Brand Loyalty

[Scali]

Off topic but what quality issues have you encountered with AMD cpus / chipsets?

Mostly overheating issues, 'solved' by lots of case fans and expensive CPU coolers (requiring me to clean and oil them every once in a while, and by far eliminating the price advantage of the Athlon itself, and then there's the noise), and VIA chipsets, brrrr. I still get problems with some games, which just randomly exit... No idea why, my brother's PC with an Intel CPU/chipset and also a Radeon card, never does that with the same game (Project IGI 2... another thing it does, and the Intel system doesn't, is getting incredibly slow when there are lots of enemies shooting at you).

Other than that, the VIA chipset is just horribly slow. I sold the GeForce2 to my father, who put it in his Celeron 1 GHz... Upon testing the card, I noticed that some of my programs ran up to 50% faster(!) on his PC than on mine. Which is quite an achievement, considering the fact that I have an 1800+ CPU, which should be about twice as fast as his 1 GHz Celeron.
Getting back from hibernation also takes close to a minute, while on all Intel systems I've seen, it is almost instant.
In short, my Athlon system is an overheating, slow piece of shit. The CPU itself may be reasonably fast, but it's worth very little when your chipset puts the brakes on it. I'd rather pay a bit more, and get performance across the board, and less heat aswell.

Ofcourse, there are alternatives to VIA chipsets these days for AMD CPUs, and the CPUs themselves are probably not as hot anymore... or at least the coolers are bigger
But no, I'm not going to take chances again. I know that Intel works. AMD is still a gamble as far as I'm concerned, and this time it didn't work out at all, so I'll pass.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Re: Just curious

I like nVidia.

Have you or will you ever buy a product from another graphics vendor? What is the reason for your decision?

nVidia's the best.

Really?

http://members.optusnet.com.au/ksaho/

Oh! Oh! I've been exposed.

 

[Bjorn]

Ofcourse, there are alternatives to VIA chipsets these days for AMD CPUs, and the CPUs themselves are probably not as hot anymore... or at least the coolers are bigger

Have a look at the various reviews of the new Intel P4 Prescott and you'll find that the "coolers are bigger" applies much more to Intel then AMD these days.

 

[Scali]

Have a look at the various reviews of the new Intel P4 Prescott and you'll find that the "coolers are bigger" applies much more to Intel then AMD these days.

From what I've seen, Intel only takes more power at full load. When idle, Athlons take much more power. Nearly as much as with full load.
Even so, Intel always adapts the cooling to fit the CPU required, and has safeguards in case of overheating. AMD still uses a Pentium 3-style cooler for their 32-bit models today, which is laughable, really. And when you overheat, you crash. Lovely.
No really, Intel gives me a lot more reason to trust their products.
Besides, I've seen some pretty impressive overclocking results with Prescott, even with stock cooling, which indicates that the CPUs are not running near or at the limits on their default clockspeeds.
So no, I see no reason to worry about the so-called 'hot' Prescott. Temperature or power-usage means nothing to me anyway. If it doesn't crash, it doesn't crash. My Athlon crashed, even though the temperature reading was only 65 degrees from the motherboard.

So, don't give me any AMD-fanboisms. That's the reason why I bought an AMD in the first place... I heard so many good things about it, and it was better than Intel etc, blahblah.
I tried it, it didn't work for me, maybe it worked for others, I don't care.
I'll stick to Intel, I have my reasons, leave me in peace.

 

[martrox]

Been running both AthlonsXP's and Intel P4's, in overclocked situations. The P4's run hotter..... Got water cooling on my main (p4 2.6@3.35). I'm running 6 Athlons atm, 5 of which are o/c'ed, all on NForce2 MB's...and not by small amounts:

2400+M @ 2.2 (200X11) 1.6V 512 meg X2
2400+M @ 2.0 (200X10)1.525V 512 meg X2
2400+ @2.2 (200X11) 1.6V 512 meg X2
1700+ @2.0 (200X10)1.75V 512 meg X2
1700+@2.0 (166X12)1.75V 256 meg X2

I run many different vidocards, both ATI & nVidia, and have no problems whatsoever. 3 of the machines are heavy duty gaming rigs, 2 are used for video editing - the other is my server(way too much computer for this than I really need!) The 6th is a athlon 800 MP3 box running stock..... the gaming rigs and video editing rigs are run very heavily, for hours at a time with no reboots, not lockups, no speed decreases. If someone is having stability problems, it's their system, not AMD's, nVidia, Via, SIS or Intel's. I've found that VIA's chipsets since the KT266 are as stable as anything out there - but when you can get a full featured nForce2 MB for $60... well, it's a no brainer.

I have noticed that ATI tends to run a bit faster on Intel, and nVidia tends to run a bit faster on AMD...... Not enough to complain about, though.

Scali, I don't doubt you had problems, but they were your problems, not AMD's. The fact that you say your GF2 ran much faster on a Celeron than a Athlon speaks volumes....... there was something very wrong with that system.

 

[Bjorn]

From what I've seen, Intel only takes more power at full load. When idle, Athlons take much more power. Nearly as much as with full load.

I think it's actually the opposite. AMD has it's cool'n quiet technology and AFAIK, Intel doesn't have anything like that, yet.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-3200_4.html

Even so, Intel always adapts the cooling to fit the CPU required, and has safeguards in case of overheating. AMD still uses a Pentium 3-style cooler for their 32-bit models today, which is laughable, really. And when you overheat, you crash. Lovely.

What's wrong with a Pentium 3 style cooler if that's all that it takes ? Though i agree that the overheat = crash is not a good thing but that does not apply for the Athlon 64 if i'm not mistaken.

No really, Intel gives me a lot more reason to trust their products.
Besides, I've seen some pretty impressive overclocking results with Prescott, even with stock cooling, which indicates that the CPUs are not running near or at the limits on their default clockspeeds.
So no, I see no reason to worry about the so-called 'hot' Prescott. Temperature or power-usage means nothing to me anyway. If it doesn't crash, it doesn't crash. My Athlon crashed, even though the temperature reading was only 65 degrees from the motherboard.

Well, AMD has had a lot of problems because of bad motherboards (read old VIA chipsets) and i don't doubt that you have had a lot of problems. And there's of course nothing wrong with Intel either. Especially if you don't care about power-usage or temperature (read loud fans).

So, don't give me any AMD-fanboisms. That's the reason why I bought an AMD in the first place... I heard so many good things about it, and it was better than Intel etc, blahblah.
I tried it, it didn't work for me, maybe it worked for others, I don't care.
I'll stick to Intel, I have my reasons, leave me in peace.

I'll just say that things change, just look at ATI 8500 -> R9700.

 

[Rodéric]

I have my favorite tech (PowerVR) but I'm not loyal to any brand, although I have a 'be careful with those' list.

Bought IBM, Cyrix, Intel, AMD CPUs; Cirrus Logic, Matrox, PowerVR, S3, ATI Graphic chips.

Abit, ASUS, LG, SONY, NEC, IBM, Hitashi, Motorola, Microsoft (doh!), Creative Labs, Videologic, S3, and various other brands also.

No 3Dfx neither nVidia to date, never liked 3Dfx poor graphic quality, and I'm carefull with nVidia since the TNT release (at 95MHz instead of the 125MHz announced), I recommended their products to people, but I prefered to 'fund' ATI to get some competition.

Now if only PowerVR would let me 'fund' them...

('fund' = buying their products, cause in the end that's exactly what we do buying them...)

 

[Scali]

I think it's actually the opposite. AMD has it's cool'n quiet technology and AFAIK, Intel doesn't have anything like that, yet.

Yes, AMD has to clock its CPUs down when idle, how wonderful. That is absolutely useless to me, since my CPU is never 100% idle. Not when I'm using it anyway. It's only useful for laptops, so you get a few extra minutes of battery life.

What's wrong with a Pentium 3 style cooler if that's all that it takes ? Though i agree that the overheat = crash is not a good thing but that does not apply for the Athlon 64 if i'm not mistaken.

You miss the fact that it's NOT all it takes. Or at least, it wasn't when I bought my Athlon. It was the fastest model at the time, and only very few CPU coolers could actually handle it, and most of them were too noisy to even consider. And you had to have case fans too. Intel fixes cooling first, THEN they market new CPUs, not the other way around, so people like me get caught in a cooler-vacuum.

Especially if you don't care about power-usage or temperature (read loud fans).

When they can build the fastest P4s in small, silent Shuttle cases, I'm not worried about temperature or power-usage at all. I think most of it is just a fairytale spread by AMD-zealots. It was actually true the other way around, I've been there and lived it. My Athlon even burnt out my old PSU, quite literally.

I'll just say that things change, just look at ATI 8500 -> R9700.

I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly. From personal experience I can say that the 8500 is a fantastic card. Perhaps you mean pre-Radeon and Radeon-ATi's.
Anyway, that's ATi, and I don't see how it applies to AMD, since AMD never bothered to redesign their CPUs or anything, they just kept on hacking at that K7 core, even the K8 is not really a new core, it's a heavily modified K7 core.
Besides, Intel still packs better SSE/SSE2 performance, and I want hyperthreading too, so that, along with the bad experiences from my first Athlon make me not even consider AMD as an option.
And how did things change between 486 and Athlon anyway? I once had a 486dx2-66 from AMD, and guess how it died? Thermal death after 2 years of use. So the way I see it, AMD has always sold CPUs at less quality than Intel, and basically they sell CPUs that would be overclocked in Intel-terms.

 

[martrox]

Scali...that's just bull$hit! It's your opinion, nothing more.... and many of us here have found exactly the opposite of this. If anything, it's you thats showing a definte fanism towards Intel..... As I stated above, from the sound of what problems you say you had, it's whomever built and maintained your Athlon system that's at fault here.....

 

[Bjorn]

Yes, AMD has to clock its CPUs down when idle, how wonderful. That is absolutely useless to me, since my CPU is never 100% idle. Not when I'm using it anyway. It's only useful for laptops, so you get a few extra minutes of battery life.

It would be very useful to me though since a lot of the time when i'm using my computer, browsing the web f.e, the CPU usage is very small. And i would appreciate to have a more quit computer at those times.

When they can build the fastest P4s in small, silent Shuttle cases, I'm not worried about temperature or power-usage at all. I think most of it is just a fairytale spread by AMD-zealots. It was actually true the other way around, I've been there and lived it. My Athlon even burnt out my old PSU, quite literally.

Well, the cooling solutions these days are much improved from just 1-2 years ago. The cases are much better ventilated, heat pipes, larger fans.
So i wouldn't worry that much about it either, i'd be more worried by the lower performance under gaming situations.

 

[Bjorn]

As I stated above, from the sound of what problems you say you had, it's whomever built and maintained your Athlon system that's at fault here.....

Old VIA chipsets are nothing but trouble though. I know, i have a VIA 133 chipset in my computer and i have had a lot of problems with it, especially with my SB Live card. Though Creative aren't necessarily known for their good drivers so i'm guessing that both can be blamed for that.

 

[martrox]

True, Bjorn. But from the KT266 forward, I've had minimal complains. VIA has been pretty solid...even with Creative!

Of course, like I said, with NForce 2 MB's going for $60.00..... it's a no brainer.

 

[Scali]

Scali...that's just bull$hit! It's your opinion, nothing more....

It is my experience, not my opinion.

and many of us here have found exactly the opposite of this.

I doubt that. I've had lots of Intel systems over the years, and stock cooling never let me down. In fact, they are all still running, even 386es and 486es, some even overclocked.

If anything, it's you thats showing a definte fanism towards Intel.....

Well I only said that Intel makes quality hardware, and that everything works fine in spec, when using stock coolers, PSUs, cases, etc.
And ofcourse that Intel chipsets are trouble-free.
That's my experience, and it's not fanism. If any other brand were better, I'd buy that, but they aren't.
If you must know, I don't like PCs and Intel at all, really. In my early years I used C64s and Amigas, that's where I learnt programming and that is the type of systems that I love. I've always found PCs to be trash, but at least Intel is only trash in its design, not in its implementation.
You don't really want to argue that Intel builds decent quality hardware, do you? I think that's the bit you pay extra for, and I gladly do so. AMD/VIA has given me too many headaches.

As I stated above, from the sound of what problems you say you had, it's whomever built and maintained your Athlon system that's at fault here.....

Yes, that's the usual AMD-fanboy answer when I explain the problems I had. They just bought their first Athlon, and it works fine, blahblah... I already said that chipsets are better now and CPUs run cooler...
But that doesn't help me.
When I bought my Athlon, I got a TBird 1400, which was cutting-edge at the time (I replaced it with an equally cutting-edge XP1800+ later, because I wanted SSE). And KT133A was pretty much the only chipset available for it. The only alternative was AMD's own DDR chipset, but that was hard to get, and DDR was much more expensive, and I didn't feel like paying extra. KT133A was getting good reviews too, and having never owned a non-Intel system, I was naive and thought "How bad could VIA really be?"... Well I found out the hard way.

To conclude: there was nothing wrong with the choices I made at the time, there simply weren't any better alternatives... the first 1400 MHz Athlons ran damn hot, and there were only a few coolers available that could handle them, and they were hard to get at first. I ended up ordering a Silverado in Germany, horribly expensive. Yes, the Silverado also got the best reviews.

So don't give me any bullshit of "Your Athlon is built wrong, all our Athlons work fine". I heard that too many times, and it just didn't apply to me at that particular time. Sure you can get an 1800+ now that probably almost runs fanless... But that 1800+ is not exactly the same as my 1800+, which was trying hard to steal the performance crown from the P4, so AMD was not too concerned with stability.
Ofcourse then you get the alternative answer: "You shouldn't buy bleeding-edge stuff!". Yes I should, trust me, I should. And as long as it's Intel, I will.

Anyway, just drop it, I heard it all too often and I am not interested. Let's get back to discussing 3d hardware instead. That's what the thread is about.

 

[Scali]

It would be very useful to me though since a lot of the time when i'm using my computer, browsing the web f.e, the CPU usage is very small. And i would appreciate to have a more quit computer at those times.

Intel does this through the hlt-instruction (been doing this at least since the PII, perhaps even Pentium? Goes back a long way anyway). The idle-thread simply executes hlt-instructions all the time, and Intel's implementation of it shuts down the unused units in the CPU, effectively saving power and cooling the CPU.

AMD's implementation of this has been more or less broken, since idle or full-load only mattered a few watts... So they now downclock them. Intel doesn't need to.
And with a temperature-controlled fan (isn't that standard on P4s anyway?) you'll get your quiet computer, without it having to go into snooze-mode all the time, and being as unresponsive as the average laptop on batteries.

But if you really want to save power, you can buy Pentium-Ms for the desktop these days, they use much less power than Athlons.
In short: I don't care one bit about this AMD-'feature', and I don't think anyone should.

 

[termikk]

brand loyalty is human stupidity at it's best.

sure you can say there is a lot of psychology involved, defending your buy, pretending you're not a sucker, belonging...

but in the end it's the old infinite human stupidity!

 

[termikk]

there is nothing inerently wrong whith Amd but of course, nobody got fired for buying Intel (or should I say ... got a bad night's sleep when things went wrong...).

 

[termikk]

brand = marketing <> quality

 

[trinibwoy]

Scali, although I respect your experience and your opinion your perspective is a little outdated. Both architectures are different and lend themselves to different techniques. Intel also makes its own chipsets which is another consideration. Fact is, the Prescott runs hotter than A64 and modern chipsets for the AMD platform are now much more robust especially since AMD took responsibility for the memory controller on the cpu die. A64 is a stronger gaming platform and is more innovative in several ways than Intel's latest. Intel really seems to just throw cache (cash?) at every problem they encounter with they CPU's performance while others are truly innovating. AMD quality is currently at the highest it has ever been and I hope they keep going strong.

 

[Bjorn]

And with a temperature-controlled fan (isn't that standard on P4s anyway?) you'll get your quiet computer, without it having to go into snooze-mode all the time, and being as unresponsive as the average laptop on batteries.

A friend of mine just bought a new HP computer with a 3.4 GHz P4 and a X800 Pro. The fan on the graphics card is rather loud and runs at high speeds, even on idle (slows down for 30-40 secs, then speeds up....). I wonder why that is ? Shouldn't be the graphics card since it's running 2D only. And i doubt that a A64 is that unresponsive at f.e 1.2 GHz.

And as we can see here, the Prescott hardly consumers any power at all at idle:

computer.de

Or not.

But if you really want to save power, you can buy Pentium-Ms for the desktop these days, they use much less power than Athlons.
In short: I don't care one bit about this AMD-'feature', and I don't think anyone should.

I thought that performance was important also, after all, why not just by a Transmeta CPU then and really save power ?

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

A friend of mine just bought a new HP computer with a 3.4 GHz P4 and a X800 Pro. The fan on the graphics card is rather loud and runs at high speeds, even on idle (slows down for 30-40 secs, then speeds up....). I wonder why that is ? Shouldn't be the graphics card since it's running 2D only. And i doubt that a A64 is that unresponsive at f.e 1.2 GHz.

That's wrong. The fan on a X800 Pro should run at speed only at boot time for about two seconds, then it should idle down to be inaudiable.