Yea I will agree that AMD does have its difficulties but I am running a 1300mhz Athlon on XP with no problems whatsoever so....I think alot of it comes from installation error....

0

I have found through out the years that Intel Chips were a little more stable (a chip for the masses) but the AMD chips were always faster and cheaper in price. Neither one had a strength that was so much better as to over come the other for superiority, except price. I see allot of Intel commercials...not too many for AMD. Who do you think is paying for all those commercials? Hotrods

0

Reptek-9 What chipset are you running?

0

Is this about "I am right and you're wrong?" No, it should be an open discussion of our own experiences without making false conclusions. I have seen my girlfriend's Pentium III system crashing over and over, but does that make Intel processors trash? I guess not. Now she has an Athlon Thunderbird and the only blue screen we've seen was during the DOS part of the Win XP installation process which is quite normal. Does that make Athlon Thunderbirds the best of all? I guess not. I personally think that both Intel as AMD deliver quality products and I don't give a damn about the name the processor is carrying. Everyone has it's own reasons or preferences to buy whatever he likes. I must confess however that I didn't know the prices of Intel dropped that much the last weeks, so the argument to buy an AMD for it's low price is almost gone(sorry for my first post but I haven't been checking the prices recently). And btw, people DO look at benchmarks. Seems a bit stupid to me to buy a processor without knowing what it's capable off comparing to other processors. Or do we buy a processor only to find out that it is performing so slow comparing to other ones because we don't like benchmarks and never looked at them? Also, we're running a LOT of different applications and we happen to play some games once in a while also. To me the price has always been the key factor of what to buy, so I will have a problem what to buy next time since the difference in price is that small right now :0)

0

Hey, Brains. Intel slashed the P4's a few weeks ago by over 50% in some cases. They did this because they are phasing out the P III's, that is the only reason they slashed the price. By 1st quater of next year you won't see many PIII's on the store shelves. Laters, KTTD

0

I am running a tbird 1300/100 and i am happy with it. I have gotten amd chips for the last few years, mainly because the price was cheaper. However, if when it comes time to upgrade my computer (once again) and the latest benchmark scores on tomshardware, anandtech, etc show a faster and more stable intel (or any other brand for that matter) I will go strait for it. I dont' understand why someone can be such a fanatic over a brand name anyway. Read your benchmarks, find articles that objectively show the numbers. Numbers do not lie. You say that people DO look at benchmarks? Only people who know what's going on do. My uncle insists on staying with intel, BAR NONE. He doesn't even understand why, but when his computer professional nephew (me) tells him that he needs to look at benchmarks and read articles, he will insist that intel is still better. THAT is my gripe with people. BLIND LOYALTY above all else. There could be a cyrix chip running at 25ghz with 20gb of onboard cache memory with an integrated 100tb solid state hard drive that is capable of 50 petaflops and he would still insist that Pentium 3 technology is still better. My two cents.

0

What I was trying to say is that some discussions seems more like some kind of war same as that stupid Windows(XP)vs Linux thing that I've read over and over. If you like one processor because you feel confident about it then buy it, simple as that. Everyone has his own reasons. Patrick, I also have a friend that will ALWAYS buy Intel because for him it's the only processor that's ok. I don't even argue with him about it. There are indeed many people that will always stick to what they know is good. But at the same time this group of people won't be looking on this kind of forums to solve there problems. I was referring to most of the people that are active on this forum and I think that most of them DO look at benchmarks.

0

Yes ... well, if money were no object, then right now, I would probably be hard pressed to decide whether I wanted a P4 or a T-Bird. Kevin the Tech Dude says that there is hardly any price difference between the processors. It is obvious that the prices are more or less the same across the board, with Intel being about 5-12% higher on a clock for clock basis. The only thing is, an Athlon 1.4 vs. a P4 1.4 performance wise is a different story altogether. The Athlon really does stomp all over a p4 on a clock for clock basis. However, Intel is ABLE TO PRODUCE a 2.0 GHz p4 that is, according to benchmarks I have read, faster than the Athlon 1.4. However, it is only faster in about 60% of the benchmarks, and that only by a small margin (except for a few Pentium optimized applications). The other 40% of benchmarks show pretty much a dead heat with some cases of the Athlon 1.4 beating out the p4 2.0. What these benchmarks suggest is that IF THERE WERE an Athlon 2.0, then the Athlon would, for the most part, beat out the P4. However, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. For one, I remember reading when it first came out, that the P4 architecture is dependant upon higher clock speeds for it to really shine. This suggests that while a p4 2.0 may not be as fast as an Athlon 2.0, the same might not hold true for a pair of 3 GHz, 4 GHz, or 5 GHz chips. This is assuming that the basic architecture remains the same on both chips. The other thing to keep in mind is the fact that we are beginning to reach a limit on how fast the clock on these chips can be. I also remember reading that while 2 GHz and maybe 3 GHz may be attainable; we will probably never see a 4 GHz chip. Such a feat is said to be impossible. So in the future, chipmakers are going to have to focus more on architecture improvements, rather than an increase in clock speed. The problem with this is that the marketing people are going to have to make up a new number to tell the public. Maybe they will start advertising chips based on there Gigaflop capability. Remember, some the fastest supercomputers in the world are only running 800 MHz p3 chips. They are faster because they are coupling (in some cases) hundreds of chips/motherboards together to do the same task, a brute force improvement in architecture. Maybe in ten years both AMD and Intel will not even exist as chipmakers anymore. Maybe some upstart company is, as I write this, designing a processor that is actually 10 chips all running in tandem. I know I would opt for a computer with ten processors running at 1 GHz instead of one with only one processor running at 3 GHz. Who knows? Only time will tell. Patrick

0

I've had this 1.2GHz Athlon since the February of this year, and to my knowledge; never over heats. Right now, the temperature of the CPU is 26.7 degrees C/80.1 degrees F- I've just finshed playing FIFA2001. I've got an Asus v8200 deluxe GeForce 3; Netgear NIC card/cable modem; Sound Blaster Live(!) card; 256Mb cas2 Crucial Ram; CD-RW; CD-ROM- and a very rarely get BSODs. I run my PC daily: browse the internet, play online retail games- with no problem what-so-ever. AMD processors/VIA chipsets are every bit a stable as the Intel Pentium ones! I'm sick of the anti-AMD propaganda. I nearly bought a PIV 1.3GHz machine because I was worried about possible compatibility issues with the VIA chipset and my old ADSL USB modem!! I'm so glad that I didn't listen to the pro-Intel fear-mongers! Intel processors are over-hyped, and over-priced! AMD rules!

0

PS The *only* time I had BSODs (about 3 in total) was when I've inadvertantly deleted an incorect file when cleaning the registry of remenants of old applications/games. So apart form that- I've NEVER had a BSOD during normal operations.

0

Insightful posts. People say they are sick of AMD bashing. Understood. I have bashed AMD. I am little passionate about this lately because AMD has caused me grief (and expense). So when I read posts claiming how great they are I wonder what’s going on. If there is one thing everyone should do here is be specific. It's nice when people note the chipset they are running with the processor. I know allot of people like AMD. And, I am in absolute agreement that Intel has produced allot of garbage over the years (and probably will in years to come). My replies are in regards to what I strongly believe. I've compared P3's and P4's to Athlons. The Athlons were running the VIA KT133 and 133A chipsets. Speeds were 950 to 1.2 GHz. The P3's were running the 815 chipset and P4 the new 845 chipset. The comparisons were not “benchmarks” but my experiences in building and selling them. Regular uses like MS Office, USB devices, Imaging applications, graphics apps, Internet, games, etc. I use good components and lots of fans. With proper cooling I never had heat problems with AMD. The things I've had problems with were unresponsive menus and blue screens when I was doing simple things with the PC. The problem may well be the VIA chipset I was using, KT133 and KT133A. It may be something else (the weather, I don’t know). The AMD 761 chipset “may” be a solution (I’ve seen good reviews). But that chipset is very expensive. It makes any savings on the processor irrelevant. Especially with Intel pricing so low. But if it would make everything run better I would be interested in knowing that. Sure benchmarks matter…. But some guys think that is what makes a good processor. I disagree. It’s a combination of chipset, processor and how well apps run that makes for a good system. If something is fast but not stable then I feel it’s not as useful a machine. I've sold about a dozen P3's this last year. All of them were running Intel 815 chipsets. I haven't had any hardware problems. They’ve run very smooth. That’s not an exaggeration. Most of my systems consist of pretty much the same components. I recommend things I’ve had good experiences with. In total I sold 4 Athlons this year and I ended up replacing the mainboard in processor in one of them. It wasn’t faulty, it was just acting strange. That was when I stopped selling them (around April).Maybe the Athlon’s need a different configuration then I was using. Different components, I am not sure. So a week ago (Sept) I decided to upgrade my own PC. I was running a P2 350 (440 BX). After reading allot of passionate AMD support here on computing.net and also reading some more incredible benchmark articles I decided I would “not” go with my gut and again try AMD. This time on my own PC. My thinking was... if I can prove myself wrong then I could comfortably sell AMD. I want AMD to work well. They are easy to sell (I can even back up my sale with all sorts of cool benchmark graphs and stuff). Everyone loves an underdog (smaller company crushing the big guys). I spent the money and upgraded to an Athlon 1.2 with MSI K7T Turbo (VIA KT133A) mainboard and an ATI Xpert 2000 32MB video, 512 SDRAM. I’m also running XP, (this is an XP forum). Big problems! I hammered on it for 2 days and then changed again. This time I changed to a P4 1.5 with Intel 845 chipset. The problems went away. So overall I don’t like what “I” have seen with AMD and I am voicing my opinion. I realize there are many factors. Possibly with improved driver support I wouldn't have had these difficulties. People spend money because of what the read here on computing.net. If people like AMD and want to go that route, I am cool with that. But if people are going to say AMD is better, I’ll take issue with that and voice my opinion. I did sit on the fence at one time but I've now decided I don’t like them. I think the P4 is better. I would be happy to eat my words. I just need to see it for myself. AMD is faster MHz to MHz I will not deny that. Also, I will not deny that obviously some people are having great luck with their AMD systems. AMD has been excellent in helping keep the cost of chips down and also keeping Intel on their toes. I don‘t want AMD to go away I just want to have a better experience personally with the Athlon. I wish MS had competition like Intel does with AMD. Maybe that would push the price of operating systems down.

0

My motherboard is a Gateway KT-133 (MSI 6330).

0

Yes sir AMD suck! Glad ya got a T-bird buddy. Welcome to the ranks of the enlightened...

0

I think that stability is really a function of user aptitude - or lack thereof. I have seen many AMD systems that simply suck ass, but not nearly as many as I have seen of Intel. You have to choose the right hardware - yes, that means you, all you Via victims - Intel and AMD alike, you were all screwed. Via aside, user error/ineptitude accounts for 99% of bad systems - research before you buy!!! Personally, I own 2 AMD systems, and 3 Intel systems - all of which run stable as anything. All that's required is a little knowledge of the hardware, some research before buying, and some know-how in order to set it up and maintain it - you hear that - MAINTAIN IT - a neglected computer is a buggy computer. Be nice to your baby. I have found that Asus products tend to be the most full-featured, best supported, and most stable out of the bunch. Consequently, they tend to run at a premium - but for a stable, healthy system, I say it's worth the expenditure. As far as the Via 4-in-1 drivers go, I have found that they are completely unnecessary for Windows 2000 and later - which is really the only OS you should be running if you're so into stability and reliability. I have been running Windows 2000 since 1999, and XP since the RC1 version, and I have nothing but praise. You want to know what to do with your current hardware? Take Jason's advice (reply #4) - yard sale!

0

After reading the many opinions and vantage points of the readers and writers here at computing.net, I've noticed that there are a few points that everyone misses. (1) A company is not just about their product, but their business conductance as well. (2) Who are the primary purchasers of computers? (3) What are the most common uses of computers? (1) So it is deftly apparent to me that the two "King" processor companies for PC computers (namely Intel and AMD) are two completely opposite companies. Besides producing different products (the obvious one), they produce different businesses. When you look at the available platforms for the Intel chipsets, what do you see? Well, take a look. I mean, have you ever really thought about it? You have over 90% of the available platforms (motherboards) being produced by Intel themselves! Stability is your qualm? Well, would you expect Intel to NOT provide an extremely stable platform for their OWN processors? Furthermore, the only other company to "confront" Intel and produce their own chipset was VIA. The behind the scenes situation was not as pretty as it might seem. Take a look: VIA produces a chipset (for the P4) that may even outcompete those made by Intel! What few do know is that Intel nearly gave VIA an ultimatum. "Put out that chipset and we'll put YOU out" was the basic gist of it. Perhaps not that they would literally snuff out the company, but in a more indirect manner, which would be easier for Intel and more effective in destroying the small Taiwanese company, VIA. For Intel to do this, they simply have to just stop providing chips and support for VIA. "If you can't kick them out, STARVE them out." Seems to be the motto, right? Now how many of you think that THIS is good business practice? I certainly don't. Now let's look at AMD. Who makes platform chipsets for them? ALi, VIA, AMD, the list goes on and on (or at least much longer than it does for Intel). The reason for this? AMD isn't about to strongarm any companies into doing "their bidding". This is just an example. AMD business practice has been more civil over the past years than Intel ever was. Now imagine the shame of Intel when they were forced to recall thousands of their Pentium III's running at a clock speed too fast for them to truely handle. I always enjoy it. ;) (2) The primary purchasers of computers, unfortunately, is not the power user. It's not even the gamer. It's the BUSINESS. Behind that, it's the FAMILY. We all enjoy playing games, but I'd hate to say it, but Intel and AMD didn't make their CPU's for those of us geeks who like to game and occasionally look at porn (don't lie, you know you have). The companies aren't worried about our business NEARLY as much as they are worried about the business of ... well the BUSINESSES. Watch their commercials. They're centered around being a "part of your business world". Their second major target audience is the FAMILY. Do slogans promising increased media performance come to mind? I agree that those aliens on TV in the P4 commercials are both ugly and a terrible idea, but they are targeted at the family. Parents who want to get their children gifts of music and DVDs. How many people do YOU know who actually bought their own first computer? More often than not, it was their PARENTS who bought a computer. Am I right? Parents who buy their children their computers listen to the people at the STORES that they buy them from. Does the support for Intel or AMD exist more in the store? The conclusion is up to you. (3) Usage of computers, as I have alluded to earlier, is also something that must be considered. The most commonly run applications are word processors, internet applications, and media playing software. Intel and AMD produce excellent processors for all of those categories, but do you honestly think that the home or even business user is going to be running their processor at it's MAXIMUM capacity to surf the web? to watch a DVD? to type up that mid-term paper? Methinks not. We, the audience here at Computing.Net, are more "advanced" computer users (as we know how to fix things, program things, manipulate hardware, build computers, etc.). We "Advanced" users might use more of that processing power, but honestly, who here really wants to play Quake III in 1600x1200x32 resolution x colordepth?. If you do, get a good video card. Your CPU is probably not your only issue. I don't know about you guys, but I certainly won't even use even 1/2 the processing power of my AMD Athlon 1.33 ghz processor unless I'm rendering or crunching numbers. We need to realize what it is that WE use our computers for and buy accordingly. If you crunch numbers, Intel's P4 might be your buddy. If you game, AMD's Athlon XP 1900+ is your pet. If you just type papers, get a typewriter. You don't even need a CPU for that. My point is, we gripe about all the things we don't even do, use, or ever will do or use. Find the CPU solution that is best for YOU. Now tell me, would you buy a CPU that benchmarks (as we all love benchmarks, lol) really well in 3d Mark 2001 if you're only going to use it for surfing *cough*forporn*cough* on the web? Likewise, are you going to buy a CPU that benchmarks really well in web applications if all you do is game? I say these examples using exclusive and extreme cases only to illustrate a point that I hope is clear to everyone now. ~Frankie (Oscar) E-mail me, I'd love to hear your feedback

0

As a short addition, I forgot to mention experience with stability and chipsets too. I would definitely like to agree with ShtHed64 in response #20. I have also owned numerous Intel systems and even more numerous AMD systems. I loved both equally, but I have recently encountered the KT266A chipset from VIA, the humble Taiwanese company bashed constantly by you vicious ignoramases. Using the EPoX 8KHA+ motherboard with this outstanding VIA chipset, I've encountered stability, compatability, and performance beyond anything I've EVER used, and believe me, I've used a LOT of computers. As a professional builder of customized PC's, I can honestly say, this is by FAR the best motherboard I've ever used. So Stability? Cost? Those are your issues? Here is your solution. the VIA KT266A chipset on the EPoX 8KHA+ motherboard. Effective solution at lower cost that damned near any other mobo I've bought too! Check out http://www.newegg.com/ and find the EPoX 8KHA+ mobo!! My MOBO PICK! ~Frankie (Oscar) skidmoron@hotmail.com

0

Look, bottom line... "Intel is BETTER than AMD." We don't need no "benchmark" tests and all that crap. You notice the difference when YOU use a Pentium. If you're going to upgrade, then get a P4 1.8GHz and above, as they are the best. Unbeaten, unrivalled, unraced! AMD think they're big because they have the name XP. And because they put their processor models names, as speeds in Mhz they could only dream of running at. I've been on a P4 2GHz, and OH MY GOD! YOU DON'T EVEN WANNA KNOW THE SPEEDS OF THAT! You definately DO notice the difference. I went on an AMD Athlon XP 1900... nothing special, no difference. You wouldn't think it is as fast as it says it is. It was just a b o r i n g - n o r m a l PC! And who exactly is winning the MHz race?! "WHAT". Intel are... More experience, better clock rates, better performance, bigger name, low temperatures = Stick with the professionals! If you're going to reply to this message, then make it positive to Intel, and don't post any rubbish that AMD are better. If you are going to post about AMD, positive if you can give me proof "WHAT", I said make it positive if you can give me proof! And that's all I gotta say about that "WHAT"! Rik2001 ^]~ '

0

AMD RULES PPL! All you intel lovers out there can go f--- yoursleves coz we're takin over!

0