Version: 2008
Advanced Search
advertisement
advertisement

Forum display:

Desktops: AMD Processor Reliability

by marketwatcher - 10/28/05 10:43 AM
advertisement
Click Here
Post 46 of 85

AMD reliability a plus!

by pc_tech_guy_2003 - 11/4/05 7:34 AM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

marketwatcher,

As a computer technician, I've worked with Intel and AMD both. I've seen ups, and downs to both sides. I've also seen people buy the wrong type of processor for them.

As far as reliability, AMD and Intel are for the most part, the same. Expect years of service from both.

However, DON'T run out buying a 64-bit Athlon because somebody told you to. First off, AMD's seem to fit better into the gaming slot. Most geeks delight in a faster processor, cheaper. Intel seems to lag in the gaming market.

Now, that doesn't mean that you should ONLY consider an AMD. If you want to run buisness apps, I suggest getting an Intel. My personal experiance is that Intel is better suited towards the high end buisness apps.


If you just want the basics (like Microsoft Word, internet, printing information for personal or professional use) I suggest going with the AMD Duron or Intel Celeron, simply because, in general, they have lower price tags.
Though keep in mind.. if speed is important... an AMD Duron was SUPPOSED to be an AMD Athlon... but it failed its testing.
By the same token... an Intel Celeron was SUPPOSED to be an Intel Pentium... but it too failed its tests. (Thats a nasty little secret, isn't it?) Personally, I prefer the Intel Celeron in this case. Not quite as peppy as the Duron, but it seems to do a little bit better on the basics like Microsoft Word (from what I have seen).

Ok, now that you've made your decision between a gaming rig, or a buisness machine.... and if you want just the basics, or something with a little more 'umph', you now need to know WHICH of AMD or Intel is right for you (the hardest part is now over).
Your selection will be limited, as it seems the Duron is no longer listed by AMD as a current processor (expect a Duron machine to be next to nothing... if you can still find one).

If you have decided that you can take a slight hit in speed, and you would like to keep that wallet at fat as possible, you don't need this next part, as a Celeron or Duron (if you can still find one...) would be just fine for you.


Now... we hit what type.
Right now, the 64-bit series isn't too useful, since most apps don't take advantage of the 64-bit structure. Expect that to change within a year or so, Especially with the release of the next version of Windows, Windows Vista.

If you want a long term, higher performance AMD, go with the 64-bit AMD that you are looking at.
If this is just a short fix (less than 16 months), stick with and AMD Athlon.

If the Intel series fits you best (as mentioned earlier...), and you need a long term machine, go for a Dual-Core system. That is, if you can find it, and more important, afford it. If you can't find it, or afford it, stick with an Intel Pentium 4. Though the Pentium 4 was knocked out of Intel's line-up just a couple of months ago, you might be able to have the last laugh by getting a left over Pentium 4 system. Don't fret. The Pentium 4 still packs quite a punch, in the buisness apps section.


Well, I hope that this helps. More important, I hope that I havn't given you mental indigestion.

If you still need more help, just let us know!

Post 47 of 85

AMD Processor Reliability

by Keldawwg - 11/4/05 7:44 AM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

I have been using AMD processors for years, and have had no problems whatever!

I have built around 20 computers for myself, my family and many friends. I have never built an Intel box simply because of the added cost for comparable performance.

Around 2 1/2 years ago my brother (who works for Intel) gave me a new Intel processor... They get them free every year or so, and he had no need to upgrade his computer at the time. It was a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 533. I bought an Asus P4B533 motherboard for the thing, along with a good heatsink/fan and 2 gigs of DDR memory for it, since my current machine was using slower DDR...

I chose Asus because I have had the best luck with them... Flawless performance from every motherboard made by them... Since the processor was free, I spared no expense on any of the other components...

To make a long story short, that computer was the biggest piece of crap I have ever built! I have never had so many problems, even using ECS (EliteGroup Computer Systems) motherboards that I got on sale with processors at Fry's for dirt cheap...

Problem after problem... Blue Screen of Death, lockups, the system hanging for periods of several minutes... My favorite was the fact that about evry tenth boot up the motherboard would announce "System Failed due to CPU Overclocking" and go into the bios setup, which my wife and kids had no clue how to deal with... If I needed to restart the computer, the only way it would do it was to shut down and wait for several minutes before restarting, otherwise it would ALWAYS fail to boot due to the CPU overclocking error...

I had a high dollar solid copper heatsink, and used the best Arctic Silver heatsink compound... Asus had a utility to monitor temperature, and the CPU was not running hot according to the AsusProbe... I have never overclocked a computer, since I always have reliability and stability as my highest priorities... If I need more performance, I tend to buy a higher performance processor rather than tweak a processor to run faster than it is designed to...

I dealt with this for more than a year, and finally got pissed off... Nothing would make this computer run reliably... I was constantly trying to get it set up so that it would be reliable; absolutely nothing worked...

I finally decided to trash it and go back to AMD... I bought an Athlon 64 3500+ fairly soon after they first came out, and an Asus A8V Deluxe motherboard... It was more than I usually spend on an upgrade, but I was tired of messing with my computer...

That computer has been completely bullet proof... Not one problem, ever. It has been running flawlessly, day in and day out... Hardlock? What's that?

At work I have a P4 3.2 GHz Dell Optiplex GX-280 system, and the AMD is significantly faster... I use SDRC I-Deas, Solidworks, Pro Engineer and Ansys on both machines, and the AMD is very noticeably faster... (I am using 73GB 10,000 RPM Ultra-160 Fujitsu SCSI drives and Adaptec 29160 controllers in both machines... I have my own personal hard drives in my machine at work, so they are exactly the same as far as storage performance)

They are both very reliable, but the AMD is better... The Dell has locked up running really large simulations a couple of times... I have taken my work home several times to finish there, and I have never had a problem. It's tough to beat absolutely flawless reliability!

Buy the AMD with total confidence!

Post 48 of 85

AMD reliability

by Bruce1sa - 11/4/05 7:48 AM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

I have used AMD for years. No failures. I have built three computers, over the last four years, and they are still in use and working well.

Post 49 of 85

AMD More Reliable Than Intel - But HP is a Disaster

by dlauber - 11/4/05 8:25 AM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

I've been using PCs since 1981 and have built about 60 of them in the past few years. I've stuck exclusively to AMD processors and have been thrilled with them. Not one has ever been defective. You probably don't remember the several "scandals" with defectively-designed Intel processors -- but essentially AMD processors have a clean slate when it comes to reliability and no defects while Intel has been problematic for years. AMD has also taken the technology lead.

The real disaster you are courting is getting a computer made by HP (and that includes Compaq). HP has a nasty tendency to cut corners and remove features from the motherboards it uses in its computers. And it's tech support is the bottom of the barrel. For example, when a friend had me help him update the BIOS on his HP computer, we followed the somewhat strange instructions on HP's website for installing the BIOS update. Following their instructions corrupted the CMOS. Normally this is easily solved by resetting a jumper on the motherboard. But to save a few cents in manufacturing, HP did not include the pins and jumper for clearing the CMOS. After an hour of talking to a very nasty person at HP tech support, she finally admitted that the instructions on HP's website had been wrong for at least 3 months, but it wasn't tech support's responsibility to get it corrected. They had to send my friend a new computer.

And just this month it was revealed that HP's notebooks that use the AMD64 processor were being built with the Dual Channel RAM disabled. HP spokesmen said that they did this because they couldn't trust consumers who wished to add more RAM to get the right RAM modules. Now many folks know that AMD64 processors and their motherboards all support Dual Channel RAM (which runs much faster than single channel). But nowhere does HP tell perspective customers that Dual Channel RAM is disabled on these notebooks.

The only HP products I've even owned that worked well and lasted have been their overpriced laser printers. My 8-year old LaserJet 4000 is, unfortunately, on its last legs, and I know darned well that it will not be replaced with an HP printer.

Bottom line: Friends don't let friends buy HP.

Better to buy from Gateway, IBuyPower.com (where you can configure your computer piece by piece -- go for the Asus motherboards since they can also use the AMD Dual Core CPUs which will be affordable in a year or two), MonarchComputer.com, or have one made for you locally.

Post 50 of 85

AMD is totally reliable and HP is OK, too.

by zlorenzini - 11/4/05 8:59 AM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

I am writing this on an AMD 64-bit computer that I built myself that has been running a data conversion script for the past 23 HOURS and 46 minutes at 100% CPU usage and still has enough power for me to write this and read email and everything. This computer has NEVER crashed in the nearly a year since I built it. If that's not reliable, I don't know what is.

Also, HP computers based on AMDs work much better than their Intel counterparts. I have a client who has a bunch of HP machines, and the one with the AMD CPU has held up much longer than the others. When they needed new machines, I built them 4 computers with AMD Semprons and after a year, not a single one of those computers has ever crashed (and I am using one as their corporate server).

Go ahead and buy that HP, assuming its one of the nice new white ones. I recommended one to a client (a 3500 cpu) and he is completely satisfied with it. The computer salespeople say that is the one that all of the IT people recommend to their customers if they don't want to build one themselves.

Post 51 of 85

AMD good. HP bad

by back_water_tech - 11/4/05 9:01 AM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

there are several posts here stating that HP "Puts thier reputation on the line" when refering to AMD processors.

Reputation? If they wanted to save thier reputation, they should have stayed out of the PC market.

HP/Compaq Computers are bad news. I used to work for a electronics store (the one with the R logo ;))
about half of the HP/Compaqs we sold came back with hardware problems.


AMD makes a wonderfull Processor line. My first PC was an AMD 286. ive worked with and owned PC with every AMD family line processor up to the A64. ive only seen a couple of minor things with them that usually turned out to be a hardware compatibility issue with something else in the PC.

Gateway Still builds AMD machines, (eMachines does too) Any local builder would reccomend AMD for the Cost factor.

Post 52 of 85

AMD is solid!

by hasilvalens - 11/4/05 9:03 AM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

I run an oldie but goodie Athlon 1.4GHz (T-Bird core) and it's still purrin' like a kitten! The only thing I've heard on the "grapevine" is that AMD's tend to heat up (an issue that by now may have been fixed; but I'm not sure). To counter that, I just removed my side panel all together to allow air in and out more freely (not recommended if your PC is within reach or kids, coffee or pets) and I make sure to dust it out every 2 months or so. All in all, you will not be disappointed going with AMD. Good luck!

regards,
Dave

Post 53 of 85

AMD Processors are very reliable...

by ira176 - 11/4/05 9:21 AM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

...but in my past experience, chip sets, and operating systems may be more of a concern for stability. I used processors from Intels 8086 to their 80486 without problems. I switched to AMD back in the K5 days due to better pricing. I currently use an Athlon XP which has served its purpose well. Today's Nforce and Via chipsets have eliminated stability issues and offer great performance when compaired to Intel systems. I will be looking at an Athlon 64 when it is time to upgrade because of past reliability.

Post 54 of 85

Biased:reply (I own AMD stock)

by MZuke - 11/4/05 12:13 PM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

THe amd is fine but get the Turion if u can (note: I own an Acer Travelmet 4400 turion ml-37) its built as a laptop chip while the AMD 64 has a 62watt output and is a lap burner, the turion is either ml=35 watt (lap warmer) and mt=25 watt(nice lap cool)

But if ur looking for a multi-media AMD look at Acer 5020, and Ferreri 4000 (nice but darn exspensive)

Amd is great for people wanting to play games and do cpu intensive things, Intel is good for people wanting realy long batt life, but if ur watching moves and such and other things vid card and soundcard any cpu over 1.5 ghz should do u fine. It all matters on what u want.

Post 55 of 85

AMD definitely!

by abrams - 11/4/05 1:59 PM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

I ve got two computers that run AMD stabily. The cooler the cpu is the more stable it gets. The 754 sempron series is cheap, fast and cool making it a great overclocker. The Athlon 64 is a great processor especially for gamers as it beats intel p4 all around and runs a couple of degrees cooler. The turion is again faster that the intel centrino. The athlon x2 in which i'm planning to get in the future beats intels 840 hands down, cooler faster and cheaper. The athlon 64 has enhanced virus protection with windows xp sp2 installed.

Post 56 of 85

AMD

by sir jock - 11/4/05 5:01 PM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

11 months ago I bought one and I have absolutely no complaints!!never had to format (with the old one that was a regular event) never had any problems at all.

Post 57 of 85

Why not give it a try?!!!!!!

by Yue Hong - 11/4/05 5:14 PM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

Both Intel and AMD processor are very good that you can't really tell which processor is better than the other. Seems you never have a machine with AMD processor before, why not give it a try with AMD? Then, you will be able to have the experience and better understanding with AMD processor. If you want to get a very good performance system with low price, then I'll suggest you to get a AMD Athlon X2 3800+ or AMD Athlon 64 3200+ if you just want to use it to do office document and online.

Post 58 of 85

AMD has 'cool & quiet' technology and its true-it works!

by psidd - 11/4/05 7:48 PM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

I have owned PCs that have had cyrix, intel celeron & pentium 4 cpus that have all locked up but my amd athlon64 has yet to crash although I admit I've only been using it since tuesday. I've bought 4 intel PC's before and decided its time for an amd one having heard that amds are supposed to be more stable.

Last year I was desparate for a pc so I got a pentium 4 3gz before intel made them with the 3 number designation and not only have I had numerous lock-ups/crashes but the very first time I switched it on I couldnt believe how noisey the cooling fan was and I nearly took it back then and I wish I had now. It was so loud that even my flatmate could hear it down the hall with his door closed and I always thought it sounded like a loud dying chicken!

Then shortly after I got a HP with amd athlon 64 3400 hoping to return my pentium 4 pc but I left it too late so I've only just started using my amd HP but the very first thing I noticed is how virtually silent it really is and its cooler too so that for me is another major bonus in addition to the lower cost, equal if not better performance and running at lower clock speed means less heat, noise and power consumption so amd really deserves to overtake intel in the processor war which I'm not sure if they're winning right now.

I dont think I will ever go back to WINTEL processors ever again so take the plunge like me and be delighted!

Post 59 of 85

AMD is all I have used

by slondi - 11/4/05 10:02 PM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

I have built a number of computers and I have always used AMD processors. They were less expensive and all have provided the power I needed. Hope this helps

Post 60 of 85

Nothing but AMD since 1992

by DSHornet - 11/5/05 2:39 AM In reply to: AMD Processor Reliability by marketwatcher

In my own computers, I have used exclusively AMD CPU's since my first home computer I bought in 1992. It ran the 386 processor. Since then, I have run a half-dozen AMD processors in various motherboards, including my present Athlon 2400+ with NO problems related to the CPU. Various PC's from my employers have run Intel CPU's, and I see no advantage to using the more expensive Intel chips.

Forum legend:
Locked Locked thread
Moderator Moderator
CNET staff CNET staff
Samsung staff Samsung staff
Norton Authorized Support team Norton Authorized Support team
AVG staff AVG staff
Windows Outreach team Windows Outreach team
Dell staff Dell staff
Intel staff Intel staff
Powered by Jive Software