1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Intel chipsets are the most stable?

Discussion in 'AMD Overclocking' started by Franklin, Oct 15, 2004.

  1. Franklin

    Franklin Guest

    I came across this. Is the guy right?

    <QUOTE>
    Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
    Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
    Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
    companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
    thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
    more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
    combination of these factors.

    Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
    the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
    community. Everyone knows it.
    <END QUOTE>

    http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm
     
    Franklin, Oct 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Franklin

    rstlne Guest


    He only owns p4 systems, so I do hope they are the most stable fo rhim..

    Look at the dates he quoted on some of his "proof"

    Why are you posting this to an AMD group.. You should be posting to a
    chipset group (via, nv, sis, others)

    He also goes to say on that to help stability you should have like 5
    installs of windows.

    He also goes on to say that you should buy asus.

    If your amd box is unstable then chances are it's down to something you have
    done..

    Are intel chipsets more stable.. Yea maybee, Lets not forget that just last
    month they had to recall a shitload of boards, and that their first
    PCI-Express boards out the door have this little warning that says dont use
    your pci-express slots yet.

    /Slaps on hand for Feeding Trolls
     
    rstlne, Oct 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Franklin

    Grumble Guest

    Posted:
    02dec2001

    Sigh... Trolls these days...
     
    Grumble, Oct 15, 2004
    #3
  4. Oh gawd, where's my Nomex underpants?

    Over the years, the above quote has been true ON *and* OFF and with notable
    exceptions. It may still hold right now, somewhat, for an Intel CPU but I
    haven't used an Intel chipset mbrd for 5years now, the last being an Asus
    P3B-F and that, i440BX, *was* one of Intel's best ever chipsets. In the
    meantime, we've had i820/840, i815 and i845... all of which were lacking in
    some way or another. With i865/875 they seemed to get back on track again
    but now, with i915/925, they're trying to play market segmentation again
    and it *will* backfire on them.

    Right now, an AMD CPU on an AMD or nVidia nForce chipset will give just as
    much of an err, "stable computing experience" as any Intel CPU+chipset and
    add some functionality and future-proof into the bargain. "Common
    knowledge" needs to be updated... or the "community" needs to umm, move
    along!<shrug>

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
     
    George Macdonald, Oct 15, 2004
    #4
  5. Franklin

    JK Guest

    I found the article to be very amusing. I guess it was first written when Intel
    fell behind AMD in performance a few years ago. Now that AMD has an even
    greater performance lead than ever before, we see all this FUD and excuses
    why performance doesn't matter so much. This paragraph in particular made
    me laugh.

    "Now that CPUs contain over 50 million transistors and are capable of processing
    information at
    clockrates exceeding 3,000 Megahertz [3 GigaHertz], raw performance no longer carries the
    importance
    it once did. Certainly, speed will always have its place. But it's no longer the primary
    focus. Rather,
    today's PC enthusiast is shifting a critical eye toward system stability."

    Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never provide statistical
    proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be that they can't find any.
     
    JK, Oct 15, 2004
    #5
  6. Franklin

    Tony Hill Guest

    Three years ago (when this article was first written) I would have
    agreed hands-down. Now, I'm not so sure because nVidia has really
    raised the bar.

    Until fairly recently the only companies making chipsets for PCs (ie
    not the high-end stuff from Serverworks, Unisys and the like) were
    Intel, SiS, ALi and VIA. SiS chips were decent but pretty much only
    used on super-low-end stuff, VIA and ALi meanwhile both had very buggy
    drivers and occasionally even buggy hardware (though it was always
    more a driver issue than hardware). At that time, Intel was far and
    away the best bet for stability.

    However when nVidia entered the game, the rules changed somewhat.
    nVidia right out of the gate had VIA and ALi beat cold in terms of
    driver quality and their chipsets were used on higher-end products
    that SiS (if you use low-end crap components on a motherboard with a
    shitty design, it really doesn't matter how good the chipset is, your
    board will still suck). The result of this was two-fold: first off it
    gave a real, viable competitor to Intel for the most stable chipsets,
    and secondly it really forced VIA to pick up their socks. While I'm
    still no big fan of VIA chipsets, my understanding is that their
    latest couple versions have been rather significantly better than
    where they were two years ago.


    Also, Intel is hardly without their own faults as well. While some of
    their chipsets have been good, they have had their own sets of
    problems, ranging from the extremely problematic memory interface of
    the i820 chipset to the very poor quality of the early i810 drivers,
    and pretty much all of us who were dealing with PCs back in the late
    '96/early '97 time frame remember incredibly problematic ATA drivers
    for the PIIX4 southbridge (this caused many people to have to format
    and re-install their entire OS just because they installed patches and
    drivers in a different order than was required).


    Personally, if I were to build a system using an Intel processor, I
    would probably stick to an Intel chipset simply because the only
    advantage of non-Intel chipsets is about a $5 price savings (ie
    nothing). On the other hand, my last 4 motherboard + CPU combos have
    been using AMD processors, obviously all of which used non-Intel
    chipsets (2 x SiS, 1 VIA and 1 nVidia). If I were to buy a new system
    today, it would have an AMD processor in the thing and an nVidia
    chipset on the motherboard, because IMO they are now the leaders in
    terms of chipset driver quality, not Intel.
     
    Tony Hill, Oct 15, 2004
    #6
  7. Franklin

    rstlne Guest

    Ya know.. I have a SiS A/AXP motherboard and there is only 1 fault with it
    Windows will "pause" during startup for up to 2 mins.. Microsoft
    acknowledges that it's their problem and that's all.. I guess there isnt
    enough complaints for them to make a fix BUT they can send yoa a small
    hotfix for it if you want to try it..

    But that's the ONLY problem I have ever had with that board/setup..
    I have 2 intel laptops too that Fedora will not install to, but it installs
    fine to the amd boards I have.
     
    rstlne, Oct 15, 2004
    #7
  8. Franklin

    dg Guest

    find any.

    Maybe so. I don't feel a need to find statistics, but I don't claim Intel
    is more stable either-I just feel like they are. I build my personal
    systems with Intel chipsets and processors because in my experience, they
    are more stable. I had stability issues with AMD and even further back,
    Cyrix. I was turned off to the alternative chips years ago and now I just
    refuse to even waste time with them. I could be wrong, I am sure times have
    changes and AMD wouldn't be around if they were really that flaky.

    Who cares really, if a guy likes alternative chips and thinks they are a
    better deal, so be it.

    --Dan
     
    dg, Oct 15, 2004
    #8
  9. Franklin

    JK Guest

    Alternative chips?

    AMD is now the performance leader. As for you bad experience years ago,
    one has to choose their system components carefully. There are low quality
    motherboards for both AMD and Intel processors, as well as high quality ones.
    One must choose carefully.
    Unfortunately there are still some low quality motherboards being made
    for AMD processors, however there are many high quality ones. One
    must choose system components carefully.
    Again the term alternative chips?
    Do you call a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari an alternative car?
     
    JK, Oct 15, 2004
    #9
  10. Franklin

    Dave C. Guest

    Alternative chips?
    Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
    Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
    Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
    TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
    So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
    one tie.
    GAMING OVERALL: TIED

    Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
    Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
    Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

    Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
    towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

    Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

    Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
    *CPU* and memory benchmarks

    Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
    build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
    better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
    be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
    it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

    The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
    is,
    the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
    P4
    processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
    are
    pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
    being faster on others.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2038&p=1

    Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
    the
    3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
    comparison
    of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
    careful,
    as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
    on
    some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
    you
    will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
    faster
    on some and Intel faster on others.

    http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3329681__1

    Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
    would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04
     
    Dave C., Oct 15, 2004
    #10
  11. Franklin

    JK Guest

    We went through this already several times.


    Not quite.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=10


    Not quite. Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone
    2004.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6


    Not quite. See the Content Creation Winstone 2004 results.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6


    Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6



    Very funny. A $150 Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754 )beats an $815 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
    in Doom 3.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

    A $95 Athlon XP3000+ beats a $210 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6


    http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getarticle=606&go=0.53769656
     
    JK, Oct 15, 2004
    #11
  12. Franklin

    Dave C. Guest

    Yeah, you keep posting the same old tired lies, so I have to keep correcting
    you. -Dave
     
    Dave C., Oct 15, 2004
    #12
  13. Franklin

    chrisv Guest

    Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
    was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
     
    chrisv, Oct 15, 2004
    #13
  14. Franklin

    JK Guest

    LOL! You are the one with the distorted viewpoint. It is annoying to
    have to keep correcting you.
     
    JK, Oct 15, 2004
    #14
  15. Franklin

    JK Guest

    It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in desktop
    performance by such a large margin.
     
    JK, Oct 15, 2004
    #15

  16. Sounds WAY too much like John 'Dave' Corse for me...
     
    Never anonymous Bud, Oct 15, 2004
    #16
  17. Franklin

    Dave C. Guest

    It's odd that all the experts agree with me. I guess everybody but you is
    wrong, eh? -Dave
     
    Dave C., Oct 15, 2004
    #17
  18. Franklin

    Dave C. Guest

    We went through this already several times.
    Not really a flame war. Just a well-deserved smackdown of an obvious AMD
    shill. I'm a huge AMD fan myself, but it's insane the way someone keeps
    bashing Intel. Just seeking a little balance is all. -Dave
     
    Dave C., Oct 15, 2004
    #18
  19. Franklin

    dg Guest

    Yep. They are the alternative to Intel.

    No, but if somebody referred to the vegetable oil fueled cars as
    "alternative fuel cars" I wouldn't object.

    --Dan
     
    dg, Oct 15, 2004
    #19
  20. Franklin

    JK Guest

    Experts? How do you know they are experts? Do they work for Intel?
     
    JK, Oct 15, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.