Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD vs INTEL *For Stability*

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 29, 2006 5:22:34 AM

Ok - PLEASE do not start a war.
Just a few qualified (or semi qualified people) answering please:
Qualified persons would have AT LEAST had 4 system builds of which 2 would be AMD and 2 INTEL...or more.

-Which system is more stable for you.

I was originally already convinced to go with AMD for the first time ever. Intel did a number on me with that RAMBUS pc800 issue awhile back and kinda po'd me. I know it's not them, it's the morons at RAMBUS ...BUT - I can say..
I have had 5 Intel systems. I can HONESTLY say, I have only had my systems crash on me a total of 10 times TOPS (other than stupid software issues like windows bugs etc), in the span of 10 years.
I've had the following systems:
dx2-50
dx2-66
Pentium 133
P-II 300
P-IV 1.5ghz (this system hasn't crashed for probably over, 2 years?? at least??)

I see people talking about 'stability' and 'rock solid' and testing the stability of their systems...not always refering to overclocking..
AND THAT'S WHEN I RAISED AN EYEBROW..
when you are asking if a system is stable, without overclocking..there are issues.

SO - that said...if some qualified people can help me out with their personal experience, I would really appreciate it.

THANKS!

S

More about : amd intel stability

April 29, 2006 5:24:57 AM

I find either AMD or Intel stable products.

If it fails, its either user error, or manufactoring problem.

I've built systems with Cyrix back in the day, and those were stable, just replaced since they were outdated in a matter of months.
April 29, 2006 5:52:37 AM

lol - cyrix! I remember a friend of mine, crappy job - didn't have much, saved up for awhile and researched his heart out to buy the best computer for the cash. This was AROUND the time of pricewatch's hay day, and prior to newegg of course...
he goes to a computer show, still not 100% on what he is really gonna get (or what it all means)..
he buys what he believe to be an intel PII-266 with a good mobo and a good video card at the time (I think it was supposed to be a voodooII card).
He gets home and finds out he has a really low mhz Cyrix, a cheap mobo with onboard sound and video and a really cheap case with BLOOD STAINS ON IT! LOL

Needless to say, he had to go back and fight with the russians selling the cheapos. It was a funny fight with a 'no no...we no returns...all sales ended...come back next week' (of course the show would be over and these guys would be gone)
So he starts yelling about some stuff, I mention calling immigration and the feds and , we get our money back..

Moral of this story = NOBODY liked cyrix!
lol

THanks for the reply btw :) 

S
Related resources
April 29, 2006 5:52:59 AM

I've build dozens of computers with Intel CPUs, and hundreds of computers with AMD CPUs, and I have not seen any major difference in the stability of them. Motherboards and their chipsets, on the other hand, can be an issue.

The main thing Intel has going for them as far as stability goes, is the fact that they make most of their own chipsets. Nobody, one would assume, knows how to create chipsets for their boards as well as the company who makes the CPU in the first place.

AMD, on the other hand, relies entirely on third party vendors. This is kind of a double-edged sword in some cases, but it has led to some of the best chipsets in existance (IMO), such as nForce 2 & nForce 4.

If you're looking to build a system in the near future, either AMD or Intel would be a fine choice for stability. Both are mature platforms which have had plenty of time to have their bugs worked out.
April 29, 2006 6:12:02 AM

Some people claim that, because Intel produces its own chipsets and boards that it somehow has the upper hand when it comes to stability.
This is true, an Intel board is essentially guaranteed to work out of the box, and are very very stable. At the same time, it isn't going to win any memtest awards against an NF4 AMD board. However, I give Intel's ability to produce chipsets and boards the nod because of the fact that it is something very reliable and stable to fall back on when there are many third party AMD board and chip makers.
April 29, 2006 6:16:10 AM

Yeah, I agree with Vimka here. Intel chips generally perform well with their own chipsets as well and that certainly helps them. Stability is a given as, you can buy any chip, board etc. and have a problem with it. I've had problems with 5 nvidia chipsets before and only one Intel chipset in my 13 years experience.

As far as chips go, I can honestly say I've never had a genuine problem with either AMD or Intel processors.
April 29, 2006 6:38:26 AM

can an intel get 32sec in super pi
April 29, 2006 6:46:15 AM

I had both amd and Intel. About 50% of my chips where from Intel and 50% where Amd. Then my brother and me fix computers. Most of the time it user that start problem. Stuff like overclocking with out knowing what they are doing and so on both amd and intel. Then putting the Computer in a spot where they overheat that another Fault. Then there some game software that like some gpus where it will not run on another gpu. (note not cpu) Then Laptops and desktops verys greatly.

Like My Pro-star Intel 3.4 ee L3 2mb cache with 1gb of ram and dual 80gb hard disk and radeon 256mb ram. Seems to play some games better. But stuff like Flight Sim 2005 it could not play it. But my Acer centreno dua 1.66ghz 1gb ram 100gb hard disk intergraded video gpu Ran it fine high res and not crashing or anything.

So the basic rules is this

1 Well ventalation
2 Low overclocking or No overclocking if you want to keep you computer more then 2 years
3 Use more then one antivirus and spyware programs Buy one that automaticly updates. And use a online antivirus program or spyware.
4 run firewall
5 Clean the dust out of your system.
6 Take out old games u dont play
7 keep your windows updated.
8 Make backups or Mirror Images.

Any other ideas post them.
April 29, 2006 6:49:23 AM

Hay read the frist post slavetrader This is not which system is faster or super pi. It about stability.
April 29, 2006 7:16:33 AM

Quote:
can an intel get 32sec in super pi


no, yea I really don't care - lame test of a system if you ask me.

It's like saying 'he's the best player in the world...for one play per game'...
kinda useless..

I need overall performance..


Thanks for the replies so far guys, I think you have convinced me to give AMD a shot. Btw I am not refering to (and I guess I should have specified), servers...i'm only building a gaming machine / @ home workstation.
I honestly thought of the Opteron for a bit, but because of my lack of overclockign experience, the need for more expensive ram and compatible (possibly incompatible) motherboards - I am prolly gonna go with the 3200+ venice - overclock it a bit, buy a nice video card and then be happy for a year or two until I make a decision to retire this system to a family member and build a dream machine (just dont have the money right now, we are remodeling our house)

S
April 29, 2006 7:31:45 AM

while at one time it was said that AMD systems were less stable due to faulty chipsets (Via KT133 or KT266, not the A revisions), later chipset revisions on good motherboards (from makers such as Asus, Abit or Gigabyte) would be able to run rock-stable under heavy load for days on end. The Nvidia chipsets were almost from the get-go rock solid performers (albeit pricey) while SiS' were good, cheap, and stable.

Intel's chipsets hit very high (440BX) or very low (any chipset sporting the MTH) but generally did work very well. While AMD never made chipsets generally available, their reference designs (750 and 760) were also very good.

It is however strange that a Nforce4 chipset, that works very well with the Athlon, once designed for the P4, would crash after a while (see THG's stress tests, I don't remember which one) - so it's definitely a matter of what chip you mate with what chipset, using what PCB.

A good motherboard (say, Asus) with a good chipset revision (Nvidia 6150) and an Athlon of late revision (E4 or more) will be more stable than a P4 on a noname mobo with a chipset it doesn't like (Nforce4 with a beta BIOS).
April 29, 2006 8:23:28 AM

My take on this is that it's never the chips, they are always reliable if properly installed; it's the chipset used with them. I've run hundreds of intel, amd, cyrix, transmeta, and various flavors of IBM ripoff chips like the Blue lightning and never had issues with the cpu's. I still run 2 servers with PIII's and the BX chipset (best ever in my opinion), been running for 7-8 years without a hitch. I've been running an athlon 1Ghz as a server for over 5 years with no probs either.
April 29, 2006 8:29:16 AM

I've got a SunBlade 100 that's run for 5 years non-stop... Does that qualify as stable? Or how about the Sun Netra 100 servers that my company uses for DNS slaves... They have not been powered off for so long that we are afraid to power-cycle them! Now THAT's stable. Or how about my old DEC Itanium powered wap gateway... Two years after EOL it was finally decommissioned.

Point is, 'stable' means many things. If a CPU (and its supporting cast) is overloaded for the task at hand, it will certainly fail early in its life. If it is over-spec'ed, it will last longer, but TCO goes up. Somewhere in the middle lies the 'sweet spot'.

Now, if we could all figure out what that is for everyone's needs, in a cookie-cutter approach, then there would be no need for this or indeed for any forum.

My 2p.
April 29, 2006 9:07:41 AM

Fitzy:

I'm glad that you enjoyed the joke... Now could you please explain what the joke was?
April 29, 2006 9:15:44 AM

The joke is that a conroe has the fastest Pi time ever. The previous record was held by a P4. Add the two times together, you get ~32 sec.
April 29, 2006 9:22:46 AM

Hmm... I set up our HP Super Dome to do a stress test, so I told it to calculate pi to 64 billion places. It took about 3.5 sec. And its not even close to the Top 500...

So I guess I still don't get the joke.
April 29, 2006 10:28:54 AM

I've built AMD and Intel and have come to the conclusion that PowerPC is the most stable CPU :wink: .

Anyway, the CPU isn't the limiting factor in stability, it's the OS, in my experience.
April 29, 2006 10:32:21 AM

Errr... run MS on the powerPC and see how stable it is... without emulating it. :lol: 
April 29, 2006 10:36:49 AM

That's why I added that the OS is the limiting factor - perhaps it's not so much that PowerPC is stable more that OS X is more stable than Windows, although you usually get shot for saying that round here.
April 29, 2006 12:21:29 PM

Well.. actually depending on what is being run on the OS can determine how stable software is for the hardware.

I've ran linux on a dual PII 450 for over a month a long while back, never crashed, always ran what I needed it to.

My P4 (XP Home) has been running for over a week without crashing on WU for folding.

OS are getting better, though the end user may complicate things by installing stuff they shouldn't or plainly don't need.
April 29, 2006 12:25:14 PM

I was trying to install Linux to my dual-P3 550, but it didn't work and after 5 attempts I gave up.
April 29, 2006 12:29:51 PM

I used to run Mandrake version 10, then they changed to Mandriva, and started charging for subscription to d/l their free stuff.

So far FC5 has been good to me, been folding with my other machines, PIII 800, and AMD Tbird 1ghz.

Heh, PIII 800 has been up 4 days so far, AMD been up over a week.

Had to reboot them for updates on the kernel lately.

Perhaps you might want to try getting the FC5 CD images and try your luck on that dual PIII 550
April 29, 2006 12:31:24 PM

I was trying FC5. Linux_0 was very helpful, but I've almost given up, might go back to W2K soon.
April 29, 2006 12:35:23 PM

Ack... sorry to hear that.

That PII 450 system was from my old employment. I wonder if that system is still running... :lol: 

Prolly not.

W2k should be stable enough OS for that dual system.
April 29, 2006 1:11:52 PM

I have a 3200+ Venice (rev E6) with an A8N-SLI (bios updated :wink: ) and it's more stable than any pc that I've ever had.
Mmmm let's see...
1- 8086 (lol! yeah! I had one! can't remember pretty much about it, cause I was 6 when my dad bought it 8) )
2- P 133 (it wasn't the perfect pc, but it was all win98 fault)
3- Duron 800 (I hated the PCChips mobo it had! :twisted: - terribly buggy with the old GF4 MX440)
4- Athlon XP 2000+ (yeah baby! I love this one! Still running! NF2 MSI mobo - great machine)
5- Athlon 64 3200+ (current PC! running on a NF4 ASUS mobo - it just "eats" everything I throw in it, without a glitch - excellent machine, no doubt about it - "rock solid" :lol:  )

I've also build 2 P4 for a friend of mine, a P4 2.6 northwood on a Intel 865PE and a P4 630 on a Intel mobo with an ATI Xpress 200 chipset. He does a lot of video rendering, and both PCs are working 24/7... I'm just going to give an example of this system's stability:
The boxed cooler of the P4 2.6 one day stopped, just like that (it wasn't very clean, if you know what I mean :wink: ), but, it continued working 30 hs straight ONLY WITH PASSIVE COOLING, going about 90ºC... It crashed when it reached 100ºC! :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
Of course, this is kinda an extreme example, but, you can appreciate the stability of a Intel chip on a Intel mobo. This is THE combination if you want stability... I'm not trying to say that AMD isn't stable, but you can surely trust Intel in that area :wink:
In my personal experience I buy AMD, cause AMD setups are usually cheaper, AND good. Besides, I do like gaming! :D 
April 29, 2006 6:02:33 PM

For stability, it is not Intel vs AMD, it is cheap PSU vs good one, is it good well vented case vs bad designed cramped case.

These 2 parts will most of the time determine the stability of your computer, be it intel or amd based..

I still have to have an unstable computer... and I'm mostly using AMD now for my built...
April 30, 2006 2:00:36 AM

Passively cooled for 36 hours...PFFT...I've got that beat!
Try 2 years + while gaming! (This system!)
The fan died on the cpu, and I just didn't really think twice about it since running temp monitors over a couple weeks afterwards.
As for power supply? I had to hotwire around my internal fuse to get my power supply back up and running. (Yes I pull the plug when done) - the case and the power supply were $40 bucks back when there wasn't much discussion on power supply and cooling (exception amd).

While I won't be pulling that on this AMD machine, I think that represents a NICE COOL STABLE CHIP!

Unfortunately , I use ALOT of laptops now adays. I need to for the obvious portability issues, and the machine in my office at home, is well...just for browsing and mostly gaming. I've been content with this system and am often asked at different computer contracts: What is the best system out there?? I explain that , there are difference of both and usually (without having to spend the next half life there) dell is the best deal. (gets me out of there without having to say ...no I wont build you a computer)..

Been saying that for a few years. I've had people call me, that I don't remember, to say thanks..they have enjoyed their systems for many months and got a great deal (in their eyes)..

As far as servers go, I haven't had the opportunity to have to spec anything AMD related out in a while - or, haven't had to return to the site as I haven't worked on that layer of IT in awhile.

No I don't get the joke either btw - however posted LOL so maybe you could enlighten us?

Welp - I want to thank those that are not biased for coming in here and helping me out (although I am a bit pro intel biased myself).

Hmmm - this worked better than I expected. I bet someone is already ripping the content of these valued posts for a SEO spam er I mean optimized website offering nothing but adlinks and 'related articles' ;) 

Now on to video cards? 8O

*Ducks*

S
April 30, 2006 2:40:12 AM

Quote:
can an intel get 32sec in super pi
Actually Intels usually own AMDs in SuperPi.
April 30, 2006 2:50:05 AM

7 or 8 years ago if you asked me about the stability of non-Intel systems, I would have immediately pointed out dozens of rotten experiences with Cyrix and AMD systems. Back then I was a hard-core Intel fanatic and with good reason... but now, things have changed... I can honestly say my AMD/Nvidia based system is as reliable as any Intel system I've ever owned. With AMD's server marketshare increasing, I think that's proof enough that AMD provides a reliable computer platform.

And yes, the Cyrix 686 was probably the worst processor EVER.
April 30, 2006 12:01:34 PM

Heyyou27
can an intel get 32sec in super pi
Actually Intels usually own AMDs in SuperPi.

I dont think the guy cares about super pi. I think he want to know which chip is more stable. Please reread the main post.

Everyone give the guy some info which is stable. I think both are.

1 I dont think Prescott would be the best choice Or The later Amd 3200 (Non 64bit) For both ran hot. later intel and amd both ran great in speed and Power.
April 30, 2006 12:09:56 PM

Quote:
Ok - PLEASE do not start a war.
Just a few qualified (or semi qualified people) answering please:
Qualified persons would have AT LEAST had 4 system builds of which 2 would be AMD and 2 INTEL...or more.

-Which system is more stable for you.

I was originally already convinced to go with AMD for the first time ever. Intel did a number on me with that RAMBUS pc800 issue awhile back and kinda po'd me. I know it's not them, it's the morons at RAMBUS ...BUT - I can say..
I have had 5 Intel systems. I can HONESTLY say, I have only had my systems crash on me a total of 10 times TOPS (other than stupid software issues like windows bugs etc), in the span of 10 years.
I've had the following systems:
dx2-50
dx2-66
Pentium 133
P-II 300
P-IV 1.5ghz (this system hasn't crashed for probably over, 2 years?? at least??)

I see people talking about 'stability' and 'rock solid' and testing the stability of their systems...not always refering to overclocking..
AND THAT'S WHEN I RAISED AN EYEBROW..
when you are asking if a system is stable, without overclocking..there are issues.

SO - that said...if some qualified people can help me out with their personal experience, I would really appreciate it.

THANKS!



AMD 64 (x2) stability is not even subject to any discussion. Intels are less stable should they develop thermal problems.

Intel on another hand is less stable and have problems with bottlencking.

This is a very foolish question however as PC RIG stability is more afected by the POWER SUPPLY than by CPU itself. You put undersized or "wrong" Power Supply and the entire rig is getting histerical.

So I ask the question for you:

What causes the system "instability" in majority of systems.

The correct answer is in 99% of cases it is por qualility of, undersized and/or overrated (specs) POWER SUPPLY unit!

With PROPERLY SIZED quality POWER SUPPLY BOTH PROCESSORS SHOULD BE STABLE, however AMD CPU design assures better stability than Intels hyperthreading.

AMD ATHLONS 64 design is simply superior to INTEL in sLide heating ovens .. !

a c 99 à CPUs
April 30, 2006 2:28:43 PM

I have built both AMD and Intel machines. AMD CPUs run cooler and Intel CPUs run hotter. Intel chipsets are pretty much guaranteed to work flawlessly out of the box and any decent board will ensure a rock-solid system if there is enough ventilation. Older AMD chipsets could be crappy, but the ones now from NVIDIA, ATI, and even VIA are very stable and will run flawlessly out of the box and any decent board will ensure a rock-solid system.

Basically, pick a good motherboard and keep the computer's inside at a reasonable temperature and either CPU will do fine. Both my X2 4200+ machine and the dual-Xeon machine have been very stable and get restarted pretty much only when they get moved or a Linux kernel update needs to be applied. Both currently have uptimes of over 2 weeks, and mine's been folding 100% of the time on both cores and is still going very strong. I have had it running like that for a month until I needed to reboot it to apply a kernel patch- otherwise it would still be up and going strong.
a c 99 à CPUs
April 30, 2006 2:32:16 PM

I used to have an old K6-2/500 and it was fine. I never left it on for a long time- I didn't have the Internet and would generally use the computer for a little while and then turn it off until tomorrow. So I can't comment on its long-uptime durability, but it was fine for what I did.
April 30, 2006 3:33:03 PM

This thread is silly.
How often is instability the result of hardware, and how often is it buggy software? Look at Win ME. How can any cpu be penalized for choking on that piece of fecal code? That's my 1.7 cents.
April 30, 2006 4:09:23 PM

In speaking just processors, both AMD and Intel are rock-solid. Intel has had a longer run, though, in proving thier ability to consistently produce solid products.

I personally like Intel because of thier chipsets. They always work flawlessly with the processor, and generally well with all peripherals. They are usually very good across the board, from memory busses to GPIO. For example, the NF/4 lags in performance with the integrated RAID solution (Not sure if that has been addressed yet, if it was drivers or w/e).

Anyway, Intel's architecture has always been top-notch. For example, they came out with CSA, which streamed hard disk and network IO right to the processor without piggy-backing the PCI bus. This gave dedicated bandwidth to the hard drive AND network, while providing full PCI bandwidth to the externals. This was a great solution to PCI bottlenecking and sync locks before PCI-E. Now THAT was a good idea, and translated to real-world performance gains (i850 I think was the first to have CSA).

As for heat, Intel's thermal envelope doesn't affect it's stability at all, so it doesn't matter. You can still OC a presler far better than a K8, despite the higher temps. It was designed to be able to withstand the heat. Remember: Intel's roadmap has aimed for higher clock speeds since the abacus.

Anyway, I have every Intel proc I ever bought: fully functional down to my 8086 and 8087. I have quite the collection now :) 
a c 99 à CPUs
April 30, 2006 4:15:17 PM

The hardware is one variable (albeit a minor one usually) in the overall stability of the system. I'd say the *drivers* for the hardware affect the stability a lot more than the hardware itself. Software is usually MUCH less stable than the hardware it runs on.
April 30, 2006 4:58:13 PM

Quote:
This thread is silly.
How often is instability the result of hardware, and how often is it buggy software? Look at Win ME. How can any cpu be penalized for choking on that piece of fecal code? That's my 1.7 cents.


I don't know if you haven't been around long enough , or have amd blinders on, but I can tell you that there were some serious stability issues with most of the AMD products before my last serious home build back around late 2001. The biggest example was simply playing online games. Seems silly but, I and my other Intel oriented partners would be doing just fine, while the AMD guys were always dropping out of games due to crashes.
These guys knew how to overclock and how to purchase power. I know they even removed all overclocking to ensure stability and still had issues from time to time. Heck, the one had one of the first water cooling systems I've ever seen. Home built, and it ran great and keep everything very cool.

I've heard much about AMD since then, all positive which is great. THat's why I am going this direction this time. But I am just checking because I've been hearing about 'stability' mentioned in reviews on newegg.

S
April 30, 2006 5:23:40 PM

AMDs I have owned : K6 200, K6-3 450, duron 900. T-bird 1.1 and 1.4, xp 2500, and soon to be opteron 170. I liked them, they all ran well enough for their time. I have nothing against Intel, I just don't buy them at this time. I guess that qualifies me for blinders. All of my work computers have been Intel, or Mac. I just don't see any differences in stablility in terms of hardware. If you compare my anecdotal evidence with yours, it's a wash.
To shorten this tale - You think I'm full of crap, I feel likewise about you.
We're even.
April 30, 2006 5:32:08 PM

THEY ARE BOTH STABLE. End of topic. Any errors are due to a defective CPU.
April 30, 2006 6:01:55 PM

I've been building systems for years, and though there were various stability issues in the past, if you have any clue what you are doing now (I.E. using the right components), I have seen NO DIFFERENCE in stability from Intel to AMD. I pretty much leave my systems on 24/7, game, work, do a lot of other things on them, and I only restart them when I want to.

As for hardware, I have very rarely had a system crach be the rsult of a CPU problem, and no more from one company than another.
April 30, 2006 10:17:28 PM

I will shove this into your face. With netburst and Presscott Heaters. And when P4 frist came out there where alot of issues. So drop the Intel better.

Here is a ture fact.

When New cpus frist comes out there bound to be problems that with Amd or Intel.

So grow up fanboy.
May 1, 2006 10:22:33 AM

Actually, Intel made some goofs with brand new CPUs - the 80186 was unheard of (yes, it did exist), there was a memory addressing bug in the 286, the original Pentium had an FPU bug, the Pentium pro was crap in processing 16-bit code...

AMD, having made clones of Intel's CPUs up to the K5 (586 clone), never had these problems: they only ever introduced 2 radically new CPU designs: the K6 (which had been developed for a long time before it was introduced) and the K7 (ditto).

Still, Intel designed the 386 and 486DX, which were real winners, then the Pentium II - which took the best out of previous products and removed the wrong. Coupled with a BX chipsets, these were the days of absolute stability.

AMD's woes came from chipset problems: they didn't have the resources nor were willing to make chipsets outside of reference designs. Those third-parties chipsets were more than 99% of time the sources of the hardware related errors in AMD equipped systems.

AMD as a CPU maker has had as much experience than Intel in making 32-bit PC chips - as a matter of fact, they made the 386 SX-L - the most advanced 386 chip, for laptops, allowing power saving through idle time power down.

The 6x86 Cyrix was, indeeed, a sore sight. While it was almost as good as an AMD K6 in integer calculations, its FPU was crap, it heated up an awful lot, and its boxed cooler was both inefficient and noisy.

But so was Intel's original P4 chipsets when coupled with MTH.
May 1, 2006 10:34:14 AM

I took apart some old systems a while back, a bunch of Pentium 66-166mhz, all with passive coolers, then there was this one Cyrix 686 - it had this tiny little 1" fan that whirred like anything.....and it was only 100mhz.

The Prescott of it's day? Perhaps.

(Loads of jokes about overheating Prescotts going on at the moment - our Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott just got found out for having a 2 year affair with his secretary....he's a pretty large guy so you can imagine the fun we're having making jokes!!)
May 1, 2006 10:54:10 AM

100 MHz? Then it was a P120+... or a P133+.

Good ole' days of meaningless P-rating.
May 7, 2006 7:04:52 AM

conroe isnt here yet. If does do that iam with intel
!