Whats more reliable AMD or INTEL from past experience. Be honest no bashing

E

ellover009

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
1,908
Whats more reliable AMD or INTEL from past experience. Be honest no bashing. '
I am considering building a system I had luck with intel but have no experience with AMD. I am considering AMD but I want something reliable. Be honest don't cap on another brand just share your experiences with each.

To make it fair i will also post in intel's forum
 
I've had good experiences with the P4 Northwoods. Ran a 2.6C at 3.0Ghz for 2 years with no stability problems.

Athlon XP's were a mixed bag...the mobiles treated me alright.

S939 A64's have been very reliable so far for me. My Winchester sucked nuts (I think it was my board), but my Venice and X2 Manchester have been fine.

S754 is more limited experience. I had a 2800+ that still blue screens every now and then. I'm trying to OC it to 2.4Ghz and sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't :). Probably less a stability issue with the CPU as opposed to what I was trying to do with it.

No Prescott experience of any kind...have stayed away because of heat issues.

Generally, I leave my computer on 24/7, and overall have had little issue with that and WinXP no matter what processor I used.
 
They both make good stuff. You just have to consider what you're needs are. Are you going to
be running several app where hyper-threading will be a benefit. Or you do you do serious encoding/photoshop and gaming at the same time...A dual core might be better. If serious gaming is what you do, then currently AMD is on top....but this could change in a few months.
You basically have to weigh price/performance/features and go with whats best in your situation. But I'm sure whatever platform you go with, there's plenty of people here that will assist you for either brand.
 
Neither is more / less reliable than the other. Things like reliability and stability depend on so many factors, you can't narrow them down to just the processor. You have to consider what chipsets are available (these can vary in quality quite a bit), the quality of the implementation on the motherboard (you often get what you pay for), the quality of the drivers, and the reliability / stability of the operating system the system is running on, not to mention the quality of the other components in the system (omg i got this 1337W MEGAPOWER power supply for so cheap!11) and the quality of the installation (e.g., putting the entire tube of thermal paste in between the processor and heatsink).

The bottom line is this: do research and don't settle for crappy components. If you do, and have problems, don't blame it on the company that made just one of the components, since it's probably a combination of factors.

To make it fair I will also post in the other thread you made.
 
Right now, there's not much of a difference in stability of the platform (and there has never really been any difference in the stability of the CPU).

It's just with AMD you still have to care about what chipset you buy. NF4, NF3 250GB/Ultra, are really what you want to stick to for Athlon64. K8T800 Pro isn't bad either, but a bit dated.
NF3 150, K8T800, avoid them at this point.
 
I said this in your other thread:

If you a) know what the hell you're doing and b) pick the right parts, you shouldn't have any problems with EITHER these days.
 
My intel always crashes, now I have a 2200+ sempron that hasn't crashed once.
 
Parts reliability is usually more of a user-error based thing. I've had no troubles with a 1ghz Intel and all of my AMD's with the exception of my Athlon 64 2800+, have been flawless. I usually wind up crushing a core or something anyways.
 
There never has been any difference in stability or reliability related to the CPUs. CPUs generally don't fail or cause problems. I've seen mabey 2 bad CPUs in my lifetime that failed on their own. Motherboards do cause problems however and since AMD motherboards are all manufactured by 3rd parties then of course you will have more issues.
 
my old P4 1.5 ghz has been running rock-solid for 4 years, and right now i'm using an Athlon SFF i built for college that's been stable all summer.
 
the only intel chip ive ever had die on me was a celeron 700, and that was becuase i stored it with the HSF on and the core was crushed somehow. ive had quite few intel systems from the pentium to the p4.

ive never had an AMD chip die on me, and i have quite a few in service (from the k6 to the a64 x2)

that is, of course, we're only talking about processors. the old VIA AMD chipsets sucked complete ass.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
the same for me.
Click to expand...


ditto

have had good and bad experiances with both. I think AMD is generally recognized as being less stable because it needs more tweaking. This is false, stems from the fact that alot of people who own DFI products probably shouldnt :eek:

not that I dont like DFI, but options are not always a good thing, for someones first A64 build.
 
I have built systems for a living for over a decade.

In the very early days, before the XP processors, AMDs were overly hot and a little less reliable. But the only ones that really sucked and outright cooked themselves to death were Cyrix chips. That company isn't even around anymore.

Today, both Intel and AMD make excellent products and their quality conrol is excellent. It truly is a matter of personal preference which one you choose.
 
IMO: Intel.

Reason: I've seen at least 3 DOA AMD chips. Recent ones to, actually. I've never seen a DOA Intel chip.

Chipset-wise, they're identical IMO for all intents and purposes.
 
The only problems I have had with AMD is back in the day with the old Via chipsets... The chips themselves have been flawless for me.... Never had a problem with any of them... They have all oced decently too :cool:
 
i've killed a few amd chips from user error, but the new design that is reminiscent of the intel design with the metal cap over the core has alleviated that, and i have since returned to amd... had i think 3 p4's, and they were great for me... am about to build a file server/learning tool with 2 p3 733 socket 370's, that oughta be nice... but yeah, as far as stability, i'd say, of course depending on chipset, neither is more stable than the other...
 
Both make good cpu's, the trick is to use good parts with those cpu's. There was a time where it was harder to find a good AMD chipset but I don't think that's as true these days.
 
Well, personally, I've had the same experiences with both.

I work for a major computer manufacturer and in the past few years we have started building systems with AMD processors. In the manufacturing facility where I work, There is an 3% failure rate with intel cpus. AMD is at about 1%. Granted, we build most of our systems with intel cpus, but considering we make about 7000 systems per day, that's on average of 200 bad intel cpus (out of 6800) and 2 bad AMD cpus (out of 200) per day on average. I'm not factoring in other problems, like bad motherboards and such, as we keep track of all aspects of hardware failure for vendor warranty replacement. Just strictly cpu failures.

So, out of every 200 systems build, that's 2 bad AMD cpus and 6 bad intel cpus average per day.

I don't have the data for number of failures in the field, as this is taken care of by another department in a completely different facility in another city, so I can't state which is the reliability victor in that regard.

Granted, neither faliure rate is extreme of cause for serious concern, so a user of either choice will be getting a decent system.
 
DejaWiz said:
Well, personally, I've had the same experiences with both.

I work for a major computer manufacturer and in the past few years we have started building systems with AMD processors. In the manufacturing facility where I work, There is an 3% failure rate with intel cpus. AMD is at about 1%. Granted, we build most of our systems with intel cpus, but considering we make about 7000 systems per day, that's on average of 200 bad intel cpus (out of 6800) and 2 bad AMD cpus (out of 200) per day on average. I'm not factoring in other problems, like bad motherboards and such, as we keep track of all aspects of hardware failure for vendor warranty replacement. Just strictly cpu failures.

So, out of every 200 systems build, that's 2 bad AMD cpus and 6 bad intel cpus average per day.

I don't have the data for number of failures in the field, as this is taken care of by another department in a completely different facility in another city, so I can't state which is the reliability victor in that regard.

Granted, neither faliure rate is extreme of cause for serious concern, so a user of either choice will be getting a decent system.
Click to expand...


1% of AMDs seems pretty high to me as does 2% of intels.
 
I've personally never had a problem with a intel or AMD chip. It's all in the other hardware. The MOBO in particular has usually been the culpret of instability or failure with the vid card coming in 2nd. I've not had a proc. go bad since my first celeron 300a and the old 386's my dad first got for his buisness. I only know 1 person who's ever had a processor fail w/o mechanically damaging it and it was an old celeron 667 I believe running @ 952.
 
I have an AMD 550 mhz, that was bought 7 years and still running perfectly. So, I pretty much think AMD is the best. I also think Intel would be the same but since AMD has never let me down, I say AMD is better.
 
Sold over a thousand AMD processors and never had one go bad. I have had dead ones out of the box, and have had dead intels out of the box also, but that could have been due to ESD rather than manufacturer error.
 
Eickst said:
Sold over a thousand AMD processors and never had one go bad. I have had dead ones out of the box, and have had dead intels out of the box also, but that could have been due to ESD rather than manufacturer error.
Click to expand...

Didnt know cpus took drugs, much less were capable of OD'ing on them.
 
OK, since Junior High I've made 8 systems for myself.

3 Intel systems: 2 of them overclocked: No problems
5 AMD systems: 3 of them overclocked: No problems

I mean, I've had problems, but none that can be traced back to the CPU for being 'unreliable.'
 
I have never seen an intel proc go bad. I have seen an AMD proc go bad.

........

But I still will not buy Intel (perhaps thats why i never see them go bad?)
 
BigTaf said:
1% of AMDs seems pretty high to me as does 2% of intels.
Click to expand...
We get them all in oem bulk trays. It's not really that high considering these are all the cpus that are shoveled out in mass quantity for oem use.
 
DejaWiz said:
We get them all in oem bulk trays. It's not really that high considering these are all the cpus that are shoveled out in mass quantity for oem use.
Click to expand...


Hah. I remember seeing a tray of OEM Athlon XPs once. Half of them had little nicks and cuts in the core of the processor.

We buy only retail processors, that way we get the 3 year warranty on them.


Not that it matters, haven't had one go bad yet, but who knows what would happen with some end users.
 
Both manufacturers are reliable, it all depends on the chipset. NVidia and Intel have had the best history in my eyes, though it seems all chipset makers are shaping up. I've rarely seen bad processors, just bad overclockers. :)
 
I personally have owned both Intel and AMD. Havent had a system with a recent intel tho (not since the PIII days) but i can say i've owned nothing but AMD since the classic slot A days 500mhz up thru the Thunderbirds, Palomino, Throughbred, Barton and now a Newcastle 64 and i havent had any issues to date. I love my AMD procs.
 
This is such a beautiful thread!! I never thought I'd see the day where intel and amd were discussed with ZERO flaming!

That said, it's all in the chipset and motherboard baby! At least in my opinion, that's where most of the problems stem from. Think about it for a moment, a motherboard has no many freakin components from different companies. it's no wonder they offer the most problems. In my recent venture into AMD land (having owned 6 intel processors in a row), I've been through 3 motherboards in 6 months. The first (msi) wouldn't oc my winchester past 219 (known issue). The second (gigabyte) has had continued problems since I've updated the bios. (nic failure, usb issues, won't oc for sh1t). Now, I'm going to give epox a try.
 
the only major problem i had with amd was in the duron days, the system kept on giving me the bsod .... unlike my p4 which was pretty reliable for my video editing days
 
Maybe I've got really, REALLY good tech-kharma... But a system my brother (not Rhetoric, the other one) and I built about 10 years ago was based on a Cyrix 5x86. We OCed that mother and it ran nicely. Many, MANY hours of Team Fortress Classic were logged on that box with it's measly Riva128 based video card. Ahhh... So much fun. Of course, we couldn't let that go, so we built a very stable Celery 533 (OCed to 800) system for him. Since then every system we've built or purchsed, though, has been AMD based (Duron, T-bird, Barton, Venice, and I forget what core Rhetoric's 754 pin 3000+ is). We've based that decision not on stability, but on value. I would completely trust an Intel based machine, but I personally don't find the value in them anymore.

Anyhow, the point is... All those chips ran stably -- AMD, Intel, AND Cyrix. Only time they didn't was when we overzealously OCed the crap out of them (throttling down brought back stability) or the motherboards died (I had an Abit KT7-RAID and an Epox 8RDA+ that BOTH suffered from blooming capacitors... WTF?)
 
Morley said:
I said this in your other thread:

If you a) know what the hell you're doing and b) pick the right parts, you shouldn't have any problems with EITHER these days.
Click to expand...


agreed.
 
My last Intel chip was a Pentium3 750MHz, to which I went AMD 3400+, and now I'm on a venice at 2.7GHz, and I also built my dad a 3.2C Socket 478 P4 setup for work. I had some weird bugs to work out on his 478 setup, but it's been good since I took a day off and checked/fixed anything I could think of on it.

In all honesty though, processor wise, reliability will be solid on both...it's all on what you need. But your needs are what really point you to the processor you need.

My recommend cores, in order of performance:

Multi-Tasking: AMD Athlon64 X2 - Pentium D - AMD Athlon64 1MB of L2
Gaming: AMD Athlon64 1MB of L2 - AMD Athlon64 512K of L2 - Pentium 4

I also suggest the 1MB gaming CPU for everyday use and light/medium multi-tasking...after playing with both a 1mb cache core and a 512k cache core, unless you overclock, I'm big on cache now. With the extra cache, AMD chips multi task fine...but Intel w/ HT kills the 512k cache'd chips, but I still think there's little difference between HT-enabled an AMD w/ 1MB L2 (I've used both 3.2C on 478 and 3.4E on 775, so I have some wheel time with HT). But I'm not ALL AMD....I mean, my dedicated server I rent for all of my gaming stuff on is a Pentium4 3GHz w/ HT and the 800MHz FSB.
 
lol time to show my age, my first amd system was when i built my 486 dx4 100 mhz useing the amd chip, ran great no stability issues at all, but from that point i have stayed away from amd up to the 939 socket, the last socket style chips where also good, but in tell recently amd was not high on my list cause of the various heat / temp monitering issues and general stability ( like said before via stank also and caused problems, the intel vs amd rants are mostly half chip and half supporting hardware), where as intel had the speed step thing ( if it got to hot it would just cycle down the speed till it was stable again ) and variuos things going for it. ( this is a view on stability not performance )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top