Originally posted by the Reverend: CrazySaint
A properly setup AMD rig is every bit as stable as properly setup Intel rig.
Actually, this is false. And I won't blame the cpu as much as I will blame MB layout/design as well as currently available chipsets for AMD cpu's. They are not as stable as Intel's offerings, if they were, why wouldn't they have widespread use in Business and IT (mission critical) circles? I mean the price is right, performance is right up there with Intel (surpasses Intel more often than not). Price AND performance, why doesn't it catch on in these circles? I told you why, and you have no defense, the verdict is GUILTY of being unstable, sentenced to hard labor in the low end market with less demands. Repeat Offender.
And if you don't like VIA, you don't have to use their chipsets. NVIDIA makes excellent AMD chipsets.
I would actually like to try an NVidia chipset, as I don't own one. I mean I am anxious to try a chipset for AMD, made by a company that makes graphic chipsets that don't even get along with their own products, let alone what problems I might have with competitors products :/ I can hear my wallet opening already...
And you're saying that if I started a thread bashing Intel (not saying that Yeti101 started this thread bashing AMD), that the Intel fanboys wouldn't come out in force, flamethrowers blazing (and that I wouldn't be putting in my 2 cents as well)?
Intel owners are a more reserved, conservative bunch. Intel owners don't fall prey to petty product bashing. It takes more than words to get us going. Just go ahead, tell me that Intel bites
"Fanboyism" in general is a "cult of personality" as you put it, not just AMD. And I don't just dislike Inel fanboys, I don't like ANY fanboys, and I nearly always argue against them, whatever company/product they're evangelising for.
Halleluljah Brother! Preach Preach! From the Reverend CrazySaint's mouth to all our ears! May the Church of Recent Amd Supporting Hardware live long and prosper!
Also, if AMD systems are so horribly unstable, why on earth would you buy FOUR of them?
The price was right, the performance was right, the reviews looked all good....I've learned my lesson. What do I care if some chic named Sandra2002 thinks a typical AMD cpu is a few points faster in a benchmark than Intel? And yeah, 380 fps is cool, that's a whole 20 more than a similar Intel offering, but hey, being real, the human eye doesn't detect anything over 60 fps anyways.
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
*Yawn*
What valuable insight! You must be the Pope of the AMD religion..
Originally posted by: AntiAMD
NewbiesOriginally posted by: DAPUNISHER
*Yawn*
What valuable insight! You must be the Pope of the AMD religion..Try looking at my rigs before making assinine assumptions Furthermore, your screenname is flamebait in and of it's self and my response was meant to convey boredom at your atypical 15 year old's attempt to start flame wars which makes the post extremely insightful. BTW you keep up with posts like you've been making and I can assure you it won't be long before the Mods put the smackdown on you
Originally posted by: AntiAMD
A properly setup AMD rig is every bit as stable as properly setup Intel rig.
Actually, this is false. And I won't blame the cpu as much as I will blame MB layout/design as well as currently available chipsets for AMD cpu's. They are not as stable as Intel's offerings, if they were, why wouldn't they have widespread use in Business and IT (mission critical) circles? I mean the price is right, performance is right up there with Intel (surpasses Intel more often than not). Price AND performance, why doesn't it catch on in these circles? I told you why, and you have no defense, the verdict is GUILTY of being unstable, sentenced to hard labor in the low end market with less demands. Repeat Offender.
Also, if AMD systems are so horribly unstable, why on earth would you buy FOUR of them?
The price was right, the performance was right, the reviews looked all good....I've learned my lesson. What do I care if some chic named Sandra2002 thinks a typical AMD cpu is a few points faster in a benchmark than Intel? And yeah, 380 fps is cool, that's a whole 20 more than a similar Intel offering, but hey, being real, the human eye doesn't detect anything over 60 fps anyways.
Originally posted by: Yeti101
Is it me, or does it seem like 4/5 out of the topics on this page are about AMD's.... All asking whats better for overclocking, when its hard to get a stable 200mhz on ANY AMD cpu OC... I have nothing agianst AMD's, I have a athon 1.4, hrm.
Yeti
Originally posted by: mechBgon
VIA = unstable? I haven't found that to be the case with mine. At work, I'm responsible for about 65 systems in my own building and really, our VIA-based systems are quite cooperative.
Well that's outstanding. Do you work in a glue factory? Open a window.
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
NewbiesTry looking at my rigs before making assinine assumptions
I almost heard you say 'Hee-Haw' I am sure of it.
Furthermore, your screenname is flamebait in and of it's self and my response was meant to convey boredom at your atypical 15 year old's attempt to start flame wars which makes the post extremely insightful.
What's wrong with my screen name? Are you going to 'PUNISH' me? You're just proving my point Holy One.
BTW you keep up with posts like you've been making and I can assure you it won't be long before the Mods put the smackdown on you
Yeah, They should remove everyone that isn't part of the AMD love in. That way, you all could have
your very own special area that President Bush would one day add to his list of "Axis of Evil"
I mean, 'freedom of speech' is just another word for 'AMD rules or else'.
Originally posted by: Kell
Actually, it's quite true. I've become very, very good at making boxen break if they have any hint of instability.
Bishop Crash is in da house, how thoughtful.
My ancient T-bird 1.33GHz, running on an early revision Gigabyte GA-7DX motherboard (AMD761+VIA686B), has pretty much proven to be unbreakable, even with four bandwidth-hungry PCI cards, an original-revision SBLive! Value, and the very first BIOS such boards ever had (I've never had the need to upgrade).
Wellen of coursen not, that boxen isn't going to breaken, it's muchen too olden.
It was the same story with my EPoX 7KXA motherboard (the very first KX133 board), with almost the same four PCI cards, plus all three DIMM slots full to max capacity.
There's just something about anecdotal evidence that screams "It's true, it's true!" isn't there?
That got handed down to my brother when I got the T-bird.
The only hand-me-down T-bird I'd ever accept has a Ford emblem on it.
It's the same story with the AthlonMP servers that are running these very forums, and with the HardForums. And let's not forget the Kentucky Linux Athlon Cluster (KLAT2).
Wow, that is a plethora of uses for an athlon. Maybe we could get together and write a Dave's Top 10 List, like
"Top 10 Reasons Everyone Buys Outrageously Overhyped T-birds"
Businesses don't always go for AMDs because they're conservative--they're using what's tried and tested, regardless of whether the alternative may be faster, cheaper, and just as stable. Businesses don't like risk.
The actual wording should be "Businesses don't like wasting money"
This is the same reason more businesses don't try Linux or FreeBSD so often.
Has nothing to do with software availability, I know. They don't like Linux because they're
afraid of it, not because <insert-your-favorite-windows-product-here> doesn't run on it reliably,
no, no, no.
It certainly doesn't mean Linux or FreeBSD is any less stable than the more ubiquitous Windows NT (indeed, quite the opposite has been proven); why should it imply such a thing for AMD?
Um, wild shot in the dark, because AMD and it's chipsets aren't stable enough?
Sorry, but you either did something wrong, or you got four anomalies.
Perhaps I have four anomalies, perhaps when I look out the window I'll see flying horses, perhaps all the people out there that are actually running demanding services on Intel are fools with lots of money to burn, perhaps all the people that have compatibility issues with there AMD setups should
just not use anything but a stick of ram and a hard drive in their computers, perhaps the sun only shines brighter on the days athlon's don't crash.
Have a bright sun shiny athlon day, Kell!
If AMD rigs are so unstable, who do so many people (like me, and Anand, and Kyle, and Kentucky U) have no problem getting them stable in the most demanding environments?
You know, the forums could actually use a bit more oompf, they're kinda slow so I don't know if you want to use that as an example. And Kentucky U? Is that in the Ozark Mountains, right next to HillBilly Jim's BlueGrass Bar and Grill west of the Nascar track? The only thing demanding about that environment
is if you're a city boy asking for directions from Bubba and Earl (shades of Deliverance)
I've never seen anyone who could actually prove that AMD rigs are as unstable as you claim, and there's plenty of proof that they're more stable than you seem to think.
I've never seen anyone who could actually prove that AMD rigs are as stable as you claim, and there's plenty of proof that they're more unstable than you seem to think.
Sorry Kell, your sentence was perfect excpet you had the "un" in the wrong place.
Originally posted by: AntiAMD
Originally posted by: Kell
My ancient T-bird 1.33GHz, running on an early revision Gigabyte GA-7DX motherboard (AMD761+VIA686B), has pretty much proven to be unbreakable, even with four bandwidth-hungry PCI cards, an original-revision SBLive! Value, and the very first BIOS such boards ever had (I've never had the need to upgrade).
Wellen of coursen not, that boxen isn't going to breaken, it's muchen too olden.
It was the same story with my EPoX 7KXA motherboard (the very first KX133 board), with almost the same four PCI cards, plus all three DIMM slots full to max capacity.
There's just something about anecdotal evidence that screams "It's true, it's true!" isn't there?
Let's see, I actually describe the circumstances of my boxen and then point to some publicly-known instances of stable Athlon boxen. You just vaguely refer to four AMD boxen that might have crashed due to user error or something else. So who really has the most anecdotal evidence here?
If AMD rigs are so unstable, who do so many people (like me, and Anand, and Kyle, and Kentucky U) have no problem getting them stable in the most demanding environments?
You know, the forums could actually use a bit more oompf, they're kinda slow so I don't know if you want to use that as an example. And Kentucky U? Is that in the Ozark Mountains, right next to HillBilly Jim's BlueGrass Bar and Grill west of the Nascar track? The only thing demanding about that environment
is if you're a city boy asking for directions from Bubba and Earl (shades of Deliverance)
You know, that doesn't make AMD boxen unstable. That just means the forum servers don't handle the load as well as we might like. Athlons were chosen because they roundly trounced Xeons for much less money, so it's not as if Xeons would have given the server more of this mythical "oomph."
This is stability. Having servers maintain this kind of stability under extreme pressure (the same pressure that causes lack of "oomph" you detect) proves their stability even further.
Now, in an attempt to discredit my evidence, you call into question the University of Kentucky itself and what it does? You're obviously grabbing at straws. Here and here are the relevant pages, if you're not too close-minded to check them out.
So let's see...I have three instances of solid proof that Athlons are stable when set up properly (as well as two rather anecdotal accounts, i admit freely). You have some vague anecdotes with no hard evidence supporting your point, where the cause of failure may or may not be AMD or their chipsets. Until you can actually come back with anything better, consider yourself trumped in this debate. I have nothing further to say to you.
I dont know where that came from.... Just like all your other points, they're random. I understand people are limited with $. As am I, Im building a dream system, and I qualify to only 1 of your standers. b) insanely competivite... Sure, I want to be the best, have the best rig, ect. Why not shoot for the stars?... I agree AntiAMD has gone just a wee tad overboard - sorry budthose that can afford to build dream systems constantly are: a) ridiculously wealthy b) insanely competitive c) only children with rich parents
Originally posted by: drogue
didnt someone say something about intel fanboys being quiet and reserved....?
It's those annoying AMD fanboys that jump into conversations we could do without, I hear ya.
while we've not heard from ssxeon except once in this thread....
SSXeon is actually pretty cool
antiamd is taking his place.
Which is also pretty cool if you think about it.
there is no point in arguing with him....
Considering you only have an AMD leg to stand on
he'll be an intel fanboy even when intel and amd have both gone the way of the dodo bird.
I am so not going to be your friend now.
i've set up many computers for friends and family members.....
Pointless anecdote in 5..4..3..2..1...
totals 23 systems set up. i've used 15 athlon rigs and 8 intel rigs. and you know...except for ppl calling asking how to retrieve their window's passwords, i've NEVER had a service call, NEVER had any complaints about stability, and NEVER had compatability problems.
Is this where I *YAWN*?
saying via/amd solutions are unstable is making a generalization about a subject which you obviously dont know enough about.
Au contrare Reverend Athlon, I know much about the subject. In fact I speak with a certain amount of authority. AMD users have grown accustomed to blue screens with memory dumps, they confuse this for their screen saver.
furthermore, the p4 vs xp debate is useless. get over it,
Who's comparing the two? I am merely pointing out that AMD and their partners in crime Via need to do some work to make sure the end users have stable systems. Instead of jumping to the defense of some mega-million dollar company (AMD) and claiming they don't peal the wallpaper in the bathroom, why not push them to do better? Honestly, do they pay you guys? And if they don't, what's it like being a Corporate Groupie?
sometimes xps are faster, sometimes p4s are faster. in reality thats better, because it means you can get the best performance you need for a specific use/application without having to build a super computer.
Well, now there's something an AMD setup will never be confused with.
in any case, this thread is meaningless.
Which is why you replied to it to keep it going, I know.
if you really want to know why ther eare so many amd posts...its b/c they're cheaper....regardless of performance, they are cheaper.
The old saying goes, "Good systems ain't cheap, cheap systems ain't good"
a lot of people here are working on limited budgets,
I hear violin's...
where you cant build the absolute fastest rig possible b/c of budgets.
Stop, you're pulling a tear out of my eye now <sniff>
those that can afford to build dream systems constantly are: a) ridiculously wealthy b) insanely competitive c) only children with rich parents.
And where do you fit in?
Originally posted by: Kell
Let's see, I actually describe the circumstances of my boxen and then point to some publicly-known instances of stable Athlon boxen. You just vaguely refer to four AMD boxen that might have crashed due to user error or something else. So who really has the most anecdotal evidence here?
I don't think I've ever refered to my 4 AMD's during anecdote, sorry, I've only mentioned that I own 4 AMD systems
You know, that doesn't make AMD boxen unstable. That just means the forum servers don't handle the load as well as we might like.
Never claimed otherwise, just pointed it out
Athlons were chosen because they roundly trounced Xeons for much less money, so it's not as if Xeons would have given the server more of this mythical "oomph."
The oompf is not 'mythical', it is quite real Kell, and what I said was quite true, more oompf would be nice, regarless of cpu.
This is stability.
Okay... this site seems to be advertising Mac and Solaris, so are you telling me Sparc and G4 have good uptime, as this is all I can find, no mention of AMD.
Having servers maintain this kind of stability under extreme pressure (the same pressure that causes lack of "oomph" you detect) proves their stability even further.
What motherboards are in the server Kell, and would you show us pictures of it for verification?
Now, in an attempt to discredit my evidence, you call into question the University of Kentucky itself and what it does?
I know, I'm abominable, am I not? Sit back, relax Kell, Kentucky, backwoods, you know, joke?
You're obviously grabbing at straws.
But at least I'm not trying to milk an AMD bandwagon.
Here and here are the relevant pages, if you're not too close-minded to check them out.
Well, the first one was the KU homepage, none of the indexes found mention of AMD or athlon, I was
quite disenfranchised to say the least. However, on the second page I found the KLAT2 project,
quite fascinating. But alas, no mention of stability, just that athlon 700's are more "tolerant of errant code" than K6-2 300's (which doesn't say much, in and of itself) No, the reason KLAT2 uses
AMD was purely price (with a little blurb about SSE being harder to code than 3DNOW!)
So let's see...I have three instances of solid proof that Athlons are stable when set up properly (as well as two rather anecdotal accounts, i admit freely).
See above reply lines.
You have some vague anecdotes with no hard evidence supporting your point, where the cause of failure may or may not be AMD or their chipsets.
Vague? Have you seen the problems that seem to be inherant in the AMD family, things like "why can't I use all 3 simm slots on my new motherboard" "Why won't my new GeForce4 work right with my new motherboard?" "Why won't my new SoundBlaster Audigy work right with my new motherboard?" ad nauseum...
Until you can actually come back with anything better, consider yourself trumped in this debate. I have nothing further to say to you.
You had nothing worthwhile to say to me in the first place. If that's what you call "laying the trumpeth down" your arguements need work
Originally posted by: Kell
I've cast my vote; let's do it the HardForums way. Split the CPU forum up the two camps and warn/ban anyone who goes trolling on the wrong side of the fence.
Thats the ticket isn't it Kell, we'll just shut anyone up that has a differing opinion, open discussion should be warn/ban shouldn't it? The one quick way to not lose sleep over what I say is to not read the thread that intimidates you Kell. I mean the quick fix is don't read the thread, can't hurt you if you don't see it.
Don't let yourself get all worked up when somone says something bad about AMD. It's just a CPU/Chipset (albeit a flakey one).