Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1314 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 13 - 05:46pm EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
 

  Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature? 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, Next >>
Anthony Green Feb 21, 2005, 05:59pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List Replies: 36 - Views: 3009
Quite the opposite I have found Intel Bios needing upgrades to become more stable, I run the latest Intel mobo with 1GHZ of DDR ram Ultra 320 15k SCSI's etc and still a basic AMD 64 out performs me, mine cost several thousand dollars to build my friends AMD 64 cost less than a quarter of mine and it whips my arse in every application I have always been an Intel person but AMD 64 shows Intel up and makes them look stupid and at a fraction of the cost so please don't up lift Intel to me cause they simply don't out gun AMD period.


Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
jake Feb 21, 2005, 06:06pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
not that i'm defending anyone here, but have you tried keeping your drivers upto date? this is often the cause for low performance figures.

and you also failed to mention which excat processors you where comparing.

Error 34:
There was no error
Anthony Green Feb 21, 2005, 06:38pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
I run a 3.0GHZ Presscott on an 8KNXP Ultra Gigabyte board, ATI 9800 pro 8X, 15k Cheeta Scsi ultra wide LVD hard drives in 0+1 mode, 2X 512 Pc3200 DDR ram, running XP pro and yes all updates and drivers are current the AMD mobo runs a AMD64 754 pin on a Gigabyte motherboard 512 DDR pc 3200 ram and an 80 gig SATA drive running XP PRO is that any help to and yes all drivers are up to date if that answers your questions

Kelly Irish Feb 21, 2005, 07:41pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
Hmmm.. dunno where to start. First I'll say this, I have (5) Intel P4's and (1) AthlonXP at work, at home I have (2) Athlon64's and (1) AthlonXP 2500+ Barton. AMD's are sooo much better than Intel's in just about every way I can think off. Of the (5) Intel PC's are work, (3) have "Intel" chipsets, and the other (2) have "VIA" chipsets .. the one's with the "VIA" chipsets outperform the "Intel" chipsets quite noticably, and the "VIA" chipsets use the Intel "HyperThreading" technology more efficiently too.. the "VIA" is also more stable. Then the AMD AthlonXP 3000+ / 400 fsb at work smacks all the Intel PC's in da face! The AthlonXP 3000+ runs @ 2.1 GHz w/ 400 FSB, the Intel's run @ 2.6 GHz, (2) @ 2.8 GHz, and (2) 3.0 GHz.. the AthlonXP 3000+ @ 2.1 GHz outperforms every single one of them on benchmarks, boot times, multi-tasking, and compressing data. If I compare my (2) Athlon64 PC's it's no contest.. they murder my Intel's at work, I have a Athlon64 3400+ Skt 754 @ 2.4 GHz / 512k L2 and a Athlon FX-55 Skt 939 @ 2.6 GHz / 1mb L2. This all comes from my personal experience with both PC's, I go with what gives me the best performance and reliability for my money, and that's clearly AMD in my eyes. The Athlon64's and Opterons easily outperform in either 32 Bit or 64 Bit anything Intel has. Only thing Intel has over AMD is "advertising". Don't it seem kinda funny how a Athlon FX-55 @ 2.6 GHz can outperform a Intel P4 @ 3.8 GHz? That's an actual 1200 MHz faster in "MHz speed" than the AMD.. I don't know about you, but if I have a processor that is 1200 MHz faster than the competitions, it better not lose in any performance tests. If you match them up evenly in MHz speed (e.g: 2.0 GHz AMD vs 2.0 GHz Intel).. it's no contest, the AMD kills Intel. I know I sound like the average "AMD Fan" .. but I'm only an AMD man cause of personal experiences with both.. and I've come to find that alot of "Intel Fans" have never even owned or used an AMD machine for any decent amount of time, so how can they say Intel's better?

Robert Davis Feb 21, 2005, 08:48pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
In my experience, AMDs almost always outperform their Intel counterparts, quite often a "previous model" AMD processor will outperform Intel's latest, despite the Intel having "better stats". Still, the author's main point is well taken: generally speaking, Intel is usually (though certainly not always!) more reliable and stable than AMD out of the box. AMD have been making a dangerous business decision to focus more on "performance users" who are largely a niche market of hardcore enthusiasts (gamers, hobbyist builders, studio technicians, etc aka most of us who read these articles) than on the average home user (aka the n00bz). The problem is that these noobs are quite often becoming enthusiasts themselves and bring their positive Intel experience with them. AMD will see their niche market shrivel up until there aren't enough of us left to keep their company afloat. Intel sees this tendency by AMD, so they are making the solid business decision of focusing on the basic home/office user. This reminds me of microsoft in the 80's. Macs were clearly superior to Windows pcs, but Macs were geared toward a niche market and Windows' focus has always been the "baby user", often at the expense of the rest of us (like Windows forcing certain configurations on us even if they asre not in our best interest at hand). Speaking of Windows, look at Windows and Linux now.

Brendan Falvey Feb 22, 2005, 07:12pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
Sander raises a valid point I've use both and on cost performance the AMD is better value once the "issues" have been overcome. Intel boards out of the box usually work but not always so. Some of the manufacturers just fail the quality test.

Perhaps if AMD released a basic BIOS and license the se features allowing 3rd parties to add features would be the best of both worlds. This would obviously push up the costs but they must have a basic BIOS for their own development program hence would there be a cost.

An advantage to the industry with a broader development base is that competition will improve the species for the consumer. If we only had Intel what would costs and reliability be like since it would be almost impossible for a new entry to gain any foothold in the market to provide that competition to improve the species

Anthony Green Feb 23, 2005, 06:54am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
It would appear I'm not alone when it comes to AMD being better than Intel especially the 64 chip, I would definately like to hear from anyone running an FX 55 version of it as I feel I've been cheated in buying an Intel mobo as for all it has cost me it simply put does "NOT" deliver the goods compared to an AMD version and for the record I am an Intel fan or should I reconsider that remark "I think so"!

Digitalfixx Feb 23, 2005, 09:51pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
I have had the exact same experiences as put forward by Sander in his article. I pretty much agree as far as stability and reliability go, intel without question has been better in that area and that is by far more important to the main body of computer users. It seems as though that the main issue of the article has been lost on allot of responders who get all worked up over performance. I had mostly used AMD setups for several years but finally decided that I wanted a machine that would just run the tasks needed without locking up all the time (thanks to Via). I have to say that the issues are a little more complicated than just a CPU and chipset. It's the whole configuration working together that makes the machine work right and reliably. I think that a certification process such as Microsoft has tried to impliment is the only way to "ensure" that the parts you use will actually work reliably. Too bad companies just ignore this process in order to save money because in the end it hurts the end user in lost time and more work. Maybe the difference between what Sander is saying and what some of you are saying is that He must take new products and put them through a test process in order to evaluate their performance and realiability then report back to us, (system builders and end users), what he has found. On the other hand, before we purchase hardware we do research by reading all of the hardware evaluations and use that info to make sure we buy only those devices that are reported to be the best, fastest and most reliable so what he sees and what many of those who are choosey shoppers see may be different.

Brendan Falvey Feb 23, 2005, 10:11pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
Built a dual Tyan AMD processor board several years ago and after some initial problems and a second generation board. First one glitched once per day (acceptable). The problem was getting power onto the board the second generation seperated the fan supplies from the ATX power and the glitches vanished. can be a question of overall design and quality not the components

Since then the box has been used most working days (at least 3 years) and one happy user. Only problem since was a tape drive recently.

Boscy _____ Feb 25, 2005, 07:28pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
Well, my take on the whole thing, owning both INtel and AMD CPUs is that nothing worth having comes easy. WHat I mean is that AMD (as said numerous times above) easily outpreforma Intel processors. OK so maybe they have a FEW quirks about them off of the get go, but after that, its like butter. You can't expect everything handed to you, and if all I have to do is download a few drivers to get far superior performance for a fraction of the price, then so be it. It is not that hard, and lately, AMD products have gotten much better about releasing more dependable and compatable products from the start. Also with options like SLI which Intel does not have (unless you invest in 2 processors) and 64-bit forward compatability (again you would need dual intel CPUs) AMD blowd intel out of the water. Read what I said above again, and then think about this, IT TAKES 2 INTEL PROCESSORS TO COMPARE TO A SINGLE AMD PROCESSOR. This applies to forward compatability, and somewhat to performance. Also AMD's generally generate less heat, have better OC ability, and are shown far superior in both synthetic benchmarks and real world apps. WHERE IS THE COMPETITION????

Digitalfixx Feb 26, 2005, 02:54am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
But there really are two types of users out there and Intel is actually still dominating the one type. That is office type users who don't know sh*t from shinola and just want the maching to work reliably. That's why most computers are sold with intel inside. I completely agree about AMD being dominant on the creative power user side. People who like the ever advancing cutting edge technology have only one choice right now and that's AMD. I'm using an Intel machine right now and I'm pretty happy with it but when I build new machines they all seem to end up being AMD based because of the reasons you have all stated, the technology is exciting and getting extremely powerfull. So why build a ho hum computer when you can build a kick-ass unit for less money? The only reason would be for those who really must have reliable plotting workhorses that do the tasks they are asked to do and work properly with the type of peripherals that will be attached to them without spending days trying to resolve little ticky-tack issues, those issues most likely are driver and motherboard chipset related on the AMD machines. That having been said, My next personal build will definately be an AMD 64 based unit, how could it not?

Boscy _____ Feb 26, 2005, 03:53pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
Nicely said...... Where is the competition. There is a reason that there are so many AMD "FANBOYS" out there, because AMD makes a quality product that is cheaper than, and consistantly outpreforms the competition, barnone. I say this, and I own both Intel and AMD cpu's, And I see they difference first hand.

Anthony Green Feb 27, 2005, 11:38pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
AMD vs INTEL, Amd bang for bucks will always tend to outperform Intel which is a known factor however, reliability and stability are equally as important and as I use a "TOP" of the line P4 so I can safetly say that I do "NOT" feel Intel deliver these qualities, it lacks speed it lacks performance and it lacks stability & reliability, I continually have to nurse maid it to use it confortably without hickups.

I can say that if what I have is the very best Intel can manage my next Pc is definately AMD without question!

tom Feb 28, 2005, 06:36am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
Intel just works.

AMD used to be cheaper originally but qwith all the failures of it's more expensice

tom Feb 28, 2005, 06:38am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
Oh, yeah, to the person what started this thread, complaining about the instability of his i875P chipset, shut up, if it don't work it ain't updated properly, and that's no one's fault but your own.
I can get my system also with a 875P from 3Ghz to 3.6Ghz easy, that's how stable it is if you make it work.

tom Feb 28, 2005, 06:41am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
"I use a "TOP" of the line P4 so I can safetly say that I do "NOT" feel Intel deliver these qualities, it lacks speed it lacks performance and it lacks stability & reliability, I continually have to nurse maid it to use it confortably without hickups"

Ha Ha I also have a 3Ghz P4, your statement is such bull, "nursing" your computer to make it work....whatever next. my computer is FAST and doesn't sit in the shadows of a stinking Athlon 64....it logs on in 0.00004 seconds on Windows XP...and it's on a network....shut up boy

Anthony Green Feb 28, 2005, 08:08am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
To Richarddx, what planet do you spring from, I refer to the 8KNXP ULTRA board and yes it runs i875 chip set and yes it has the latest Bios and the latest upgrades and drivers & yes it runs a gig of 400 mhz ram in in dual channel and yes it runs ultra wide LVD SCSI 15K cheeta's in 0+1 raid mode, an 8X ATI 9800 PRO with 128DDR anything else before you think you know about my comments that are flawed according to the gospel of "YOU" Oh and until this up grade I have always been Intel orientated but when an Athalon 64 can whip my arse at a fraction of the cost you bet I reconsider an AMD based Pc and for the record the new 660 Intel overclocked to 5.2ghz is still out gunned by as you put it an inferior AMD 64 FX 55 which was left at its 2.6GHZ which if you can add up is half the Intel's clock speed read the reviews as I do and perhaps you will know what you are talking about next time you rubbish what you obviously do not understand

tom Mar 03, 2005, 08:34am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
To the boy who started this thread, when did I suggest that a P4 was faster than an Athlon 64 FX55? Don't put words into my mouth. Even I am saving up for the FX55. And what I do "understand" is that the 875P chipset with its P4 processor that powers my PC is fast enough and reaches the expectations that I have given its specifications. You are just on here to moan about products that you obviously don't deserve to own, and no one wants to hear it. If your intel computer is such a source of disappointment and a waste of your time why don't you throw it over a cliff edge

Anthony Green Mar 03, 2005, 06:32pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD Vs INTEL
To Richarddx: I'm not the one moaning about the P4 you are because you are stating that they are better than they really are as for throwing it over a cliff grow up you are definateley a yank because you don't care about other peoples feelings or opinions obviously, what I am saying is that for the money I have spent on this lemon Pc of mine it should perform much better than it does as for over clocking a P4 it makes very little difference in real performance compared to an AMD 64 a proven fact and the FX 55 out guns the "new" 660 Intel over clocked to 5.2 GHZ proving that Intel can not compete with AMD's FX55 at "only" 2.6GHZ and AMD processers today are rock steady AMD "now" have the edge on Intel I'm sorry to say Intel needs desperately to look elsewhere in the CPU stakes as a P3 still has a better track record than the P4.
I take no pride in rubbishing the Intel P4 I have always supported Intel based products I just can not justify using them anymore because they don't deliver the goods and are way "TOO" over priced a fact that more and more people are in agreement with every day which is why more and more people are switching to AMD if Intel don't start listening to the people who use Pc's on a daily basis they will lose their percentage of the market completely to AMD I'm just stating the obvious take that how you want but if you were honest with yourself you would say exactly what I am saying, Intel just doesn't cut it anymore and if that offends the Intel fan club well it upset me too as I used to be one of them as well!

tom Mar 03, 2005, 08:49pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
If you have a better computer or a Athlon 64 etc. be glad you have it and don't complain. I have no care as to what processor is in my pc and it works bloody fine, plays games well, whatever, and is fast. There will always be a computer faster than any computer I use, and I don't particularly give much of a crap.
If your intel computer happens to be a "lemon", well there are always computers that may perform for some reason less than they should, and the reason that one does is probably somethng far beyond or irrelivant to the fact that it has an Intel chipset. I used to be an Apple Macintosh guy and I bought my first PC which was an Athlon powered piece of rubbish and it turned out to be a "lemon" because dispite its specifications it underperformed and crashed all the time then died twice.
Some computers are just slower than others. Your computer probably has spyware or something on it. Stop blamig Intel. Everyone is sick of that

Boscy _____ Mar 05, 2005, 06:02am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: AMD chipsets, quirky by nature?
Richardxx
"If you have a better computer or a Athlon 64 etc. be glad you have it and don't complain. I have no care as to what processor is in my pc and it works bloody fine, plays games well, whatever, and is fast. There will always be a computer faster than any computer I use, and I don't particularly give much of a crap.
If your intel computer happens to be a "lemon", well there are always computers that may perform for some reason less than they should, and the reason that one does is probably somethng far beyond or irrelivant to the fact that it has an Intel chipset. I used to be an Apple Macintosh guy and I bought my first PC which was an Athlon powered piece of rubbish and it turned out to be a "lemon" because dispite its specifications it underperformed and crashed all the time then died twice.
Some computers are just slower than others. Your computer probably has spyware or something on it. Stop blamig Intel. Everyone is sick of "

HAHAHAHAHA.... Holy S**T man you are so full ot "it" and yourself. You obviously think you are a computer expert, a god in the I.T. industry, or something else worth greatness. Man I hope no one listens to your full of S**T comments, as they are worthless, and you have no idea of what you are tlaking about. and I quote..." I have no care as to what processor is in my pc and it works bloody fine, plays games well, whatever, and is fast"..... this is what you said, and this proves you obviously don't belong in this forum or to even own anything above an old 386 or COMMODORE 64. I particularly love this part, forgive me for quoting twice guys..."Some computers are just slower than others. Your computer probably has spyware or something on it"... is that your excuse for everything? I bet it is. AMD is better than Intel, no I am not an AMD fanboy, and actually I used to favor Intel until they started realeasing overpriced, under-performing, pieces of scrap. Especially thier new 600 series. And for you newbies out there reading this, I am sure everyone else in here will agree with me too, DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS A-HOLE! he has no clue what he is talking about. Well thats my 2 cents, later all


Write a Reply >>

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, Next >>

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.