The Shrine

Regardless of feelings on Apple as a company, this will have an interesting impact on the PC industry. First, x86 is now going to be the only architecture used in the consumer PC industry. Related to that IBM, will no longer have any processors in the consumer PC industry; their processors will be in consoles, however.

So the only two companies left making processors for consumer PCs are Intel and AMD. Both Dell and Apple exclusively use Intel (by 2007). Intel just got a lot more powerful.

Serious business! I thought for sure that Apple would stick with the PowerPC, even if it did start having Intel manufacture its CPUs, but nope; x86 it is.

I'm looking forward to seeing the first batch of Macs that run on x86.

This is one of the happiest days the Petty Side of Ishamael has ever had. Nothing like spamming your Mac snob friends with this bit of news.

However, for consumers it kind of sucks. Well in many realistic ways nothing is changing since the PPC was never really any competition at all in the desktop market. But still, it'd be nice to have another major quasi major player in the area. Of course it's looking like this market is becoming less important in the future as embedded chips are starting to take over.

Every year, Apple becomes more and more like the "enemy". This reminds me of ATARI/Amiga's last days of adopting PC-compatible computers.

I smell Anti-trust, but not that horrible movie with the lovely rachel leigh cook.

Barret wrote:I smell Anti-trust, but not that horrible movie with the lovely rachel leigh cook.

Intel doesn't have a monopoly - AMD is still making processors for PCs.

On a slight tangent, what is the opinion of those posting here on AMD? My last Pentium-based computer was horribly unstable, but the AMD system I built four years ago I'm still using (and using well) today. I may be buying new equipment soon so I'm wondering what people think.

I have limited experience in the matter, so take that into consideration when evaluating my thoughts. I've really only own three computers, and all have had Intel processors. This wasn't by choice, but just because that's what the companies who made my computers used. The processor itself has never been an issue in any machine I've owned.

Frankly, I don't think AMD vs. Intel matters much. I don't see the point in favoring one brand over the other. I've read some evaluations that AMD high-end processors are outperforming Intel high-end processors, but I doubt you're looking to buy something that expensive. Nor do I think you'd even notice the difference between the two if you did. Processors are generally faster than the other components of a computer to the point that processors are no longer the performance bottleneck. Instead, the perceived performance is more dependent on RAM access time and disk access time.

Since I've never built my own computer from parts, none of this may apply - I've never had to deal with compatabilites of processors with motherboards and stuff like that.

I'm more concerned about stability. My old Pentium II-based system was a horrid crash bomb by the end (after about four years); the AMD system I have now (roughly the same amount of time passed) is much better.

I built them both myself, but I truthfully have no idea where the instability was introduced, which is why I'd like to mine the data knowledge here.

I doubt the processor itself was responsible.

My p2 ran just fine, and still does to this day. All I have to do is plop a HD into it, and maybe I'll load DOS and 95 on it to play Privateer 2 and wing commander.

Kupek wrote:I doubt the processor itself was responsible.

Why?

Mental wrote: Why?

There are other components of a computer that are more likely to fail. The hard drive is a mechanical device and the most likely to fail. All hard drives have a MTTF rating; it's the Mean Time To Failure in hours. RAM failure is not common, but I think more common than processor failure. I'd suspect both of those over the processor.

The hard drive worked fine, since it went into my next system. I wouldn't know about the RAM, however. What about the motherboard - are there likely failure points for that? It never really was an incredibly stable system to begin with (which is ironic, since it's the one time in my life I went for more expensive components all around).

I've used AMDs for a long time now and I've had absolutely no CPU related issues with my computer.

About the only knock against AMDs is they tend to put off a decent amount of heat.

Ive built my 2 computers after my P3 got outdated and i've used AMD's both times for budget reasons; i've never had a problem with them. Granted, i never had a problem with the P3 either.

Ive read that AMDs are better gaming CPUs and can overclock better, plus they are way cheaper. I feel confident using them and see no reason to switch, mother boards for AMDs are cheaper, too.

My last 2 chips have been AMDs. Same performance as Intel or better, but for significantly less.

And yeah, the do put off a lot of heat. The heat sink used to be optional for Pentiums (at least older models). They most definitely are NOT optional for AMDs, something I found out the hardway. Luckily, the guys at Fry's were understanding.

To Mental,

Usually, the motherboard is the least likely component to have a problem. If the motherboard has an onboard LED and it's lighted, problem should not be with it. Hell, instability is more likely to be caused by a faulty power supply then a motherboard.

Most common instability problems, to me at least usually come from hard disk, OS conflicts and power supply. Power supply is more of an issue for current P4/Athlon system though.

You will be surprise at how hard disk will fail at the most crucial point, only to work again later….. My current system has a 80gig taken from an old one. 3 months ago, it totally stop working, and even my bios cannot detect it. 1 month later, it is suddenly detected again. Run a full scan, fdisk/format etc it and till now it is still working perfectly.

It's only when you tweak bus settings does RAM/processor/graphic card etc cause stability issues.

To All,

Heat is an issue with every processor nowadays... I personally feel the paranoia that AMD chips as they are natively hotter, will burn out faster compare to Intel chips that run cooler to be well, untrue I guess.

Every processor comes with a huge heatsink/fan nowadays and unless you are overclocking it, heat is and probably will be the least issue to care about.

For my current computer, I’m using an Athlon 64 and it is o/ced using the default heat sink/fan. Back at Singapore, when temperature is around 28-32 degree celsius all year, I’ve yet to encounter a stage where the processor reaches a high enough temperature to warrant concern.

In fact, among all the system I have construct so far, the only case I remember having a heat issue was an Intel Celeron 300a o/ced to 450, but that’s an exception rather then the norm since overclocking a processor by 50% is practically impossible these day.

For the average consumer, the performance difference between an AMD chip and an Intel one is frankly not visible. The differences only comes in say when you are playing a FPS in 1280 x 1024 with every graphical option on or you are using Photoshop and employing 10-12 filter at once.

It’s ultimately down to price and AMD easily win in that field. Problem however is AMD had a bad reputation back during it’s K6 period and the heat issue that everyone seems so concern about.

I've been running an AMD 64 3200+ for about 2 1/2 months now, overclocked. Even with the latest Heatwave we are experiencing (low 30's Celsius) I'm having no problems with heat. MSI dashboard says the temp is 44 degrees.

I got a sweet motherboard and the CPU for under $300 CDN by going AMD over Intel.


On a semi-related note, Intel has not payed my company for work done 8 months ago. They are also ignoring our messages. So I may be a little biased right now.

Don't even bother asking me how I feel about RIM...

Think Blackberry if you have no idea who RIM is

Appreciate the feedback, guys. I'd been privately wondering if AMD was a better way to go, and this sounds like pretty good confirmation in that direction.