What keeps you going to Intel?

[Darakian]

They have a better laptop chip and will for the foreseeable future. I am waiting on yonah to get a new laptop and I have an x2 in the mail to replace the winchester in my sig. IMO intel for lappys and AMD for desktops... for now anyway

 

[wee96]

Intel systems arent more stable than AMD's, I just needed to say that because I keep seeing people claim this.

 

[contoursvt]

Ummm you keep seeing many people say intel systems are more stable, but you somehow feel compelled to say its not more stable? Ok well next time maybe you should find a forum where people talk about the color of grass and you can tell them that its not really green either

Sorry I had to poke fun a bit. I'm going to write down every computer I've ever owned so at least this way I can say that in my opinion, intel is more stable...

Intel 386DX25 on a noname board with Opti chipset - this was pretty stable

Intel 486DX33 - on biostar motherboard - rock solid

Intel 486DX2-66 on asus board - bulletproof

Intel Pentium60 on asus board - bulletproof

Intel P120 on Amptron board - FX chipset... ok but not the most stable system

AMD K6-233 on P55T2P4 HX board (still have this). Amazing stability but some small compatability issues and some programs felt kinda slow

Intel P233 MMX on Asus P55T2P4 HX board. Very stable and definitly faster than my K6 of the same clock speed

Intel Celeron 300A on Abit BH6. Very stable and overclockable.

Intel PIII 450 on Abit BX6 rev2 - one of my best boards of all time

Intel PIII 800 on Abit BX6 rev2 ... just dont wanna give up this board

AMD Thunderbird 1Ghz on MSI board VIA KT133 chipset - very stable but slow IDE

AMD Thunderbird 1.33 on MSI KT266a board. Great system but still slow IDE

AMD XP1600+ on MSI KT266a board. Great CPU but somehow less stable now

AMD XP2100+ on Epox KT333 board. Best AMD setup I ever had

Intel P4 2.4b on ASUS 845 chipset board?? Dont remember. Very stable and impressed with the speed

Intel 2.4c on Abit IS7 mainboard - holy crap this is fast and stable

AMD Athlon64 socket 754 3000+ on Asus A8V board - stable but strange ethernet issues and somehow doesnt seem any faster than my 2.4c

Intel 3.0c on Abit IC7 max3 - holy crap again! I'm never switching to AMD ever again!!!

Intel dual xeon 3Ghz on Asus NCCH-DL mainboard - holy crap again!!! I love this box.



These are my boxes alone. I've built amd and intel boxes for friends and clients as well. All I can say is overall, the AMD boxes seem more quircky and not any faster, at least nothing that is noticable. Multitasking has always ALWAYS felt smoother on my intel boxes.


So in my opinion, I think intel systems seem more stable and less quirky and this is a big deal. I'm willing to give up a bit of speed to get this.

 

[robberbaron]

I'm just chuckling at the thought of a system that was recently worked on in my techshop. The ASUS P5WD2 had to be replaced twice before the computer could get all the way through a windows installation. Also, we've had to replace two Pentium D's last month due to being DOA (after replacing the CPU, the system was stable and would install windows), and we sell far more X2's. The X2 has yet to have been returned or exchanged. In my experience with recent platforms, the AMD is much more stable and hassle-free.

 

[wee96]

Umm, well first the grass thing makes no sense on the topic. Ive owned basically every single system you just named, (give or take a few) so my point is just as valid as yours would be. I currently own both if you view the sig, so its not like im speaking without knowledge here.

Ummm you keep seeing many people say intel systems are more stable, but you somehow feel compelled to say its not more stable? Ok well next time maybe you should find a forum where people talk about the color of grass and you can tell them that its not really green either

Sorry I had to poke fun a bit. I'm going to write down every computer I've ever owned so at least this way I can say that in my opinion, intel is more stable...

Intel 386DX25 on a noname board with Opti chipset - this was pretty stable

Intel 486DX33 - on biostar motherboard - rock solid

Intel 486DX2-66 on asus board - bulletproof

Intel Pentium60 on asus board - bulletproof

Intel P120 on Amptron board - FX chipset... ok but not the most stable system

AMD K6-233 on P55T2P4 HX board (still have this). Amazing stability but some small compatability issues and some programs felt kinda slow

Intel P233 MMX on Asus P55T2P4 HX board. Very stable and definitly faster than my K6 of the same clock speed

Intel Celeron 300A on Abit BH6. Very stable and overclockable.

Intel PIII 450 on Abit BX6 rev2 - one of my best boards of all time

Intel PIII 800 on Abit BX6 rev2 ... just dont wanna give up this board

AMD Thunderbird 1Ghz on MSI board VIA KT133 chipset - very stable but slow IDE

AMD Thunderbird 1.33 on MSI KT266a board. Great system but still slow IDE

AMD XP1600+ on MSI KT266a board. Great CPU but somehow less stable now

AMD XP2100+ on Epox KT333 board. Best AMD setup I ever had

Intel P4 2.4b on ASUS 845 chipset board?? Dont remember. Very stable and impressed with the speed

Intel 2.4c on Abit IS7 mainboard - holy crap this is fast and stable

AMD Athlon64 socket 754 3000+ on Asus A8V board - stable but strange ethernet issues and somehow doesnt seem any faster than my 2.4c

Intel 3.0c on Abit IC7 max3 - holy crap again! I'm never switching to AMD ever again!!!

Intel dual xeon 3Ghz on Asus NCCH-DL mainboard - holy crap again!!! I love this box.



These are my boxes alone. I've built amd and intel boxes for friends and clients as well. All I can say is overall, the AMD boxes seem more quircky and not any faster, at least nothing that is noticable. Multitasking has always ALWAYS felt smoother on my intel boxes.


So in my opinion, I think intel systems seem more stable and less quirky and this is a big deal. I'm willing to give up a bit of speed to get this.

 

[osirus35]

- I was always an intel guy.. my friend had an amd back in the day and it sucked (It was before the release of the thunderbird chips, 1ghz intel systems didnt exist yet either and quake 3 was released).

- Bought my rig before amd 64 cpus came out and didnt like the rumor that amds where not as strong in the multi-tasking department (which i do alot of)

- AMD x2 has come out but dont want to spend the money to convert my whole system over. Plus i am really interested to see how intels conroe turns out.

In every instance intel rig was better for me not that intel is better than amd... it all had to do with timing, and the fact that i was already used to intel systems.

 

[Dan_D]

Intel systems arent more stable than AMD's, I just needed to say that because I keep seeing people claim this.

The processors aren't, but Intel chipset based boards sure beat out alot of the cheap ass AMD compatible chipsets that are out there. The nForce series being the one exception to that rule.

 

[stealthy123]

Tualatin

 

[robberbaron]

The processors aren't, but Intel chipset based boards sure beat out alot of the cheap ass AMD compatible chipsets that are out there. The nForce series being the one exception to that rule.

Oh come on, the SiS761 isn't THAT bad

Tualatin

Do you have a Dually Tually?

 

[stealthy123]

Do you have a Dually Tually?

no my tualatins twin brother was laid to rest last year sadly, however the good news is after a brief greaving period I got it up to 1.6 ghz on a single proc board.
I don't care what anyone says pound for pound its still the best proc ever!!!!


GO TUALLIES!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[robberbaron]

no my tualatins twin brother was laid to rest last year sadly, however the good news is after a brief greaving period I got it up to 1.6 ghz on a single proc board.
I don't care what anyone says pound for pound its still the best proc ever!!!!


GO TUALLIES!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, sorry to bring up bad memories. 1.6ghz has gotta be pretty damn quick for a P6 core like that.

 

[stealthy123]

I will put it this way when It was running at 1.6 it was my dad's main rig
Thats pretty much how he upgrades is by what I give him.

I "upgraded" him to a 2800+ sempron, he still bitches his old computer was faster.

I still have the tinybga pc150 ram and my original golden orb....Ima hafta put the old machine back together now.

 

[robberbaron]

I need to see pics of that ram. I remember seeing something similar to that, except it was PC133 I think. The packages had little holographic images on them. It was pretty

 

[stealthy123]

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/kingmaxtinybgapc150128mb/

i lost my memory card for my camera, but there is a review of my exact same ram
it looks just like that.

 

[E4g1e]

The processors aren't, but Intel chipset based boards sure beat out alot of the cheap ass AMD compatible chipsets that are out there. The nForce series being the one exception to that rule.

It also depends on the individual motherboard itself. When I had the D865PERL, it seemed much less stable than it should have been.

 

[Valnar]

Intel chipsets are the reason to use Intel CPU's. Period.
If I could get an Intel chipset with an AMD CPU, then I'd jump ship.

If you buy any piece of software or hardware peripheral - even some obscure PCI card from the far reaches of Korea, it will work on an Intel box. If it didn't, chances are that particular card is defective. If you put it in a VIA or Nforce chipset box, and it didn't work, you *might* think there was an incompatibility problem with your board before ruling it a bad peripheral. Those thoughts don't cross my mind on my Intel box.

Robert

 

[chrisf6969]

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

No one commented or addressed my comments back on page 3.

The problem is the amount of testing required to find out these "little bugs" that in certain configs, certain circumstances, etc..... you have a few bits corrupted out of a 3Gb file is enormous, and only Intel really does that much testing on their chipsets to minimize the bugs to virtually nil.

And truthfully most people would never notice. They might download some huge file have it not work b/c the file was slightly corrupted / checksum failed, etc, so they redownload it and the corruption was less so it still installed & worked.

Intel's certification labs are HUGE. Before they release a chipset it has undergone months of testing on hundreds of PC, using thousands of configurations, etc.. And thats why Intel's chipset drivers rarely have any problems and pretty much never need to be updated VS. Via 4-in-1 and even Nforce chipset drivers.

 

[Dan_D]

It also depends on the individual motherboard itself. When I had the D865PERL, it seemed much less stable than it should have been.

That was something with your particular setup. I've known quite a few people that have D865PERL's and I've owned one myself. It was a solid board to say the least.

 

[vsrdan]

At work I almost always use Intel systems because they are the ones we purchase at work (I don't know the real reason - may be they are more compatible with the applications we use). I recently built several systems for my friends and for those I always used Intels because they are more "user friendly" and bug-free than AMD's. I have an AMD (64 3200+ Venice) based system for myself and I had to spend several weeks until I got it running smoothly and it still has a network adapter problem (Nvidia network controller - this is a hardware issue, it seems). A regular user wouldn't easily figure out such problems. Except the network problem, I am impressed with the speed and general performance of the system and I like it over comparable Intel systems I built. But, I would never build an AMD system for a friend who doesn't know much about computer troubleshooting and fixing things. The only problem I have with current Intel chips is the heating issue. If the system is kept in a basement with a HUGE aftermarket heatsink running, the problem is easily solved

I guess the main problem with AMD is that the chipsets are never bug-free and some software are more compatible with Intel based systems.

For Intel systems, I ALWAYS use Intel chipset based motherboards.

 

[ozziegn]

what keeps me going to Intel? three words: reliability. reliability. reliability.

them AMDs are too damn screwy for my likes.

 

[stealthy123]

i am not an amd or an intel boy I use what works best at the time I use it.

However I am curious, I have had just as many problems with my intel machines as my amd ones, anyone think its just a law of averages that computers break regardless of whats inside it?

actually back in the socket 7 days I don't remember there being a difference at all

 

[Dan_D]

i am not an amd or an intel boy I use what works best at the time I use it.

However I am curious, I have had just as many problems with my intel machines as my amd ones, anyone think its just a law of averages that computers break regardless of whats inside it?

actually back in the socket 7 days I don't remember there being a difference at all

In the socket 7 days, there wasn't a difference. They all used the same motherboards. If you had a good motherboard with an Intel chipset, you could have what ever you wanted CPU wise, although the AMD's weren't as fast typically as AMD claimed they were.

After, that when the Super7 boards came out, alot of junk VIA and SIS chipsets hit the market. There became a considerable difference in quality between Intel based machines, and AMD based machines.

 

[stealthy123]

so then it isn't amd or intel its the chipsets that make all the difference.

most people buy intel chipsets, or used to, and as a result they assume intel was a better proc than amd simply because of chipset issues.

I guess the inside of a computer is the inside of a computer to some people.

I still have an amd chipset board, they weren't half bad, I wish they could still make consumer level chipsets.

and my k6-3 at 600mhz was an intel eating beast back in the days of processor lore.

this thread has made me dig through all my old comp stuff, I burst out laughing when I saw an MMX sticker on the front of "Lemmings"

 

[E4g1e]

In the socket 7 days, there wasn't a difference. They all used the same motherboards. If you had a good motherboard with an Intel chipset, you could have what ever you wanted CPU wise, although the AMD's weren't as fast typically as AMD claimed they were.

After, that when the Super7 boards came out, alot of junk VIA and SIS chipsets hit the market. There became a considerable difference in quality between Intel based machines, and AMD based machines.

By that time, Intel had completely abandoned the Socket 7 platform. Note that none of Intel's Socket 7 processors used an FSB speed any higher than 66MHz. By the time that the Super Socket 7 boards came out, Intel was well into their SC242 (Slot 1) platform - that time, in its second generation with "official" 100MHz FSB support (you've read that right - the introduction of the famous i440BX chipset).

 

[stealthy123]

wow i remember back then intel said that the socket was dead and that slot procs were the future.
amd even went with slot A and I though wow I will never see another new socket processor.


that lasted all of 6 months

what the hell was that slot thing about anyways

 

[BurntToast]

The first Intel that I ever owned was a P3 450Mhz that I managed to OC just a few LAME MHz with my bitchin Alpha HSF.

But before that I had an underpowered AMD K6 233. Which was about equal to a P1 166... MAYBE 200Mhz CPU.

After my P3 450Mhz CPU I got a P3 700E which I OC to 1024Mhz with my ASUS CUSL2 mobo. And DAMN!!!! WHAT A NICE ASS FUCKIN CPU! I was in the 1 GHz club a good year before the retail P3 1Ghz made their way onto the market.

Then again my P3 700E I got an AMD 1.2 GHz thunderbird. But it was a pos, wouldn’t OC past 1.3GHz because of my crappy MSI mobo or something.

So a while back I picked up a P4 1.6A, which I managed to pick up for CHEAP and managed to get up to 2.5 GHz on the STOCK hsf!! But since the pci lock was not there, I couldn’t really use anything other than my PS2 ports, not even usb. It was 101% stable, but the pci lock issue made me sell the CPU.

So then I went with an AMD XP 2500+ @ 2.4 GHz. Why? It HAS a pci lock and was cheap as well.



So I used to be an Intel !!!!!!. But for the past few years AMD has been a little more OC friendly, cheaper for the most part (since when I upgrade the cpu, I ALWAYS upgrade the mobo for the new goodies it has) and that AMD seems to kick Intels butt in gaming.

IMO Intels only good for mobile notebooks. For desktops, they keep getting beat by AMD no matter what they put out.

For the most part my AMD is rock solid. You just have to do some research on the topic before hand to know which mobos are good. If you buy blind, you are destined to fail.

My next CPU will be an Opteron or M2.

 

[FlatLine84]

wow i remember back then intel said that the socket was dead and that slot procs were the future.
amd even went with slot A and I though wow I will never see another new socket processor.


that lasted all of 6 months

what the hell was that slot thing about anyways

As I remember the slot thing was for ease of use, and cooling. But it ended up being much more limited than socket..... as we all know.

 

[iddqd]

I am an AMD fan but I do love the Dothan.. Pentium M is the shiznat, its the only reinovation Intel has done in 4-5 years.

P-M uses the same architecture as most of their other CPUs, the P6. The first P6 chip was the Pentium Pro, so you see, there really is a lack of innovation on Intel's side. They just finally decided to go with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. Still one has to admit, P-M are great chips . I got one myself, in my laptop.

what keeps me going to Intel? three words: reliability. reliability. reliability.

them AMDs are too damn screwy for my likes.

bitter lies. even Intel-loving Tom has showed (and then tried to cover up) the fact that AMD is way more reliable than intel. Remember that 30-day stability test thing? The Intel rig went through 4 different boards, not to mention different video cards. It was also running undervolted, and at about 90C load (as both systems were supposed to bench 24/7).

 

[E4g1e]

what the hell was that slot thing about anyways

Part of the reason for the slot thing is to accomodate a large external (off-die) L2 cache. If that external L2 cache were on the motherboard, it would have had to operate at the FSB speed of 66MHz (Pentium I's did just that). But since the socketed processor package that Intel had at the time was too small to accomodate more than 256K of off-die L2 cache, Intel compromised on 512K of off-die (but still on the same physical circuit board as the processor itself) L2 cache running at half the clockspeed of the processor itself (133MHz in the case of the 266MHz Pentium II). That approach has a big disadvantage: Separate L2 cache chips were very expensive, and couldn't operate at a much higher clockspeed than 300MHz (the clockspeed of the L2 cache on the 600MHz and 600B Pentium III processors). That's why Intel developed the Mendocino-core Celeron, which used an on-die L2 cache design (now standard on today's processors). Eventually, after sufficient numbers on CPUs with on-die L2 cache had been shipped, Intel abandoned the slot for good.

 

[1c3d0g]

• Stability
• Reliability
• Availability.

Those things are extremely important where I live, especially the latter. You can't just go to any store and ask them: "Hey, show me your latest nForce4 motherboard"...you simply can't get any AMD gear without ordering it yourself...just like Apple stuff...

 

[eighteen_psi]

Tom

is a blathering idiot.

And that's the end of that.

Anyone who can't assemble a box, with either platform, that's at least reasonably reliable, reasonably quiet, and reasonably cool has no business running anything but a dell.

But my opinion of Intel chipsets vs. everything else stands. There is none finer. And when the best (nvidia) option (short of the AMD sets that are few and far between) still doesn't quite stack up to Intel's sets, which are mature, well tested and rarely have trouble with much of anything.

As myself and several other people have pointed out, perhaps the greatest reason for going with Intel, for the greatest portion of the enthusiast market, is the Intel chipset. Superior marketing, lineup, past track record and a general predisposion covers most of the basic consumer. The media mogul crowd, like myself, still has much love for the Xeon and it's excellence when paired with a well optimized application, despite being a dated platform.

Again, Intel Chipset + Supermicro Mobo + Intel Xeon = the most graceful & reliable system I've ever built, used, worked on or supported under fire. This includes high buck top-tier Opteron rigs. And that about covers it.

For everything else, refer to my previous post

 

[stealthy123]

supermicro mobo's are nothing short of bulletproof.
I wonder if they could make a good via chipset board?

 

[threedd97]

because I trust Intels, They offer less problems. Intel donates alot of money to chartity and education, intels gives tons of scholorships and gives free technology to schools and promotes science and engineering where amd does none Intels are more stable and run better, they are smoother if you ask me.

all in all, I care about things like education and money given to scholorships and things like that. More important that a few more fps in a game.


amd continuies to suck.

Im building a new system now and It will be a Intel. i will never build an amd system, because they just flat out suck.,

This is like choosing Microsoft over Linux. MS is the larger company with more money and the means to accomplish more tasks while Linux is just a small-town OS that cannot do the things MS can. Now my question is, why do so many people hate MS but love Intel when the two companies share so much in common? I'm not buying a product from someone because they give to charity, are larger or have the reputation for stability and "innovation". What is going on here is "fear of change". Just admit that AMD is on top right now. I've owned nothing but Intels for the past 4 years and I want to switch to AMD so badly I can taste it. It would be so naive to stick with a lesser product just because I think a certain company is the better choice. I want what is the best bang for my buck and right now AMD is holding all the cards. Intel hasn't shown me anything great or worth my money since the p4 c's arrived and that was a long time ago.

 

[c0ex]

I use any one of them. Both companies make great processors

 

[eighteen_psi]

supermicro mobo's are nothing short of bulletproof.
I wonder if they could make a good via chipset board?

Impossible!
They can't make a good AMD board, which is why they don't..this proves Intel > AMD.

..

 

[DeChache]

I have had both AMD and Intel and inregards to stability i almost wonder if some of that is the OS on all three off my systems it has taken at least 3 installs of Win XP to have it be stable.

Just some food for thought. Im rather new to this game.

I had a PIII 500 for the longest time and that is still my favorite chip to bad to mobo burnt up.

I only have one AMD system and the rest are Intel so I shop and get whats best

 

[Dan_D]

I have had both AMD and Intel and inregards to stability i almost wonder if some of that is the OS on all three off my systems it has taken at least 3 installs of Win XP to have it be stable.

Just some food for thought. Im rather new to this game.

I had a PIII 500 for the longest time and that is still my favorite chip to bad to mobo burnt up.

I only have one AMD system and the rest are Intel so I shop and get whats best

I have never had issues getting a Windows XP install to run stable on the first try with 99% of the systems I've put together.

 

[GotNoRice]

I’ve built systems based on Intel and AMD and continue to recommend both brands depending what they are going to use the system for.

To be honest, I’ve encountered very few systems that are “unstable” due to their processors. I’ve had both AMD and Intel systems overheat due to not being dusted out basically ever. I had an AMD system that was unstable but that turned out to be due to the previous owner chipping the core when he put on the heatsink. I recently had a person bring me their old AMD computer that he declared was “unstable because it was AMD” and it ended up being a conflict between his via chipset and an atheros wireless card. (Neither of which have anything to due with AMD).

I have never encountered a system that was unstable due to a poor design of the processor.

The things that tend to make a computer unstable, in my experience, are usually the powersupply, the ram, or preventable heat issues related to the CPU, chipset, or videocard. Why are people complaining that X brand processor is unstable when they are using a 180watt powersupply out of an old Packard bell and some ram from a flea market? (not everyone obviously, but too many…)

I mean honestly, a computer is a culmination of not just numerous hardware devices, but unknown quantities of software and system drivers that may or may not have ever been tested in any particular configuration. If any one of these hardware or software components fails, it has the potential to make the system unstable. Either way, it really has nothing to do with which processor you have installed.

I have a laptop with a Pentium-M because at the time of purchase, I felt that it was the best processor for my needs. I still have it because it continues to fulfill my needs.

My main box has Dual Xeons because at the time I built the system, the Xeons used a much more modern chipset. (Dual channel RAM and AGP8x vs. Single channel and AGP4x on the AthlonMP platform). I continue to use it because it not only meets my needs, but kicks some serious ass in the process

 

[KaptainBlaZzed]

not one damn thing, Intel sucks in my book

they are hotter than crap, the P-D's blow when compared to the X2's, and DDR2 gives no performance gains with the high latencies.

oh and intel is just all around crappy.

I am not an AMD fan-boy, I am just a fair weather computer user and i will use which ever is better and that is AMD for the moment. If intel comes out with something worth buying i will get one, but for the moment AMD is better.

 

[gerbiaNem]

not one damn thing, Intel sucks in my book

they are hotter than crap, the P-D's blow when compared to the X2's, and DDR2 gives no performance gains with the high latencies.

oh and intel is just all around crappy.

I am not an AMD fan-boy, I am just a fair weather computer user and i will use which ever is better and that is AMD for the moment. If intel comes out with something worth buying i will get one, but for the moment AMD is better.

Not a !!!!!! eh?