Stability

Although very usefull information can be found here regarding to speed and performance, there is not much information (or I can't find it) about how stable a processor is. How are the experiences when AMD and Intel are compaired. My gut say's Intel is more stable.

Maybe it would be a good idea to includea stability test in comparisons between the two CPU, cause I'd rather pay 200$ more for a more stable system.
14 answers Last reply
More about stability
  1. Based on personal experience, AMD used to be horrible for stability. Well, that may be a bit off. The entire K6 platform didn't seem to work too flawlessly with Windows 95 and 98. Can I narrow this down to the processor? No, that's why I say the platform rather than the processor. Nowadays, though, I think both lines run pretty similarly stable assuming two things. First, proper heat dissipation is a must. If the processor is getting too hot, it will not perform as stably as it would when it is cooler. Second, AMD + cheap PC1xx (and even some Corsair lines) can really be problematic. Most enocunters of blue screens on installation, lockups, and the like can be traced back to bad or "not so good" memory. Either way, assuming you stay away from cheapo memory or mobos (and windows 95 for that matter), you should be in fair shape for stability.
  2. Both processors are stable. Any instability is usually the result of the motherboard. VIA's chipsets have dramatically improved, but I wouldn't call them as stable as an intel chipset just yet.

    <font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
  3. As has been said, both processors are (theoretically) 100% stable under ideal conditions. Under less-than-ideal conditions (such as crappy motherboards, bad RAM, faulty drivers) <i>any</i> processor becomes unstable. Therefore, theoretically, both processors are equals in stability.

    Realistically though? AMD aims a lot harder at the budget market than Intel does. As such, it is a lot easier to find cheap and faulty motherboards to use for building an AMD platform. Plus VIA (who's skill in producing 100% stable and reliable platforms to this very day is debatable) is a major supplier of AMD motherboards because AMD doesn't supply much of their own motherboard chipsets. Where as on an Intel system, while VIA may provide Intel motherboards, because of Intel's devotion to producing their own quality chipsets, there aren't nearly as many VIA motherboards in use on Intel systems as there are on AMD systems.

    And then there are issues like thermal CPU protection which AMD is only finally forcing motherboard manufacturers to implement. (And even then, many old motherboards were 'grandfathered' into acceptability that don't carry this protection.) Where as Intel puts the CPU protection right in the CPU itself, so ALL Intel CPUs are thermally protected.

    Also Intel heat sinks mount directly to the motherboard. AMD heatsinks sometimes do, and sometimes just clip onto the CPU's socket. Sometimes those socket retention devices (being only made of plastic) break and the heat sink falls clean off. A smart person designs around that and/or checks whenever they move their PC. Intel customers don't even have to worry.

    On top of that, Intel P4 CPUs slow themselves down so that they generate less heat when they start to overheat. AMD systems however just cut the power entirely. Bye bye data!

    So while, in theory, a <b>properly configured</b> AMD system is just as stable and thermally protected as an Intel system, the reality is that not all AMD systems are 'properly configured' and have a higher potential for being faulty. Where as Intel systems are stable and 'properly configured' by default much more often.

    Does either CPU in and of itself provide more safety? Arguable Intel does, but again, anyone who takes the time to educate themselves and 'properly configure' their computer can be just as secure in an AMD solution. The only time you have to worry about it is if you don't put in the investment of time to research your products and assemble something of quality. In those cases, an Intel system is 'safer' than an AMD system.

    But again, I stress that education and research will provide a perfectly safe AMD solution.

    <pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
  4. Stability isn't based upon the CPU, but upon the motherboard and components plugged into it. For the most part it's the chipset on the motherboard though.

    Since people had problems with VIA I went ahead and used a SIS motherboard. I have had no problems. Combined with WinXP I have not crashed a single time.

    Still it should be noted that if you buy crappy memory, power supply, and have poor heat dissipation you'll have problems with any computer.

    <font color=red>I'd like to dedicate this post to all my friends, family, and fans. Without them this post would never have been possible. Thank you!</font color=red>
  5. That and dust. A buildup of dust can do funny things. So blow out the dust at least semi-regularly.

    <pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
  6. Actually the K6-2 ran perfectly on the Intel TX chipset. VIA was completely responsible for AMD's bad reputation. In fact, they were also almost totally responsible for the "Win9x stbility issues", which for the most part don't exist on Intel chipsets (unless you're also running shitty applications, can you say freeware?).

    ALi had a few minor issues, but nothing like VIA's. At the time SiS was a third rate chipset vender.

    <font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
  7. Slvr that was an ace post man, this is what I am trying to convince Dark_Archonis along with many others, about how stability can be seen. No way that buying a properly researched AMD system, would be skipped if suddenly you hear "Intel has the stability because it is rigorously tested", and you laid exactly what was needed to be cleared, good man, very good.

    --
    Where did your THGC username come from and why did you choose it? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=19957#19957" target="_new">Tell here!</A>
  8. O.K. very clear and understandable. The only idea I was also playing about with is this:
    Intels P4 can be overclocked to 4.7 Ghz. AMD has problems reaching the 2 GHZ. So arguabily, could AMD chips become less stable in the near future trying to compete with Intel while the P4 stil has lots of headroom left.
    Yust a thought?
  9. errr.. ummm blah. The next amd chips are tbred(B) chips, and a new core called barton chips. The tbred(A)'s were sh!t, but are long gone from production.
  10. You should know that a 4.7Ghz overclock is only to the bios. They then take a screenshot before the computer dies. It's not usable in any way. Use more realistic overclocks for your comparison.

    <font color=red>I'd like to dedicate this post to all my friends, family, and fans. Without them this post would never have been possible. Thank you!</font color=red>
  11. Neither company is really interested in releasing a CPU that isn't rock-solid at its rated speed; usually, if a chip can't reach a certain speed and remain stable, it just won't be released at that speed (no matter how far behind it is in the performance race). The only company I've known to break this rule is Intel, and that mistake cost them dearly. I doubt they'd do it again, and I doubt AMD would be foolish enough to make the same mistake after seeing what it cost Intel. Even if it does happen, you're legally entitled to a warranty replacement, so it's pretty much a moot point.

    Anything you can get over the rated speed is a freebie, and you're not guaranteed to get any at all. A Northwood P4 will usually have a lot more of that "freebie" speed though.

    <A HREF="http://skarpsey.dyndns.org/" target="_new">Skarpsey</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kelledin on 09/11/02 02:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  12. Quote:
    You should know that a 4.7Ghz overclock is only to the bios. They then take a screenshot before the computer dies. It's not usable in any way. Use more realistic overclocks for your comparison.

    Actually, Intel did it at IDF. I believe they started it at 4.1GHz and then went up to 4.7GHz. I'd presume that the chip must have survived longer than just to post, or else everyone would have laughed at Intel burning up their own CPU. ;)

    So yeah, Intel has a hand-picked engineering sample of the P4 that they can run at 4.7Ghz. (Probably with LN2 cooling though.)

    And actually, I was kind of disappointed that not even Intel could OC <i>any</i> of their C1 stepping P4 engineering sample up to 5GHz.

    <pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
  13. Yeah that was my thought as well. 300 more MHZ, and they couldn't at least make that barrier broken?
    IMO 4.7GHZ was not too impressive to demo, I was more amazed at the 10GHZ ALU (prolly a 5GHZ DPumped), and the previous major OCs at last IDFs.

    --
    Where did your THGC username come from and why did you choose it? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=19957#19957" target="_new">Tell here!</A>
  14. Quote:
    I was more amazed at the 10GHZ ALU (prolly a 5GHZ DPumped)

    Well yeah, that's what it was, and is <i>theoretically</i> the current P4's limit. The simple ALUs are double-pumped, so a 10GHz ALU means a 5GHz P4. Which is why Intel demoing a 5GHz P4 would have impressed me a <i>lot</i> more than a 4.7GHz P4. Then we would at least see that the current P4 core design can reach it's theoretical limit. But if the best that Intel can do is still shy of that even with a hand-picked chip, well, it's just a lot less impressive. Heh. ;)

    <pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Performance Intel