Greetings to all,

Has anyone heard of any networked desktop problems that have been proven to
be due to AMD processors?

I'm a network admin, and I've got a consultant who is advising that we
purchase some AMD powered desktops. In the past my attitude has been to
always purchase pentiums - simply because I do NOT have the time to worry
about possible processor conflicts (there's FAR too many other issues for
admins to fret about!) Not that pentiums are perfect, but the user base is
so massive that it's likely enormous pressure will be brought to bear on
those responsible for any problems. It's also my hunch that any performance
gain from AMD would not be significant to my users. Finally, a pentium
problem is much easier to explain to management than an AMD problem.

I should mention that we are using Win2k servers, Win2k3 servers, Citrix
(bigtime), AD, VPNs across several sites, wireless networking, SQL, and
(soon) considerable multimedia technology.


Thanks!

You starting big discussion......

It is your decision!
If you are familiar with Intel go for it!
Consider also the motherboard if it is good OK but if it is scrappy ????
(read cheap)
Performance in Intel and AMD is almost the same and your users will not see
the difference.
The conflicts are in the past - now M$ fully support AMD and INTEL.


"Frankster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40ce2$4276aa9a$4069f582$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Greetings to all,
>
> Has anyone heard of any networked desktop problems that have been proven
to
> be due to AMD processors?
>
> I'm a network admin, and I've got a consultant who is advising that we
> purchase some AMD powered desktops. In the past my attitude has been to
> always purchase pentiums - simply because I do NOT have the time to worry
> about possible processor conflicts (there's FAR too many other issues for
> admins to fret about!) Not that pentiums are perfect, but the user base is
> so massive that it's likely enormous pressure will be brought to bear on
> those responsible for any problems. It's also my hunch that any
performance
> gain from AMD would not be significant to my users. Finally, a pentium
> problem is much easier to explain to management than an AMD problem.
>
> I should mention that we are using Win2k servers, Win2k3 servers, Citrix
> (bigtime), AD, VPNs across several sites, wireless networking, SQL, and
> (soon) considerable multimedia technology.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>

Thanks Hristo!


"Hristo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:__Dde.4757$(E-Mail Removed)...
> You starting big discussion......
>
> It is your decision!
> If you are familiar with Intel go for it!
> Consider also the motherboard if it is good OK but if it is scrappy ????
> (read cheap)
> Performance in Intel and AMD is almost the same and your users will not
see
> the difference.
> The conflicts are in the past - now M$ fully support AMD and INTEL.
>
>
> "Frankster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:40ce2$4276aa9a$4069f582$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Greetings to all,
> >
> > Has anyone heard of any networked desktop problems that have been proven
> to
> > be due to AMD processors?
> >
> > I'm a network admin, and I've got a consultant who is advising that we
> > purchase some AMD powered desktops. In the past my attitude has been to
> > always purchase pentiums - simply because I do NOT have the time to
worry
> > about possible processor conflicts (there's FAR too many other issues
for
> > admins to fret about!) Not that pentiums are perfect, but the user base
is
> > so massive that it's likely enormous pressure will be brought to bear on
> > those responsible for any problems. It's also my hunch that any
> performance
> > gain from AMD would not be significant to my users. Finally, a pentium
> > problem is much easier to explain to management than an AMD problem.
> >
> > I should mention that we are using Win2k servers, Win2k3 servers, Citrix
> > (bigtime), AD, VPNs across several sites, wireless networking, SQL, and
> > (soon) considerable multimedia technology.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
>
>

OK, I'll be the Devils advocate I've used AMD processors for about 8
years now. We build AMD machines exclusively unless someone specifically
orders Intels. There's nothing wrong with either one, but if you're building
new, the AMD 64 will run 32 and 64-bit apps side-by-side with no performance
degradation. In fact, they actually run 32-bit apps a little faster than the
32-bit chips due to some techno-substrate babble that's over my head. The
bottom line is that either Intel or AMD processors work well. The AMDs
slightly out perform the Intels in most areas (not all). The biggest
difference is price. The AMDs are significantly less expensive when
comparing MIPs to MIPs. If you're getting a deal on the AMDs, take it. If
you get a better deal on P4s, go for that. But don't pay more because you
think one works better than the other. They both work just fine.

....kurt

"Frankster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40ce2$4276aa9a$4069f582$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Greetings to all,
>
> Has anyone heard of any networked desktop problems that have been proven
to
> be due to AMD processors?
>
> I'm a network admin, and I've got a consultant who is advising that we
> purchase some AMD powered desktops. In the past my attitude has been to
> always purchase pentiums - simply because I do NOT have the time to worry
> about possible processor conflicts (there's FAR too many other issues for
> admins to fret about!) Not that pentiums are perfect, but the user base is
> so massive that it's likely enormous pressure will be brought to bear on
> those responsible for any problems. It's also my hunch that any
performance
> gain from AMD would not be significant to my users. Finally, a pentium
> problem is much easier to explain to management than an AMD problem.
>
> I should mention that we are using Win2k servers, Win2k3 servers, Citrix
> (bigtime), AD, VPNs across several sites, wireless networking, SQL, and
> (soon) considerable multimedia technology.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>