not at all bad... unless your pc runs off an alpha... but then its not really a pc is it? but it could be couldnt it... how do you define pc? ibm compatible? x86? something sold in pc world? personal computer... if the latter theres always the alphas and sh!t...
you do not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
I think it means that you can count the number of stable, proven rock solid AMD chipsets on the fingers of one hand after a particularily nasty industrial accident.
Intel have better chipset solutions, until now manufacturers spent more time on them and got them better. This I think will change, but it is a reation to the improving poularity of AMD.
[dream]Now if we could only get Intel to make a chipset for AMD - that would be a hell of a setup. [/dream]
-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
Well, let's see if I can give you an example ... just based on my personal desktop systems; not including the computers I build and service every day of the week. I can be fair, without it being too much of a strain.
Out of the last nine computers I have owned, eight have had Intel chipsets, including the system I am running at the moment. One had a VIA chipset.
The eight computers with Intel chipsets have never needed anything more than regular maintenance and periodic driver upgrades .. and all of them are still running, including two that were purchased in 1996.
The AMD system with the VIA chipset expired after eight months of the most frustrating sheer hell I have ever been through with one single computer ... and left me around $2500.00 in the hole as I replaced fried components that died due to inadequate power leads ... which in turn was due to the reference design of the mainboard ... supplied by VIA. It shouldn't even be necessary for me to mention the compatibility issues with the 636A Southbridge, and the numerous lockups while attempting to run 3D applications. That, Sir, is what we down South call a "gimme".
Never before in my life did I find it necessary to download so many chipset driver updates, patches, and fixes. Never before had I been forced to spend literally hundreds of hours searching for solutions that would allow a single system to function, not just adequately, but at all. I can recall on many occasions never needing to install Intel chipset drivers but once per system ... and having the computers run just fine with the initial BIOS installed at the factory. The Intel 440BX chipset, in my opinion, was the most stable chipset ever developed, period.
After all the time and money invested in that one system, I feel more than justified in expressing my opinion.
But ... in answer to your question; yes, of course Intel has produced unstable chipsets. The 820 was a fiasco, and the 810 was nothing to be proud of. But the company has a far better track record than VIA, which just a comparatively short while ago, was regarded with no more respect than Cyrix for their processors, which weren't worth a damn. Or Mustek for their scanners. Or Smart & Friendly for their CD-ROM's.
I firmly believe that AMD will not achieve the market share they need to compete with Intel on reasonable terms until they spend the money for the research (and fabrication plants) needed for full and exclusive development of their own chipsets, instead of relying on a third-party with terrible quality control.
If you find my opinion morally offensive, or personally insulting, then perhaps you should apply for VIA to send you a monthly check so that you can get reimbursed for so vehemently defending their products. But that's a personal issue, and absolutely none of my business.
In the meantime, for the record, I prefer for my computers to be relatively stable, and to last for a while. With a minimum of problems.
Pronouncing the last rites over that AMD/VIA system was the best thing that ever happened to me. The nightmare is over ... and I can just USE my home computer again, without a constant (and losing) battle. It's a real relief. I still haven't completely adjusted ... the whole experience was demoralizing.
That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. But don't make the mistake of confusing me with someone who doesn't have a clue. I'm a hell of diagnostician, and I don't condemn hardware unless it's deserved. And in this case ... I feel that my reasoning is more than adequate. My wallet agrees with me, wholeheartedly.
Too bad your experience with VIA is so terrible. But forget about AMD for a moment, who do you think make VIA the #1 chipset maker? It's Intel, by refusing to give what customers want -- the choices of memory. The PIII with RDRAM was a total waste, yet Intel refused to make a decent SDRAM chipset for PIII for a long long time. So, consumers had to turn to outfits like VIA to get what they want. If you don't like the quality control of VIA, just think what Intel had done to us the last few years.
**Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**
I am currently using an Asus K7M with the 686A southbridge, a SBLive, and a GeForce2MX400. I'm running WinME (without the 4 in 1), and the only problem I've had was with my old PCI TNT... I think I was overloading the PCI bus.
I do wish that AMD would start producing there own chipsets. However because they seem to be against that, I hope this Nvidia nForce turns out to be as kickass as it sounds.
The one thing I am curious about, why didn't AMD go with the HyperTransport on the 760MP...
Talking about bad chipsets...
I followed the URL to your rig, and saw you have one of those motherboards that Rayston claims thoggles a P4 1700mhz back to 850mhz. LOL
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jenspetersen on 06/08/01 01:59 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
I see it differente for AMD future.If northwood fail and nvisia work.That would impresif that intel crash and nvisia rise.For 2002 they predict much better growht rate.So with good earning for a full year and a decline in intel stock.AMD can issue stock at a high price to get some billion and finally beat intel for good.Dont forget AMD must satisfie the share holder too Intel made that part maybe too good. That go beyond tech and mghz.AMD/Intel are there for profit not to win benchmark.
The way I see it is that while Intel had the market share they kept prices artificially high,while AMD with the K6 were seen to be for the budget concious.When AMD launched the Athlon as a viable alternative to the PIII for for less cash and parity in performance Intel started to worry.Have you ever heard of Intel making as many price cuts as they have in past 18 months.I myself think that they (Intel) were always setting their prices unjustifiably high.
I've seen those articles about the clock-throttling. It hasn't happened with this machine. Full speed, all the time, no stepping-back. No heat issues, either ... but I am not using a stock heatsink. In retrospect, an Asus board would have been better, because this BIOS leaves much to be desired, especially for overclocking ... it looks much like the kind of limited OEM BIOS made for proprietary machines, like a Compaq. Fortunately, I haven't needed to make any real adjustments, or you would have heard me yelling! <GRIN>
I hope all of you will notice ... my previous post was not made so much in defense of Intel, but against a traumatic experience with hardware designed by AMD, VIA and MSI. The reason I had bought the AMD/VIA machine in the first place was because of several factors. Those would have been:
1. Competition ... it's good for all of us. It's good because it drives the market, for prices, and for accelerated development.
2.) Rambus. I didn't like the latency issues, or the price, the moment I first heard about it. I don't like being forced to use a particular kind of RAM. As a consumer, I don't like being dismissed ... it was a radical mistake on Intel's part to assume that the average Joe would leap at having a higher clock speed and meekly submit to throwing out every stick of SDRAM in the house, simply because Intel became committed to using RDRAM. That made me angry, and I know that I'm not alone in that.
3.) There's no doubt that AMD processors have the edge in terms of performance for most applications. And who wouldn't want that? Not in every benchmarking test, and not with every application ... but in enough to be convincing. You might argue ... but benchmarking tests don't lie ... and I've looked at testing results until they're coming out of my ears. I continue to do so, as I have been for the last two years. You can look at a lot of test results in that much time.
4.) At the time, there was also the consideration of upgrading. Sockets vs Slots ... and what will be around long enough to make an upgrade later on feasible. These days, it's hard to tell ... even sockets are being retired within a turn-around of less than a year.
Those are pretty good reasons for trying out a newer technology, and thumbing your nose at the Goliath. Certainly I expected a few bugs ... that's nothing new. But this was also the first time that I had a system that I couldn't keep running, even with what would be considered "heroic" measures.
It's unfortunate, that as a fallback position, I had nowhere else to turn BUT Intel when the AMD machine gave up the ghost. But I value stability over sheer speed. You can't be altogether pleased at the numbers if the machine is sitting in the corner and refuses to boot for hours at a time .. or if every single week, an expensive component appears to implode.
That's my response, as well as my excuse. Somebody call me when a mature chipset is developed for the Athlon ... preferably with a decent upgrading path, so I don't have to swap out motherboards every year. It's one thing to do it for fun ... quite another to feel forced. Right now, I'm not so sure that anyone is one the consumer's side, regardless of the outfit. This is why these AMD vs Intel wars seem so ridiculous to me ... where's the third alternative? Neither one of them really have anything I want to spend my money on ... but if I want to use a computer, and have some "relative" stability ... I can't recommend anything with a VIA chipset. I know people here in my area who refuse to build computers with an AMD platform, because there are too many problems associated with them, and it is time-consuming to support the platform.
That doesn't mean that Intel is the clear winner, or the best for everyone. But in the end ... name another option.
In the review I read framerates would drop horrible when playing Q3 at 1024*768*32 and above.
This means when you really need cpupower badly the P4 ( or the chipset) will let you down.
Maybe he picked a cpu that doesnt thoggle, but I tell there are some serious issues with this cpu. I imagine that these issues will become bigger with increasing clockspeed. P4 badly needs a schrink to 0,13 micron.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jenspetersen on 06/08/01 02:08 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
