processor, and ghz speed is better than everything

i'd take a celly 2.8 over an fx-55 anyday!

 

[justly]

AnonymouseUser has a very good point

Also, if the Celerons are twice as fast (MHz) as the Athlons, then those Athlon machines are old and the Celeron machines are new.

The fastest DeCeleron available is 2.93GHz (=2930MHz). Half that speed would equal 1465MHz, so at best he is talking about the slowest XP but more than likely it is a Thunderbird or even a slot A version. This would mean the Athlon in question IS AT LEAST 3 YEARS OLD, I wonder how many students have abused that machine.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

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...... amd intel... who gives a shit. i wasn't disagreeing with the point of your statement, just the way you chose to jump his ass. plus, it sounded funny in my head and i wanted to see what it looked like on the screen. i was just trying to point out what a diehard fanboy you are. and again... nothing wrong with that. your dedication and ferver about a product (it's what they want, you know) is funny to me, that's all. you'd think this was p&n or something.

no hard feelings, just funnin'

 

[Trikat]

I wear an AMD t-shirt, not an Intel t-shirt...

 

[LTC8K6]

The AMDs are older and running W98, while the Intels are newer and running XP?
That would be a huge stability difference.

Nothing to do with AMD, though.

 

[Markfw]

There is one possibility I haven;t seen mentioned yet. The OP has not replied ONCE to this thread. That and the name "boredtodeath" makes me wonder if this was posted as a flame post, to see the ensueing flame fest. Actually, I have seen mostly positive and valid information, so maybe we put out the flame.....

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
LOL...... amd intel... who gives a shit. i wasn't disagreeing with the point of your statement, just the way you chose to jump his ass. plus, it sounded funny in my head and i wanted to see what it looked like on the screen. i was just trying to point out what a diehard fanboy you are. and again... nothing wrong with that. your dedication and ferver about a product (it's what they want, you know) is funny to me, that's all. you'd think this was p&n or something.

no hard feelings, just funnin'

Ditto with my post against him. I think it's pretty obvious there that, all other things being equal, they just suck at building AMD. Just like I have to think when building Intel to make sure to throw in the drivers and such properly. I'd wager they didn't even install the 4-in-1's on the VIA boards.

And you just can't get enough of my ass, can you.

- M4H

 

[Mik3y]

well, the OP posted at 1:18 pacific time, and he lives in the UK, so it must have been early night for him then.

 

[Alastria]

I've been using a Athlon XP 2000 for 2.5 years, and I haven't had a single BSOD. None. I am using an ASUS mobo and Kingston RAM. Again, as long as you don't buy el cheapo stuff, its very stable.

I am going to upgrade to an Athlon64 very soon. I'm not planning on purchasing a P4, because a computer should never be a fire hazard.

 

[PumpActionWalrus]

I have a lot more problems with intel over amd, it may not be the actual chips, as in your case, it is the installation, the motherboard or ram maybe, could even be power supply or inadequate cooling or the cpu or any of the above listed components

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

Originally posted by: Machine350

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Because your university sucks at buying/building AMD?

Flamebait.

- M4H

LOL, second that.

thirded

 

[CraigRT]

Why is intel so much more stable than AMD?

lame noob question

 

[RobsTV]

Originally posted by: PumpActionWalrus
I have a lot more problems with intel over amd, it may not be the actual chips, as in your case, it is the installation, the motherboard or ram maybe, could even be power supply or inadequate cooling or the cpu or any of the above listed components

Same thing here.
If I looked at 100 service calls, equally split between Intel and AMD, the "hardware" problems would heavily fall into the Intels, while the software problems were the majority of AMD users woes.

This makes sense, since AMD users or buyers seem to be more cutting edge, or willing to try more stuff than the Intel Insiders, so the AMD systems are usually found to contain more downloaded crap that corrupts systems.

Intel systems are usually found to be more of the corporate mold assembly line type, using cheap power supplies and components with more limited lifespans.

If I did not pile it on high enough, please do.

 

[carlosd]

Intel more stable than AMD???? WTF. Since I have AMD systems I don't know what is a crash.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Well stability doesn't really have anything to do with CPU's unless you are OCing. Yeah some CPU's are better, but the last time AMD's were not too good was in the K6 days, K6-2 began to challenge intel. AMD cpu's are awesome.

-Kevin

 

[uOpt]

The answer to the original question is easy:

worse chipsets (with worse drivers), worse mainboards (with worse BIOSes), worse RAM used in the "value" AMD solutions, and AMD has been notorious for putting out whole quantities of bad processors during the 90ties. And until recently, AMD was always using up more power, producing more heat, not transported away with the inferior fans used in AMD "value" computers.

You can ruin an Intel system's reliability and problem-freeness easily by using a Via-based mainboard and doing other nonsense but the "classic" Intel chipsets like BX and now i875 are on a statistical basis much better than anything you could get for AMD until recently.

I am getting a Socket 754 NForce3 based board this week, I realy hope that is better than that stupid Via Socket A one.

 

[Elcs]

The only instability with my AMD systems is PEBKAC.

PC's are much more stable than humans it seems... especially me.

 

[Compddd]

Zebo don't diss on Community Colleges dude