Poll: Stability

[scoobydooby]

Everyone's always talking about how much more stable Intel is than AMD so I wanted to see if there are any unsatisfied Intel users out there.
Scoob

 

[jkersenbr]

I've had all of the above, so I won't vote

 

[scoobydooby]

haha. I added a choice just for you!
Scoob

 

[MrThompson]

After a whole pile of Athlons and motherboards last year, I just switched back to Intel. Enough said.

 

[Palek]

I have had stable and unstable systems on both Intel and AMD processors. Stability does not have much to do with the processor itself. Unstability can be caused by an improperly cooled system, low-quality components/peripherals, or the OS.

I will not listen to anyone telling me that AMD or Intel processors compromise stability. That is just ridiculous. We are talking about two of the most advanced hardware companies in the world.

 

[Mitzi]

I've got two systems both are 100% stable Athlon based systesm and both are overclocked - a classic Athlon 750@1000 and a Athlon TB 1.4@1.53Mhz.

Saying that every machine (barr one) I've ever had has been stable - these include a Pentium III 850 machine, a Pentium II 300 machine and a Pentium 233MMX machine. The only unstable machine I've had was a Cyrix based machine, many moons ago.

 

[shathal]

You're simplifying things rather harshly - usually system instability is not caused by CPU-based problems (be this Intel or AMD), but problems with the chipset, OS or bad drivers (in the case of windows - particularly, bad graphics drivers). Most crashes/instabilities will simply result from some OS-crash, be this due to a bad graphics driver, an OS-bug (we never have THOSE, do we?) or some problem on the chipset itself. The CPU's are rarely to blame - particularly if you don't overclock.

If you overclock, obviously, and don't know all the finer points about it & how it affects the system, you leave yourself quite widely open for all sorts of headaches.

just thought I'd mention it .

 

[bacillus]

stable Intel system

 

[Wind]

I hv both...& both is stable for my usage.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I've found stability to be dependant on the following (in order of effect):

The user
Software installed (ie: crapware)
Operating system
Quality of miscelanious parts (ie: vidcard, sound, drives)
Motherboard chipset
Motherboard manufacturer


You'll notice that "CPU" isn't on the list. Using a Cyrix, AMD, and Intel CPU on a 430TX platform all yeilded highly stable results with uptimes that ran until either I messed with the hardware (requiring me to shut the system down) or when the unpatched Windows 95 that I had at the time hit the "49.7 day lockup" bug.

The single biggest thing (aside from the user of course) is kids games. All of them are crappily programmed and many do not run smooth on ANY system. Following that is the Operating System. Windows 2000 is inherantly more stable than Win98 and WinME is a joke. Next up is crappy components. Nothing can take a glorious system down like a $29 videocard that is worth $-2. Or a Quantum Bigfoot. Next up is the chipset, this is largely the cause of the "AMD is unstable" claims. The K6-2/3 platform never really had a good chipset, Via was okay and the great Ali5 was nearly impossible to create a stable platform on. Motherboard manufacterer? Oh yeah, I spent some time ripping out a PCChips 430TX board and putting an Asus 430TX board in (similar specs mind you) because the PCChips board was a pain in the derrier. The Asus board worked flawlessly (all other components were the same).

Just say no to crapware!

 

[Dan]

I'm in the "all of the above" category. As Demon-Xanth points out, there are many variables beyond the CPU that impact stability.

 

[r0tt3n1]

I've found stability to be dependant on the following (in order of effect):

The user
Software installed (ie: crapware)
Operating system.....


Say it aint so?!?!

 

[Demon-Xanth]

"it ain't so?!?!", there I said it

Often the second one down is dependant on the first. Someone my dad works with insists on having EMM386 installed (on a Win98 machine) because then she knows that it has checked her RAM (even though it doesn't do or check squat). Ever notice how uptime and user interaction are pretty much inversly porportional?

 

[scoobydooby]

I see what you guys mean. I guess I didn't know how to word the poll. It just irritates me how people are always switching to Intel because of instability. Seems like they could fix the problem, since like you said the user can be the main cause of instability. Oh well, polls usually aren't too affective anyways. Thanks for the input guys.
Scoob

 

[Demon-Xanth]

btw, where's the "CowboyNeal" option?

 

[Jman13]

Well, my AMD system (see my sig), has been running for 8 days now without a reboot. That reboot 8 days ago was for a new software install too. Before that it had been about 6 days...and it had crashed because I OCed my vid card too much. Been crunching SETI 24/7, and playing many games. Gets about 4-5 hours of good solid use by me every day in addition to the SETI crunching. So, is that stable?

 

[microAmp]

2 stable AMD systems and 1 stable Intel system. The Intel is using Win98SE and hasn't been formatted or anything for 1 1/2 yrs. But it's used only as a internet/email system mainly.

 

[DeepSparklePupa]

I've had two unstable Intel systems and one unstable AMD system.

I've got one perfectly, 100% stable AMD system running today, listed in my rigs.

What's the difference? POWER

My first two systems were Intel and I suffered the generally spoken-of occasional crashes. Then I grabbed a Thunderbird, powered it with an inexpensive UPS with about 1 hour's runtime worth of battery life, and had a stable machine for about 6 months. Then, during a power failure, the UPS ran it's battery down to dead. Following that, the system would reboot randomly. Presumably, in it's death throes, the battery of the UPS failed to provide solid power to the machine and it damaged the Power Supply.

Today, I have a perfectly - I mean 100% - stable AMD-based machine that is getting power filtered by an $1,800 UPS with software to shut down my computer before the battery runs down to empty. I figured out what *my* problem was.

-DSP

 

[gerrick]

Instability is usually linked to chipsets, drivers, and User. It can be linked to processor also. Sometimes bad ones make it out. Also whole lines of processors can be bad once in awhile (Intel 1.13).

From what I've read the old and current Athlons generate too much heat. I've seen people say the boxed OEM HSF is not enough to keep it cool. I've never had one so I don't know. I know that Intel has included better OEM HSF's as clock speed increased.

More options are the board Manufacturer. I see tons of issues with ECS(?) boards. Most seem to be resolved with bios updates. The more hardware features you add the more unstable it becomes. You are adding more points of failure and drivers.

Don't forget that pesky OS.

 

[Texmaster]

I'm just making an appearance to trick an AMD user into coming in here

 

[x86]

I have found that Intel systems are usually more stable and compatible than AMD systems with their VIA/SIS/ALI chipsets. I don't think that those Taiwanese manufacturers offer that much compatibility that Intel chipsets offer. Besides, Intel is the one with the cash to encourage development of their chipsets.

I do not mean to flame, what I said was precisely relating to the topic of the thread.

-x86

 

[Mustanggt]

My wifes celeron system is not any better than my AMD

 

[chibchakan]

<< ...stable AMD system >>

 

[Divebrake]

In my experience most instability can be traced to user incompetence, especially in a build-it-yourself computer. The knowledgeable user will always have a more stable system, be it Intel or AMD. I'm not a computer guru but I know just enough to build a system and keep it stable while running a lot of softwares. Not everybody does.

 

[Egrimm]

I've had a nice, stable Celeron system running for more than 2 years now. A Celeron 333 @ 416 on an Asus P2B, it's acutally more stable when oc'ed than when it's not.
My school on the other hand uses Intel machines and they're very unstable, and you cannot install your own programs on them so that's not the fault. I don't think it's the cpu's fault though, more likely cheap mobos and / or bad setup (cannot prove it as I'll get in serious problems if I, ahem, *aquire* Admin rights to check).
I have had 4 very stable Athlons systems myself: an orginal slot A 700Mhz on a Asus K7V board, the only problem that it had were all mobo related it turned out (wouldn't run with newer drivers for my Asus V6600 Deluxe gfx-card, but the card will use all driver-versions on my old P2B).
My second Athlon rig was a 1.2Ghz T-Bird on a MSI K7T Turbo LE, was stable until the mobo died.
The third system was a 1.4Ghz T-Bird on a MSI K7T Turbo Raid, also very stable. It's was nearly impossible to make it crash.
And my current XP1600+ on a MSI K7T Pro2 RU is stable, I've newer had it crash unless I oc'ed too much.

'nuff said, AMD is just as stable as Intel. All the Athlon rigs I've had has used Via-chipsets which should be notoriously unstable, and yet I've had no problems.

Oh yeah, the mobo has just as much to do with stability as the cpu, probably even more.