Which is more stable Intel or AMD?

[Ato pecur]

MY question is this: which of the two competitor cpu companies is more stable with the GPU of ATI and which is more stable with NVidia?

 

[jaguarskx]

I don't think it really matters. There is no data to support any of those cases.

If you want a less expensive build then go with an AMD CPU.

If you want better performance at a slight premium, then go with Intel.

I always go for the best performance at the best price. Back in the days of the Pentium 4 and the Athlon XP, that meant going with the Athlon XP. The Athlon XP shifted the playing field to AMD. I was gonna upgrade to an Athlon 64 X2 CPU, but then Intel came out with the Core 2 Dual. Intel has held the performance crown since then.

 

[seanparker]

MY question is this: which of the two competitor cpu companies is more stable with the GPU of ATI and which is more stable with NVidia?

Hi.

As far as I know AMD have taken over ATI (AMD Gaming) so I would have thought AMD will work better with the ATI graphics cards and NVidia with Intel.

Vibox do some great custom pcs based on both ATI and Nvidia graphics.

Sean.

 

[RetiredChief]

On stability with GPUs and cost/performance have to agree with jaguarskx.
With 3rd party addons (ie SSDs), in the area of performance (not so much stability) I feel that an Intel platform is a sligthly better choices. Reason is that Intel has a much larger market share and when the vender optimizes a addon, if any diff, then intel is going to come out ahead.

I used the SSD as an example. Intel Has such a large R&D budget compared to AMD. Because of this Intel released a driver that supported Trim (when chipset set to Raid and SSD not a member drive) way before AMD did (I'm guessing that AMD has finally infact released a amd driver that supports trim).

 

[Ato pecur]

I also presumed, that ATI would go better with AMD than Intel. , too bad I had to buy a Intel with a ati, which crashes all the f'ing time.
Thanks for the support!

 

[RetiredChief]

I'm A die-Hard ATI fan boy!!! Have used their A-I-W line untill AMD diched it when Vista came out Ticked me off, but still use AMD/ATI GPUs. Last 4 or 5 builds have been Intel w/ATI graphics card - and NOT one problem.

Your comment "Thanks for the support!" must be directed toward amd, right.
Although AMD would LOVE to make their GPU drivers so that they only supported AMD MBs - They know it would be a VERY bad idea as 70->80 Percent of the the Desktop market share is Intel. They have enough problems generating a profit and to "kill" that market segment would not be very wise.

If you already had a Intel cpu w/AMD gpu and are having a problem maybe your thread should have addressed your specific problems rather than asking a generic question on which is better

 

[Ato pecur]

I'm A die-Hard ATI fan boy!!! Have used their A-I-W line untill AMD diched it when Vista came out Ticked me off, but still use AMD/ATI GPUs. Last 4 or 5 builds have been Intel w/ATI graphics card - and NOT one problem.

Your comment "Thanks for the support!" must be directed toward amd, right.
Although AMD would LOVE to make their GPU drivers so that they only supported AMD MBs - They know it would be a VERY bad idea as 70->80 Percent of the the Desktop market share is Intel. They have enough problems generating a profit and to "kill" that market segment would not be very wise.

If you already had a Intel cpu w/AMD gpu and are having a problem maybe your thread should have addressed your specific problems rather than asking a generic question on which is better

Nope, I asked the question which one is more stable with which CPU because I am builidng a new pc. I want to make sure which platform Intel supports and which platform AMD is comfortable with.

 

[jaguarskx]

I got a Radeon HD 5850 in an Abit IP35 Pro which has the Intel P35 chipset and an Intel Q9450 CPU. I'm not crying about stability or performance issues.

 

[ram1009]

I don't think it really matters. There is no data to support any of those cases.

If you want a less expensive build then go with an AMD CPU.

If you want better performance at a slight premium, then go with Intel.

I always go for the best performance at the best price. Back in the days of the Pentium 4 and the Athlon XP, that meant going with the Athlon XP. The Athlon XP shifted the playing field to AMD. I was gonna upgrade to an Athlon 64 X2 CPU, but then Intel came out with the Core 2 Dual. Intel has held the performance crown since then.

While it is obvious that Intel owns the performance market I would respectfully disagree that the price difference is "slight", especially if you factor in the difference in performance per extra dollar spent. IMHO, what you get isn't worth what you pay.

 

[RetiredChief]

^ A lot depends on def of "Slight", Individual component vs overall cost of Car - opps mean computer.

I'd have to agree with jaguarskx on "Slight difference" If looking at the total picture which is the Total cost of the system, then you are looking at less than a 10 % cost differential. That is everything else being equal. I know some like to include the diff in mB cost - But I disagree with that, It's like a PSU you get what you pay for. A quality MB with same features should be close to a wash.

10% of $1000 build = 100 bucks - Its all in the eye of the beholder. to Some $100 is $100 period, to another a "Slight" 10% cost increase for the amount of performance is well worth it

 

[iam2thecrowe]

I also presumed, that ATI would go better with AMD than Intel. , too bad I had to buy a Intel with a ati, which crashes all the f'ing time.
Thanks for the support!

why do you assume it crashes because you have ati with intel? you could have bad ram, bad sectors on the hard drive, corrupt data on the hard drive, bad motherboard, bad psu etc etc etc. You should go learn about computers because from what i can tell from this statement it shows you know next to nothing.

 

[ghnader hsmithot]

MY question is this: which of the two competitor cpu companies is more stable with the GPU of ATI and which is more stable with NVidia?

Actually all of them whether Nvidia or Ati work with fine whether on AMD or Intel.The fact is that they conform(support) to all PCI 2.0 X 16 standard which is the current standard for all modern videocards.

 

[ram1009]

^ A lot depends on def of "Slight", Individual component vs overall cost of Car - opps mean computer.

I'd have to agree with jaguarskx on "Slight difference" If looking at the total picture which is the Total cost of the system, then you are looking at less than a 10 % cost differential. That is everything else being equal. I know some like to include the diff in mB cost - But I disagree with that, It's like a PSU you get what you pay for. A quality MB with same features should be close to a wash.

10% of $1000 build = 100 bucks - Its all in the eye of the beholder. to Some $100 is $100 period, to another a "Slight" 10% cost increase for the amount of performance is well worth it

It's a slippery slope. Why not pay another 10% and get another 2% performance increase? Where do you stop? As you say, it's in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, anything beyond a Phenom II x 4 or an i5 is a urinating contest for those with more money than common sense.

 

[jsc]

I think THG did a test a couple of years ago, testing both nVidia and ATI cards in both Intel and AMD systems. I think they discovered no significant differences in performance or stability. In fact my Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P supports XFire but not SLI.

 

[ghnader hsmithot]

I think THG did a test a couple of years ago, testing both nVidia and ATI cards in both Intel and AMD systems. I think they discovered no significant differences in performance or stability. In fact my Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P supports XFire but not SLI.

At 16X/4x Most gigabytes mobos support CF more and MSI has inclined towards SLI.

 

[Ato pecur]

why do you assume it crashes because you have ati with intel? you could have bad ram, bad sectors on the hard drive, corrupt data on the hard drive, bad motherboard, bad psu etc etc etc. You should go learn about computers because from what i can tell from this statement it shows you know next to nothing.

Its actually to do with my Graphics card, it is the bleeding edge of technology, and its drives aren't that good either. The graphics card is HD Radeon 6970...

 

[DoomsWord89]

I have never had any issues "mixing" ATI and Intel hardware.

 

[jaguarskx]

It's a slippery slope. Why not pay another 10% and get another 2% performance increase? Where do you stop? As you say, it's in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, anything beyond a Phenom II x 4 or an i5 is a urinating contest for those with more money than common sense.

Ultimately it depends on the builder and what he or she is after. If you want performance, then you have to pay for performance. Of course, there is such a thing called "diminishing return" which is what you are talking about. After a certain point, the extra bit of performance will cost you more.

For me, I look for good performance based on my personal expectations. As long as I can obtain that particular level of performance within my budget, then I have no problems paying for it. If the cost of that performance is too high, then I would need to scale back my expectations.

Additionally, I also prefer my PC to as quiet as possible so I usually spend extra money (maybe around $100 +/- $25) on quiet fans and huge heatsinks. But that's just me.