http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/06/03/msi_amd_btx/Morley said:
still not out.
I'd toss that in a spare btx case in seconds if it were available.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
What keeps you going to Intel?
- Thread starter gerbiaNem
- Start date
still not out.
I'd toss that in a spare btx case in seconds if it were available.
Chris_Morley
Former [H] Consumer Managing Ed.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2000
- Messages
- 3,609
No it doesn't. I've used a P4 840EE @ 4Ghz and I've used Athlon 64 X2's. What you're describing is nothing more than a placebo.NulloModo said:
Chris_Morley
Former [H] Consumer Managing Ed.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2000
- Messages
- 3,609
Well, it's easy to build a system that sounds like a jetliner...but trying building a dual core system that is cooled by only one fan, and that includes two hard drives and a Geforce 6 class card...NulloModo said:
It's just sublime to me...
pxc said:
It's just that I've had stability problems with my most recent Intel rig. In fact, it was even more unstable than most of the AMD rigs that I've had.
Though to be fair, either my Intel motherboard or the PSU that was connected to that mobo at the time that's causing the serious stability problems on that Intel rig.
Yeah, there are 6/7 slot BTX systems like the Dell XPS and other systems.NulloModo said:
This is a micro BTX case, but it still illustrates the improvements in slot reorganization and airflow in BTX form factor: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=905747 see the last post for pictures.
contoursvt
n00bie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Messages
- 32
I buy intel processors for the quality and stability of the intel chipsets. VIA boards tend to suck for their IDE / SATA performance unless they have promise controllers or other brand of controllers, then I have to deal with possible instability issues with those brands. Intel chipsets have proven to be the most stable of anything I've used. My 440BX board was great and my Xeon GX chipset was solid too as is my current 875p based dual xeon board. I have built many systems for myself, friends and clients and as stable as AMD systems can be, they still have odd quirks once in a blue moon... and thats too many for me.
Morley said:
True, but, I'm so used to the sound of my computer running in the corner of my bedroom that I can't go to sleep at night if it is turned off... kinda sad.. I always miss that fan whirr when sleeping somewhere else as well, it's just comforting white noise.
Chris_Morley
Former [H] Consumer Managing Ed.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2000
- Messages
- 3,609
Yeah, but I'm sure you don't want that noise at work.NulloModo said:
I built my first rig Intel because of the support. If I was to run into problems, I knew there would be plenty of help. Intel products have served me well. I use the "if it aint broke, don't try and fix it" attitude when choosing platforms. I realize that a lot of people seem to need to have the absolute latest, greatest, fastest rigs available. That works for them. For me, I want to build it and never have to open the case up again. Or at least as few times as posible.
A teacher in a computer class I took had a saying that went something like this.
"Nobody has ever been fired for buying Cisco or Intel."
I take that as meaning buy product with a proven track record and you'll not regret it. So far, this has worked out good for me.
Intel works, thats why I keep buying them.
A teacher in a computer class I took had a saying that went something like this.
"Nobody has ever been fired for buying Cisco or Intel."
I take that as meaning buy product with a proven track record and you'll not regret it. So far, this has worked out good for me.
Intel works, thats why I keep buying them.
serbiaNem said:
For me it's as shallow as perceived brand quality.
My first "modern" (lol) computer was a Pentium 133mhz. This system was always stable (even considering the operating systems of the time). The only time it would freak out is when I would do something "stupid". I lugged this thing to college. While in college I went AMD for my upgrades. Had/have a K6-3 450mhz and a K7 800Mhz (slot A). Those systems were constantly giving me problems. Random crashes in games, odd reboots while doing non-tinkering stuff... things like that.
After fighting with driver versions, driver/update/patch install orders for so long, I decided that I wanted to build a system that would "just work". At the time I could safely say that about an intel system. I built my P4 3.0E system about a year ago. It has been an absolute pleasure to use. It has really been great being able to use the computer rather than dink with the configuration of it all the time. Sure I may not get 10,000 bungholio marks like my friends, but I have not had to tell any stories of my system locking up right as I was about to pop someone in BF2 either.
Sooo.. things I'll admit - the AMD systems I've used in the past were probably unstable due to the crappy chipsets that were on the mobo (ALI and VIA). AMD is probably more mature and stable than when I've used them in the past. AMD wins the benchmarks now.
However, I would probably choose an Intel system if I were going to build a new one. "It just works tm" is holding more and more weight in my decisions [aka: blind perception of brand quality. and aka: I'm becoming an old fart.] Shallow and narrow minded, sure. but it's just the way I work and it makes me feel good.
I've built a few of both and I have been an Intel fan for years... I currently have a venice at home and looking to get an OPty 146.
Intel setups are very, very stable. AMD are good but not as stable as the Intels. I think it will change with the Opty' though.
The 630 looks like a great chip but the crossroads of ddr 2 and then a lot of boards not supporting the PD simply drew me away.
Outside of HT there really is no reason to go Intel right now and in the short future either. Until boards drop down in price and get this whole chipset mess out the way... AMD. I can't believe I'm saying htis. LOL 939 is great... hoping M2 is a continuation of this.
Intel setups are very, very stable. AMD are good but not as stable as the Intels. I think it will change with the Opty' though.
The 630 looks like a great chip but the crossroads of ddr 2 and then a lot of boards not supporting the PD simply drew me away.
Outside of HT there really is no reason to go Intel right now and in the short future either. Until boards drop down in price and get this whole chipset mess out the way... AMD. I can't believe I'm saying htis. LOL 939 is great... hoping M2 is a continuation of this.
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
Problems with non-Intel chipsets.
NVidia
Nf1, NF2 & NF3 have made great progress
Nforce 4 is the best yet..... but still not "perfect"
http://forums.nvidia.com/lofiversion/index.php?t8171.html
specifically for the NF4 IDE/SATA problems & incompatibilities.
And unless you're doing a bit check comparison on all of your files you may never know about it.
VIA - do I even need to say anything
Sis/Uli - actually getting better all the time
NVidia
Nf1, NF2 & NF3 have made great progress
Nforce 4 is the best yet..... but still not "perfect"
http://forums.nvidia.com/lofiversion/index.php?t8171.html
specifically for the NF4 IDE/SATA problems & incompatibilities.
And unless you're doing a bit check comparison on all of your files you may never know about it.
VIA - do I even need to say anything
Sis/Uli - actually getting better all the time
Morley said:Yeah, but I'm sure you don't want that noise at work.
Heh, true, but at work I use a Centrino laptop (Dell D800) which is virtually silent. So, another reason to go Intel
. I was thinking a bit more, none of my ventures outside of Intel territory have served me particularly well.
I've run an old 486, a Pentium 100, a Pentium 133, a Cyrix PR166 (I think) a K6 (300 maybe?) a K6-2 450, and a Pentium4 2.4. I had niggly little issues with all of the AMD/Cyrix systems, but none with the Intels.
Plus, I think Cedar Mill is going to really narrow, if not obliterate the performance deficit. Netburst would be on top if it weren't for the clock speeds not ramping up fast enough and the inefficient memory access, and least Cedar Mill fixes one of those problems.
1. AMD announced that BTX would not be supported because it places the ram too far from the cpu socket.
2. Tom's Hardware did a torture test of both an AMD and Intel system and found the Intel less stable. (this was bleeding edge hardware, however, but this is an enthusiast forum..)
For the record, all three of my AMD system haven't had crashes, even while overclocked. My laptop currently has an uptime of 20days on XP32 even with running servers and games. My X2 has been restarted a few times to play with some ram timings and what not, but it has gone through hours of encoding and gaming without a hitch clocked at 2.45ghz. Then there is my old compaq k6II-533 box in the corner of my room which has been on constantly (nearly continuously) on since 98 with only an upgrade to winxp. No crashes or problems besides a dead cd drive, fan not working due to dust, and computer case chipping away (via chipset).
The only problem with my nvidia chipset stems from the nvide drivers waiting longer than I want to boot my system. I just use the microsoft drivers and I'm golden. And for the person that said the 840 was smoother, I have to agree on the placebo effect. My X2 is always as fast as my laptop's idle, no matter what I'm doing in the background. My laptop on the other hand can get overburdened.
Edit: The thread should have read: "What keeps you going to netburst?"
2. Tom's Hardware did a torture test of both an AMD and Intel system and found the Intel less stable. (this was bleeding edge hardware, however, but this is an enthusiast forum..)
For the record, all three of my AMD system haven't had crashes, even while overclocked. My laptop currently has an uptime of 20days on XP32 even with running servers and games. My X2 has been restarted a few times to play with some ram timings and what not, but it has gone through hours of encoding and gaming without a hitch clocked at 2.45ghz. Then there is my old compaq k6II-533 box in the corner of my room which has been on constantly (nearly continuously) on since 98 with only an upgrade to winxp. No crashes or problems besides a dead cd drive, fan not working due to dust, and computer case chipping away (via chipset).
The only problem with my nvidia chipset stems from the nvide drivers waiting longer than I want to boot my system. I just use the microsoft drivers and I'm golden. And for the person that said the 840 was smoother, I have to agree on the placebo effect. My X2 is always as fast as my laptop's idle, no matter what I'm doing in the background. My laptop on the other hand can get overburdened.
Edit: The thread should have read: "What keeps you going to netburst?"
Where did AMD announce that? That was the "enthusiast" speculation/theinq rumor. Look up a few posts, MSI showed an A64 BTX board.serbiaNem said:
(edit) anandtech has a better picture: http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2431
serbiaNem said:
The truth to that is that AMD wanted extremely short traces between the CPU and the memory socket. Switching to BTX and its extremely long trace between the CPU socket and memory sockets will actually increase the total memory latency astronomically. Intel systems work for BTX only because its memory controller is still located on the motherboard (since current Intel desktop CPUs still lack an integrated on-die memory controller).
serbiaNem said:
In fact, that test started out as a comparison between two different SLI platforms (both using NVIDIA nForce4 SLI chipsets). The nForce4 SLI Intel Edition motherboards which !!!'! !!!!!!!! used at the start of the torture test crapped out in one way or another, so !!!'! !!!!!!!! had to complete the torture test with a reference Intel i955X-based motherboard, which did not support dual PCIe x16 graphics cards (let alone SLI). At that point, !!!'! !!!!!!!! had to disable SLI on the AMD setup (and removed one of the two graphics cards) in order to match the single-card Intel setup. And even with the replacements, the reference Intel mobo had to be replaced once during the tests. (By comparison, the AMD mobo was never replaced - not even once - during the torture tests.)
serbiaNem said:
I agree with that last line.
No, it was a Gigabyte/Epox NF4 and Asus 955X "pre-release test platforms" and 3 boards failed for various reasons. One reboot was due to using the wrong heatsink (see page 10 for complete log): http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/stresstest-08.html. The Intel system was stable after replacing the faulty pre-release motherboards.E4g1e said:
The AMD system used a release Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-SLI motherboard. THG was never able to get a working NF4 test sample before the 18 days were over.
I have deff. put my time in using both systems, and I prefer AMD better. I'll admit VIA chipets were buggy, but since nforce nothing but smooth sailing in my eyes. The day amd gets their chipsets perfect is the day you will say Intel who?
InternationalHat
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,481
I run intel on some of my computers because socket 478 boards and Celeron D's are sooo cheap and perform/overclock pretty well. I wouldn't even consider running an Intel chip in my desktop because they offer nothing competative at the very high end. I do, however, trust their server chips. I'm avoiding anything Dual Core by them like the plague after all the dell Pentium-D machines I've seen having thermal issues.
I like intel more than AMD generally just as a brand-recognition kind of thing. Lately, they've just made some terrible choices like rambus and all these new ultra-hot, low performing chips. In laptops, I love the centrino. I have a Northwood 2.8c in my current laptop and it runs wonderfully fast.
I like intel more than AMD generally just as a brand-recognition kind of thing. Lately, they've just made some terrible choices like rambus and all these new ultra-hot, low performing chips. In laptops, I love the centrino. I have a Northwood 2.8c in my current laptop and it runs wonderfully fast.
serbiaNem said:
and thus is how war began... I'm not loyal to either company, I just buy what performs the best and gives me the least amound of headaches.
This past year I have come to find out that 939 NF3 is just the opposite of the headache part...
intel [email protected]..
I've gone Intel because of enjoying my track record with them. As long as I stay in the top-end of motherboard choices, with good brands and enough research, my Intel machines have been great gaming and work-related.
I'm now, for the first time since my Amd k6-2 300, thinking about going AMD with an Opteron 165, Neo2 platinum, and my current ram & vid card since my mobo/cpu melted (ic7 max3, 2.8E prescott on a peltier/tec cooler, pump broke while i was out of house, melted many things, blew up tubes, boiled water, etc).
So I'm now debating between a P4 630 (3ghz 775) on a DFI lanparty 875p or an Opteron 165 or 170 on a MSI K8n Neo2 platinum.
Decisions... right now I'm trying to figure out what will give me better multitasking performance while running Photoshop, Premiere, Flash 8, ftp programs, winamp, email, and notepad at the same time. If the 775 is going to be better, i'm going that way. If the opteron 165 can beat the 3ghz p4 then i'm going that way.
Yes i'll be oc'ing both to the max my xms 3200 ram can support.
I'm now, for the first time since my Amd k6-2 300, thinking about going AMD with an Opteron 165, Neo2 platinum, and my current ram & vid card since my mobo/cpu melted (ic7 max3, 2.8E prescott on a peltier/tec cooler, pump broke while i was out of house, melted many things, blew up tubes, boiled water, etc).
So I'm now debating between a P4 630 (3ghz 775) on a DFI lanparty 875p or an Opteron 165 or 170 on a MSI K8n Neo2 platinum.
Decisions... right now I'm trying to figure out what will give me better multitasking performance while running Photoshop, Premiere, Flash 8, ftp programs, winamp, email, and notepad at the same time. If the 775 is going to be better, i'm going that way. If the opteron 165 can beat the 3ghz p4 then i'm going that way.
Yes i'll be oc'ing both to the max my xms 3200 ram can support.
Ultra Wide
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2000
- Messages
- 1,396
price, i get in on the Dell deals and intel ends up being pretty cheap. And I love the platform stability and maturity. Performance is not a huge concern for me since after 2.0GHz everything is about the same for everyday tasks.
before the Nforce chipset, I would never even consider AMD since VIA chipsets were so buggy. But, Nvidia changed all that and provided AMD with a great platform.
I have a BTX right now and the only good thing over ATX is that the heatsinks are finally in the right orientation like AT used to be. Also I like the 120mm fan blowing across the CPU and the 80mm right below it blowing through the case. BTX is nicer than ATX to me.
before the Nforce chipset, I would never even consider AMD since VIA chipsets were so buggy. But, Nvidia changed all that and provided AMD with a great platform.
I have a BTX right now and the only good thing over ATX is that the heatsinks are finally in the right orientation like AT used to be. Also I like the 120mm fan blowing across the CPU and the 80mm right below it blowing through the case. BTX is nicer than ATX to me.
USMC2Hard4U
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 6,157
Because every time I build AMD the system doesnt seem like it is running good.
I never get that problem with intel. Its probly a placebo effect and or user error, but whatver, it is good enough for me
I never get that problem with intel. Its probly a placebo effect and or user error, but whatver, it is good enough for me
I prefer to have both so I can have the best of both worlds, since unlike some people I really love BOTH Hyperthreading is really nice, yet A64's gaming performance is insane, etc etc both have very nice perks and I dont consider either "better" than the other.
Hyperthreading is really nice, yet A64's gaming performance is insane, etc etc both have very nice perks and I dont consider either "better" than the other.it would be nice to have both, but i cant seem to convince myself to spend that sort of money.
until then i will most likely stay with intell, although i am currently undecided as to what my next system will actually be. i just like intels because i know them?
until then i will most likely stay with intell, although i am currently undecided as to what my next system will actually be. i just like intels because i know them?
MC FLMJIG said:
It depends on the motherboard. Many Socket 939 motherboards require PCI Express graphics cards. Thus, you have to factor the price of one into the cost.
Same thing with Intel. All of the currently-produced Intel motherboards require a PCI Express graphics card (unless that motherboard has onboard graphics capability). In addition, you will likely need to replace your existing DDR memory with DDR2 memory on newer Intel motherboards.
E4g1e said:
Yep, i was looking at just putting a faster cpu in here and an agp nvidia 6800. That for me is a cheaper option than going up to pci-e, a new cpu and mobo. That is why I'm staying intel for the time being. Well that and it makes me kinda nervous to go to a slower clock speed (unfounded fear sure) I need to try it before I buy it,
That's too rich for my blood. My whole system including WinXP and a decent video card needs to cost a max of $650. The A64 in my sig is at the max of my budget.MC FLMJIG said:
Most of my Dells cost $500 or less (yes, with a decent video card). The best Dell deal I got around 3 years ago was a P4 2.4GHz, Radeon 9700, 40GB, WinXP, burner, etc for $170AR.