Soldato
stigggeh said:
Here here
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Vs Intel
- Thread starter IwantanewPC
- Start date
Here here
Who cares which is the most stable @ stock. Most here will overclock there rigs above and beyond a 'stable' level, be it intel or AMD (and hopefully back down to a 'stable' level. Many people have differing opinions on what is stable and what is not. I have the benefit (or hinderence) of using Intel @ work and AMD @ home. My home PC crashes more because of excessive OC'ing, the works PC's also crash occasionally which are at stock. Probably the most stable PC I had was an old Acorn Electron...dosn't exactly make it a better PC. now does it.
Until Intel release something worth shouting about and can back it up with clear outright better features for the 'enthusiast' user, my vote (and loyalty) are with AMD - Faster, cooler, cheaper and stable if used correctly.
Until Intel release something worth shouting about and can back it up with clear outright better features for the 'enthusiast' user, my vote (and loyalty) are with AMD - Faster, cooler, cheaper and stable if used correctly.
stigggeh said:
well having had three intel systems in the past and my last one being a 3.4ghz prescott. I think I can make a valid comparison.
Like I have said earlier, I chose to move to AMD after the fiasco with getting a new setup with a 925 chipset on its release and then being informed that i would need to get a new 945/955 chipset to utilise the new dual core cpu's.
that was it
fleabay got my intel and I got a new single core AMD rig.Knowing full well that All i needed to do was flash the bios to utilise the dual cores cpu's on release.
I have never looked back.I should have got an AMD from the start.
My then AMD was COMPLETELY stable with no issues over my intel rig it replaced .
It was faster!
The mobo was cheaper!
And all i did for dual core goodness was flash the bios!
I am no fanboy at all I buy what gives me the best performance with the least hassle.And I must say AMD was my saving grace.
There is no way I was gonna let intel get there hands on my dollars again!
less performance for more money.....Yeah right!
Last edited:
Soldato
badbob said:SLAUGHTER those who insult Intel!
BEHEAD those who insult Intel!
Thats the spirit, although I feel that Slaughtering and beheading's is letting them off to lightly
Intel, they don't give a toss about the so called "enthusiast" market, it's just a very very small piece of the big pie. If you don't like them then go buy AMD, they can't be bothered less. Do you think corporates' heads of ITs, housewives, people who haven't heard of the word "overclocking" or even an average end-user will look at the flipping benchmarks or 3DMark scores before they order a PC? No!!! There's no point of arguing the pros and cons of AMD and Intel here where 99.99% are AMD users.
Play S Club 7 CD's before you kill them, and they'll actually look forward to their death just to stop listening to the "music"! 
all together now
"Reach for the stars
Climb every mountain higher
Reach for the stars
Follow your hearts desire
Reach for the stars
And when that rainbow's shining over you
Thats when your dreams will all come true"
all together now"Reach for the stars
Climb every mountain higher
Reach for the stars
Follow your hearts desire
Reach for the stars
And when that rainbow's shining over you
Thats when your dreams will all come true"
Soldato
I see what you are saying stigggeh. I used to have the king of the hill P4 3.0Ghz HT northwood. I did notice the loss of HT when I went to a 3200+ winnie and did miss it. I don't srgue intels are bad processors, but currently they are playing catch up to AMD and currently AMD is on top. I am a gamer so made the switch and didn't regret it.
Associate
AMD FOR THE WIN
*sits down with popcorn to enjoy the show*
*sits down with popcorn to enjoy the show*
Soldato
How can it be 'more' stable'? A system either is or isn't stable, I don't see how there can be any middle ground!lowrider007 said:Who said there was, oh dear looks like i,ve upset part of the AMD fan club again,
I'm just saying that an Gen Intel system with Gen Intel m/b with intel chipset is more stable than an AMD with thirdparty match up, maybie only by the slightest of margins but none the less more stable, THATS IT,
God these forums don't give Intels users not even an inch, YES YOUR AMD CHIPS ARE FASTER, YES THEY RUN COOLER, YES THEY ARE CHEAPER, but you can't take away the that that Intel make proberbly the most stable chipsets in the world, i'm sorry I not trying to hurt peoples feelings but thats a well known FACT.
Soldato
p4radox said:
You can't b serous please, are you telling me you've never heard such statements like "yeh A m/b is pretty good etc, but B m/b is more stable etc" or "yeh I like A chipset but I,ve found that B chipset is more stable",
The problem is that people think that if you build a system and it works with out any problems (initially) then that system is 100% stable, which is not the case, for example, you say that your system has never had any instabliltiy problems to date, so there-for you say "my system is stable", now say you go out and buy the exact same components you have in your system and build a duplicate system, right,
now you put both systems on a work bench and leave them on doing the same automated bench tests etc, now in the end one of the machines will giveup/crash out first, they will not die or have the same instability problem at the same time, now accroding to you both these systems are stable, but I say the one that lasts the longest is the MORE stable system.
Even 2 cpu's from the same company, same spec, one will be more stable than the other, overclocking these chips shows that up as one usaully performs better than the other, nothing is 100%, one system may be 99.97% another may be 99.67% stable etc, the thing is most of the time you won't come across that 0.33% or 0.07% instability, but depending on which components you use and how you use them then the chances of hitting these small percentages will be more or less.
Last edited:
Soldato
lowrider007 said:
No, I'd say they were both unstable. As far as i'm concerned, a stable system is one where it will never crash or fail (with the obvious exception of mechanical damage, or simply dieing of 'old age' so to speak. No CPU will last forever - but I'd hardly class it as being unstable if it died completely after 10 years at 100% load).
Course I have, but we're probably talking about overclocking now. An unstable system after overclocking can hardly be "blamed" on the chipset, rather on the person doing the overclocking (although obviously better chipsets yield better overclocks). If we're talking about systems at stock speeds, then without a doubt a system should be stable at 100% load, 100% of the time. If it's not, then it's not stable, and the faulty part should be returned.
Soldato
p4radox said:Course I have, but we're probably talking about overclocking now. An unstable system after overclocking can hardly be "blamed" on the chipset, rather on the person doing the overclocking (although obviously better chipsets yield better overclocks). If we're talking about systems at stock speeds, then without a doubt a system should be stable at 100% load, 100% of the time. If it's not, then it's not stable, and the faulty part should be returned.
Are you being serious or are you yanking my chain, not even the manufacturers of these cpu's, motherboards, chipsets etc can tell you that thier products are 100% percent stable, this is due to the manufacturing process of chips etc, they know this, if you walk into an intel cpu development labratory and said "scientificly how stable would you gage your current cpu percentage wise" and he would say something like "99.98%" or less proberbly, and every chip being manufactured would be different, it may be by 0.05% but different all the same,
Like I keep saying nothing is 100% stable, no system on this planet will "NEVER crash", so by your eyes then that would mean no system is stable, eh, exactly, even at stock speeds your telling me that all the current chipsets out there are all as stable as each other as long as they are not faulty, that is just madness.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 1,375
On the stability arguement:
Intels are not more stable. It's just people that use them just aren't as inventive at crashing computers.
Joking apart there is a lot to be said for this. The disproportionately high number of crashes on AMD systems is unquestionably related to the fact that people who use AMD do so because of their love for speed and power. This mindset does have a propensity towards crashing computers as a result of pushing hardware further than it was designed to go.
EDIT: Obviously there are levels of stability. Even off the shelf the attitude of manufacturers is that their product is stable enough to be sold without getting too many people returning the darn things.
Intels are not more stable. It's just people that use them just aren't as inventive at crashing computers.
Joking apart there is a lot to be said for this. The disproportionately high number of crashes on AMD systems is unquestionably related to the fact that people who use AMD do so because of their love for speed and power. This mindset does have a propensity towards crashing computers as a result of pushing hardware further than it was designed to go.
EDIT: Obviously there are levels of stability. Even off the shelf the attitude of manufacturers is that their product is stable enough to be sold without getting too many people returning the darn things.
Soldato
man_from_uncle said:
Exactly.
Soldato
you really have no clue what you are talking about do youlowrider007 said:I love it when people come on here an actually think they know what they are talking about,
An AMD system matched with THIRD PARTY chipset and THID PARTY M/B will not be as stable, I am not saying that intel cpu's are better, I'm saying that an Intel based system is more stable, Yes an AMD system will be damm stable pair'd with the right gear but not qiute as astable as an all out Intel system, I have not came to this conclusion through owning a couple of systems but through working with and repairing PC's for over a decade.
Compare systems not chips as the chips don't run by themselfs if they did then, yes they are of equal stability but they don't, half the time its down to the chipset that determins how stable the system is and if your saying intel make unstable chipsets then your proberbly be the first person I,ve heard say that, ever.
Soldato
Overlag said:
Really, lol,
Care to enlighten me instead of your overly intelligent response there mate
Soldato
lowrider007 said:
In my experience, systems can, and should be perfectly 100% stable. I've owned an Athlon 1333 which was never overclocked, but using an SiS chipset never once let me down. It's still in use to this day and the machine is on pretty much 24/7. I've had a 2500 Barton which was clocked at 3200 speeds all of its life and once did a 2 day Prime torture test not once failing on me. I now own an Opteron 146 and this is perfectly Prime stable for days on end also.
I think this must boil down to our definitions of stable. I define "unstable" as a system which has been configured correctly by some who knows what they're doing, that will freeze or lock up at stock settings, and is directly down to the CPU playing up at its current speed with its current chipset. I'm not talking about a crash which is due to someone incorrectly installing/uninstalling software, filling their HDD with junk, or contracting spyware or anything like that.
Different chipsets offer different features and different compatibilities with bits of hardware and pieces of software. An NF4 chip will indubitably allow a much higher HTT speed than a Via K8 chipset, but the Via might perhaps offer a higher SB bandwidth or something. I wouldn't go so far as to say "an NF4 based system will crash less often than a similar Via based system", or visa versa. Likewise, I would never say "Intel systems are more stable than AMD ones" because if they're not stable, then it's down to some idiot filling it up with junk and incompatible bits and pieces, someone overclocking too far, or something overheating.
Maybe you're right about chips being "99.98%" stable (whatever that means anyway), but that should still mean it will never fall over under normal use.