Quote:
From other reviews I read, I have the impression that system stability also appears to be more of a concern on Athlon systems than it is on P4-systems. Or is that a misconception I have?
The Athlon CPU itself is quite stable. The platform as a whole gets a couple of points off for stability simply because of the increased risk of getting an unstable motherboard. This is generally not a problem if you get a name-brand motherboard with a decent chipset.
Quote:
One very clear example is the video you could download about removing the cooling system from a processor. P4 kept on running, more exactly, it started to walk really slowly while the Athlon went up in smoke. Although this is an extreme example, I can imagine that under less critical situations, mistakes might not lead tot total distruction, but to a system crash, or even apparent, to calculation mistakes.
Generally, this is a bit of a risk. It's a bit much to expect an Athlon to survive if run without a heatsink, but most of us have <i>never</i> been in such a situation. Having software monitoring (via <A HREF="
http://mbm.livewiredev.com/" target="_new">Motherboard Monitor</A>) can cover any other heat situations, though currently nothing will throttle an Athlon's clock speed--software monitoring just does a power-off when the system approaches overheat or fan failure.
Quote:
Is Intel more concerned about stability while AMD pays less attention to this to be capable of lowering the prices?
They're both equally concerned about stability. AMD has to choose its battles, though, simply because it's a much smaller company. AMD doesn't have as much clout as Intel in getting chipset and motherboard manufacturers to uphold the QA level AMD wants, nor does AMD have the resources to keep many of their own chipsets in production.
Generally AMD systems are just as stable as Intel systems with a good motherboard, and thermal protection doesn't have to be a problem if the system is set up correctly.
Quote:
There must be some explanation for the higher prices, I always thought.
Intel costs more not because it's necessarily better, but because Intel is a known brand name. Intel markets themselves left and right to become a household name. AMD tried doing the same thing once (TV commercials et al), but they couldn't handle the increase in marketshare--they sold out of Athlons before they were ready (small company and all that). So they just concentrate on R&D, and the marketshare they already have is enough to keep their stock moving.
<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?