Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Caspar
My first chip was an AMD PR75, after that I've had a cyrix and an even mix of amds and intels. I am currently on a Athlon t'bird 1400.
The reason I prefer intels, is stability. I'm sure things have changed...but the bad history that I've had with AMDs is horrid! Intels run smoother, cooler and damn right easier to build (plus the stickers are smarter!   ) |
Stability is down to the motherboard and other peripherals and not the CPU (Unless damaged obviously), the AMD K6 & K6-2 was plagued with bad motherboard design (I only ever used 1 stable K6 machine and I owned 3 personally plus all my friends had them at the time), Ironicly the K6-2 CPUs ran best on intel chipsets but I think there was only ever one designed for anything above 250Mhz and it was rare at best, yet still performed better and run more stable tan the PII equivelents, unless you had the fabled 440BX chipset.
As for the athlon platform in the early days the slot based Athlon Ran pretty good aslong as you stayed away from fully integrated motherboards (Was a general good bit of advce anyway until the most recent generation of integrated solutions).
For the Athlon T'Birds and onwards there have been very few bad designs unless you go for the cheap and nasty mobos.
It really irritates me when people compare an intel machine built from high priced components all brand new to an AMD machine built from bargain bin Low grade components (Might aswel be comparing apples to oranges)
e.g.
AMD 1800XP+ Intel P4 1.8ghz
256mb DDR 2100 (Generic) 256mb PC800 RDRAM (Crucial)
£35 pc chips mobo £80 Intel Mobo
Fully integrated components All ofboard components
Wich do you think would run more stable? I know its more of an extereme example but I think you get my point.