Someone explain this to me...[Stability, AMD vs Intel]

(cf)Eclipse said:
i actually see more instability due to user error than actual hardware issues :p
Click to expand...
DUH! intel or AMD most people still use windows (insert "XP is most stable thing since sliced bread" here), which last time I checked, was made by a company with an even worse reputation for bugs, fixes, BSODs, etc than VIA. Today's notion that Intel is more stable is primarily based on one thing, price. There must be some reason intel systems cost more (insert the X2 flames here, they are completely different products, would you compare the price of a brand new dual opteron system to a 2 year old xeon system?), and users come up with a reason, "Intel systems are just better (because they cost more)".
What better way to explain this than with a totally subjective and unscientific stability argument. The whole "intel makes all their own chipsets, so they rock!" story is getting old as well. Intel uses nvidia chipsets, and AMD has made their own chipset in the past, both systems are stable, and windows still sucks.
 
Yea, let's blame the OS for hardware/driver faults.
Personally I've not had a BSOD in years on Windows XP, and that includes various systems, both Intel and AMD, even one with a KT133A chipset (probably a late revision).
So I know what kind of stability to expect with my OS and my applications. If some new system suddenly starts BSODing when I'm doing the exact same stuff I used to do on the stable systems, the OS is the last thing I'd suspect.
 
I've never dealt with an Nforce board, so I won't claim to be an expert there.

But I've had Intel, SIS and Via boards.

Intel mobos are easy like RonDel Rotiseirie Ovens.... you set it and forget.

Say it with me everyone... "Set it and forget it!"

you install the mobo chipset drivers once, if that, and never have to worry about it again.
And as far as compatibility with different memory types, different cards in mobo, etc... They are unbeatable there too.

Via you're constantly upgrading their 4-in-1 drivers, b/c they go back & forth with bug fixes, speed tweaks, then re-adjusting for stability, etc.. apply the wrong one and bam you hose your OS.

SIS I've found to be ok, but have found certain BIOS's to like certain AGP drivers. The 2 most recent don't always work. (unstable for gaming) My Asus P4S333 actually would only run stable with certain older AGP/chipset drivers.

For Nforce, I will be going on hear-say. I've heard good things about Nforce in general. Obviously Nforce4 being the best (all around including stability), and the earlier board progressly slightly worse. But considering how few years Nvidia has beening making motherboard chipsets, thats incredible. I have heard a few people having finicky harddrive problems with Nforce and a few other minor problems. But you may still have to upgrade chipset drivers a few times while owning one.

Now back to Intel, the reason their motherboards are so stable. #1 they build the chip and the chipset. #2 they pretest their chipsets for thousands and thousands of hours with various configurations to ensure stability. They work on their chipsets long before they ever think about releasing them.

Look up Tours of Intel's chipset division and look at their testing facilities. Incredible # of PC's running testing stability, compatibility, etc.

With all of that said. I really like using Intel's chipsets. However, I'm thinking that my next upgrade might be an Nforce SLI chipset and Athlon X2 3800, b/c I should still have my multi-tasking smoothness (dual core) and high end gaming (especially after I do a little overclocking). Unless, Intel gets smart and releases a Pentium M version soon with an 800FSB, PCIe, etc... that would be competitive with an Athlon X2.

But for now, my trusty 875 chipset is still plenty fast enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top