Is AMD Unreliable?

[RayOfLight]

Many people say AMD processors heat too much too fast compared to
Intel products and thus they cause computers to crash. Is that true?
How much more heat does it generates compared to an equivalent spec.
Intel processor?

Is it true that professionals avoid AMD processors for these reasons
and also because many people think that they may not be compatible
with some software.

I have been using Cyrix and AMD processors since some time and i am
very happy with them. Excellent quality / price.

 

[spodosaurus]

Many people say AMD processors heat too much too fast compared to
Intel products and thus they cause computers to crash. Is that true?
How much more heat does it generates compared to an equivalent spec.
Intel processor?

Is it true that professionals avoid AMD processors for these reasons
and also because many people think that they may not be compatible
with some software.

I have been using Cyrix and AMD processors since some time and i am
very happy with them. Excellent quality / price.

I use both AMD and Intel. Pricewise, AMD provides better value for
money. As this is an issue for me, and I don't like Intel's corporate
bullying and anticompetitive practices (IMO), all my upgrades are now
AMD. The processors are not unstable, and if you set the system up with
adequate ventilation (nothing extreme, I like quiet) then heat is as
much an issue for Intel as it is for AMD with the current processors.

Ari

--

Are you registered as a bone marrow donor? You regenerate what you
donate. You are offered the chance to donate only if you match a person
on the recipient list. Call your local Red Cross and ask about
registering to be a bone marrow donor.

spam trap: replace shyah_right! with hotmail when replying

 

[philo]

Many people say AMD processors heat too much too fast compared to
Intel products and thus they cause computers to crash. Is that true?
How much more heat does it generates compared to an equivalent spec.
Intel processor?

Is it true that professionals avoid AMD processors for these reasons
and also because many people think that they may not be compatible
with some software.

I have been using Cyrix and AMD processors since some time and i am
very happy with them. Excellent quality / price.

i';ve built quite a few machines which use AMD's and they work great...
yes, it's true that the AMD runs hoter than Intel
(see the mfg's sites for all the specs)

as long as you have good cpu cooling, it's not a problem though

(at least i;ve never run into one)

 

[Peter Tiedemann]

I think this is just something that lingers after the earlier AMD K6 /K6-2
(or whatever they were called) days, at that time they produced some very
poor CPU's that had lots of heat, performance and compatability issues.
Today this is no longer true, but some people just assume that a company
whose product was bad a few years ago is still bad, which is certainly not
always the case in the computer hardware industry!

 

[Sid Ney]

Is it true that professionals avoid AMD processors for these reasons
and also because many people think that they may not be compatible
with some software.

I have been using AMD processors and have not experienced any
compatibility problems whatsoever. However, depending on what you are
doing, some applications might be optimzsed for the P4's SSE2
instruction set which the AMD processors don't have (I think this will
no longer be true in the Opteron) and they could run significantly
faster on a P4 system.

 

[Strontium]

The only thing that I can agree with, in this statement, is the massive
amount of heat that the old K6-2/3's produced. I never saw the
performance or compatibility issues, that you describe. In fact, all of
my boxes were rock solid. Just had to fork out $30 for Alpha heatsinks
and loud Sunon fans

-
Peter Tiedemann stood up, at show-n-tell, and said:

 

[S.Heenan]

Many people say AMD processors heat too much too fast compared to
Intel products and thus they cause computers to crash. Is that true?
How much more heat does it generates compared to an equivalent spec.
Intel processor?

Is it true that professionals avoid AMD processors for these reasons
and also because many people think that they may not be compatible
with some software.

I have been using Cyrix and AMD processors since some time and i am
very happy with them. Excellent quality / price.

Typical thermal output of the XP3200+ Barton(2200MHz) 60.4W
Typical thermal output of the XP2200+T-Bred(1800MHz) 61.7W
Typical thermal output of the XP2100Palomino(1733MHz) 64.3W
Typical thermal outout of the Thunderbird1400(1400MHz) 64.7W

Thermal design power P4 2.4C(800) 66.2W
Thermal design power P4 2.4B(533) 59.8W
Thermal design power P4 3.2C(800) 82.0W

Both companies are leaning toward higher speeds, and larger L2 caches. Power
consumption is another story. The XP3200+ is likely the last Socket A CPU
and the P4 3.2GHz C the last Socket 478.

The reason Jane & John Public don't consider AMD is marketing. I've never
seen an AMD ad on television. Also worth mentioning is the way in which
processir speeds are advertised. "P4 2400MHz with 800MHz Front Side Bus"
looks more impressive than " XP2400+ with 266FSB" OTOH, AMD is a little
too optimistic in the PR rating for the 3200+.

The trick is choosing the best CPU for the job. Need a single CPU
workstation for software using SSE2 instructions ? A Pentium 4 is a good
choice. Need a fast machine for gaming or number crunching ? P4 or Athlon
XP. A small, quiet, cool machine for word processing and surfing ? The VIA
C3 might be perfect.
Fact is, it takes a fair bit of homework to keep up to changes in hardware,
and the typical consumer isn't very well versed.

 

[Strontium]

-
S.Heenan stood up, at show-n-tell, and said:

Typical thermal output of the XP3200+ Barton(2200MHz) 60.4W
Typical thermal output of the XP2200+T-Bred(1800MHz) 61.7W
Typical thermal output of the XP2100Palomino(1733MHz) 64.3W
Typical thermal outout of the Thunderbird1400(1400MHz) 64.7W

Thermal design power P4 2.4C(800)
66.2W Thermal design power P4 2.4B(533)
59.8W Thermal design power P4 3.2C(800)
82.0W

Both companies are leaning toward higher speeds, and larger L2
caches. Power consumption is another story. The XP3200+ is likely the
last Socket A CPU and the P4 3.2GHz C the last Socket 478.

The reason Jane & John Public don't consider AMD is marketing. I've
never seen an AMD ad on television.

Guess you weren't watching television, about two years back, when they
tried their 'hand' at it Was quite hillarious to see, actually.

 

[Craig]

The only thing that I can agree with, in this statement, is the massive
amount of heat that the old K6-2/3's produced. I never saw the
performance or compatibility issues, that you describe. In fact, all of
my boxes were rock solid. Just had to fork out $30 for Alpha heatsinks
and loud Sunon fans

AMD K6-2 bug 350 mhz. or higher (Old CPU)

http://www.geek.com/techupdate/nov98/amdw95ii.htm

Microsoft aslo made a patch

http://news.com.com/2100-1033-216029.html?legacy=cnet

Craig

 

[booster]

AMDs run hotter, but it's nothing a good heatsink/fan can't handle.
Compatibilty problems occur when people install their own systems and don't
install it properly like forgetting thermal paste etc

 

[Strontium]

Funny, that. I never needed that patch. Never used Win98SE, either.
Always used Win98 original, with no updates. Never had that 'famed'
problem. I think that 'bug' was more related to shitty motherboards. I
used EPoX boards. Well-known for quality. Perhaps that's why I never saw
this problem, personally.

-
Craig stood up, at show-n-tell, and said:

 

[Hackworth]

No it wasn't the motherboards, it was AMD CPU bug, mircosoft released a
patch for it
because Win95 would not run right with those AMD CPU's.

Just to be clear here, and to reiterate what previous posters have
indicated, this was not an "AMD CPU bug." It was a *Windows* timing bug,
and MS did indeed release a patch for it. It had nothing to do with the
quality or performance of AMD K6 CPUs.

 

[JK]

AMD K6-2 bug 350 mhz. or higher (Old CPU)

http://www.geek.com/techupdate/nov98/amdw95ii.htm

Microsoft aslo made a patch

http://news.com.com/2100-1033-216029.html?legacy=cnet

Yes, because it was Microsoft's bug, and not AMD's bug.

 

[Stacey]

Many people say AMD processors heat too much too fast compared to
Intel products and thus they cause computers to crash. Is that true?

Nope

 

[Stacey]

Oh, before I forget... That was a Win98 bug, not an AMD bug.

But the question was "software compatibility"...

 

[BarryNL]

Many people say AMD processors heat too much too fast compared to
Intel products and thus they cause computers to crash. Is that true?
How much more heat does it generates compared to an equivalent spec.
Intel processor?

Is it true that professionals avoid AMD processors for these reasons
and also because many people think that they may not be compatible
with some software.

I have been using Cyrix and AMD processors since some time and i am
very happy with them. Excellent quality / price.

I think you just answered your own question.

 

[Conor]

Funny, that. I never needed that patch. Never used Win98SE, either.
Always used Win98 original, with no updates.

You wouldn't need it. It was only for Windows 95.


--
________________________
Conor Turton
(e-mail address removed)
ICQ:31909763
________________________

 

[Craig]

But the question was "software compatibility"...

Correct the orginal post mentions "software compatibility"

Craig

 

[Craig]

Just to be clear here, and to reiterate what previous posters have
indicated, this was not an "AMD CPU bug." It was a *Windows* timing bug,
and MS did indeed release a patch for it. It had nothing to do with the
quality or performance of AMD K6 CPUs.

Hmmm when all Intel CPU's did have this problem and ran windows
without any bugs, then I would say it was a buggy AMD CPU not windows.
Hence Windows released a software patch so these AMD CPU's would
work correctly with windows.

Craig

 

[JAD]

AMD and INtel andCYrix machines are as stable as the builder /operator
that put them together/uses them

I really hate these posts......