INTEL good chipset

[kazuza]

If Intel can't make good processors :D then how can their chipsets be any good?
Which do you think is the best chipset manufacturer?

[RayH]

I don't think anyone ever said Intel made a lousy processor. Most of the complaints come from some people feel it's an overpriced product that's hard to overclock. Speed is only part of the equation.

[Swordfish]

I ain't any hardcore fan of Intel CPU's but still the only problem i think with their CPU is the price at which they are sold.

If Intel does look into that area then we can see most of the so called hardcore fans of AMD to slightly shift their focus on Intel.

Even though all the benchmarks and stuff show that AMD surpasses Intel on many areas... to tell you the truth to our naked eye these ain't gonna matter much. Since PIII 1g will look like as if givin the same performance as PIV 1.5g unless and until both of them r benchmarked and compared.

Intel chipsets are very much stable I have used Intel manufactured board for the past 2 years it has never ever crashed on me.

Well, the big thing is money you have the **** money to spend u can just go about findin the right product( like checkin out the reviews, features available & stuff) for you, i mean it all boils down to makin the right choice between price and performance.

and for once no body is goin to get happier by playin Quake III at 250 fps( thats not even seen by naked eye)on GF4,5,or whatever their next batch of vidcrd is(u definetely have an edge but u pay a lot for that when on the other hand u can get a decent performance out of a normal gf2 gts with 32mb) . So perhaps if there was Quake 7 or 10 then it would have definetely made a difference goin for GF4 and stuff.

oh hell ....money makes all the difference.


Peace.

[Harshu]

Who said that Intel does not make good processor. Only bad thing is that they make lots of thing a hype (most of the people belive on them) and the prices. A original Intel mobo cost 2 times the other boards but they r stable boards.
See intel r at the top they make good processors and good chipsets for it. But ya there is some problem with there policy (a policy where no other company can with-stand) But over all a good company.

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Harshu

A. How are Intel chipset mobo's twice as much? Look around my Asus was $172. so are alot of others. No, GOOD mobo's all are about the same price.

B. AMD has made some good hype to, come on folks its called marketing and they all do it!

Swordfish-

A. P4 prices have dropped big time so the $ thing is soooo not valid at all and is getting very very old now!

B. When saying a P3 1gig is = to a P4 1.5 you must keep things in perspective here. A p4 1.5 (which I have) will game alot beter than a 1.0gig p3. You are only looking at the cpu but there is more to the total performance! Like the rdram vs. puney sdr on the P3. That mem bandwidth is a big deal when it comes down to game time. Lower temp.s =higher O'clocks than any AMD will hit as of now! The P4 is the best O'clocker ever! :D

Not flameing you just trying to keep propaganda from fact! Peace.:)

[Swordfish]

Yep agreed, GAMER, u r the king....:)

I never felt the difference as such since anything above 60fps in any game is certainly not going to be picked up very easily, u only find the difference in the benchmark thats about it.

Perhaps may be the overall feel while playin any such graphic intensive games may be different.

Though I never felt the need of gettin GF4 for playin Quake3, return of Castle Wolfenstein, etc etc , my present GF2 gts 64MB is kind of ok for all games that i played till now, so never felt like upgrading.

I take back that PIII=P1.4 thing, it was my mistake, happy GAMER.

hope this takes care about that...

[bassman]

I agree on the price issue, Intel is slightly more expensive, but they're CPU's still have quality, I don't believe that someone can say that they suck. Anyways, I don't think that most people that buy AMD do it with the purpose of overclocking (thought many do, I know), but besides that, AMD does offer a great relation on speed/price...

[rlemieux]

Originally posted by RayH
I don't think anyone ever said Intel made a lousy processor. Most of the complaints come from some people feel it's an overpriced product that's hard to overclock. Speed is only part of the equation.

Hard to overclock?, a Northwood out of the box with a stock cooler can jump 600 MHz with ease...... Can AMD do that, I don’t think so. I have no preference; it just ticks me off when people say things for no reason. My 1.8A is running super stable at 2.4Gigs. I know I could get to at least 2.6 also. I have seen 1.6A's and 1.8A's overclocked over a gig with stock cooling.

You are supposed to be a senior member, maybe you might want to research before you make anymore statements as uneducated as this one.....

[rlemieux]

Originally posted by kazuza
If Intel can't make good processors :D then how can their chipsets be any good?
Which do you think is the best chipset manufacturer?

Also, how in the hell do you say intel cant make a good processor? And intel makes some of the most stable processors and chipsets.

I love you people. You just talk out of your *** with no reasons to back it up. You want to diss someone, look at the ratio of fried chips between Intel and AMD. Look at how many AMD users have cracked thier chips. Look at how much hotter AMD chips run than Intel.

Come on...., you make yourself look like an idiot. Do a little reaseach before you say something. Just because youre one of these people that go AMD strictly because you cant stand the Corperate hype of Intel. Come on get a life.

[RayH]

rlemieux: All a senior member means is that I've been hanging around here for some time. A lot of postings probably reflects asking a lot of questions. I'm the first to admit that I'm actually among the least knowledgeable about computers.

I can see your a hot shot with a computer that has all the "correct" parts. I just have an old K6-2 450 that works and never crashes!

I'm just a grandfather who built his first computer without ever having used Windows or read any material about building a computer. I just bought the parts and followed the instructions in the motherboard manual. I didn't even know what the Startup Disk was (nor did I for a year afterwards). I just had a friend add MSCDEX to DOS 6.22 and I was off to the races.

When I found out what a Startup Disk was, it then became clear why nobody was selling DOS any more! :)

[BipolarBill]

Back to the chipset thing (:rolleyes: ). IMHO, the real strength of Intel is in it's chipsets. They are the most stable, configurable and reliable chipsets available. No one can touch them. AMD uses VIA technology in theirs as does nVidia. Now there's a questionable practice. :eek:

[cheapster]

As a "bang for the buck" kind of guy, I have to agree with the statement that the only thing wrong with Intel processors was the prices they charge for them. They work fine and are reliable. The big advantage AMD has enjoyed for the past couple of years has been speed and price. But I have to say that the new Northwood processor and DDR ram has negated a big portion of that advantage that AMD has enjoyed. Unless you have to have the latest release, highest Mhz processor, there is not that big a difference in the costs of AMD vs. Intel these days. If you look at the benchmark section of Sysopt, you will see that there are about twice as many AMD cpu's listed as Intel. I am certain that this is a result of AMD's price/performance ration of the past two years. If Intel continues to offer decent prices on the "slower" Northwoods, and if they are as overclockable as reported, I would expect that to change over time.
Oh and one other thing I would change about Intel is their repulsive TV commercials. Stupid dancers, Blue People and Aliens! What next? And kudos to AMD's marketing department on naming the Athlon XP. Way to cash in on Microsoft's "uber-marketing budget" and trying to tie their product to MS latest operating system.
Chuck

[rlemieux]

And I am just a father, who three years ago decided I was going to learn to do this stuff, and in three years Ive learned alot. I own my own consulting/configuring business and I use these forums alot as reference.

When people first start and come to these forums, they look to the senior members for advise. And when they see a comment like yours they tend to believe it. So as someone just starting out you should know better than to make statements about things you have no knowledge of. You cause people to have false information. And even if it were true, which it is not, you should also give information as to why you believe that.

And as for me being a hotshot with all "correct" parts. Where do you come off. I work hard just like the rest of you. My last computer, which was my first btw, was a PIII500. I waited three years to upgrade. And when I did I got what I wanted. I dont have all the money in the world and I very seldom endulge in upgrades. So when I could I got something that would last me.

Look, I know I was kinda rude, but I dont like false knowledge. You put a statement out like that and people that dont know any better believe it. So like I said, next time do a little research before you bash a company.

Intel is a great processor and chipset manufacturer. Alot of people dislike them because they are so big and rich. To each his own I guess. Everyone is always talking about AMD, and I have nothing agaist them, but most of the users are just there because they dont like Intels image. Not there processors.

I bought intel because they are more stable, reliable, better overclockers, run cooler and have reasonable pricing. Yes Intel is a little, and only a little, cheaper than AMD. I am not saying AMD is a bad company, infact when there new Hammers are released I will be buying one, but I felt at the time I bought mine Intel was the best solution.

[kazuza]

I personally don't like INTEL, and I have good reasons for it!
I've seen P4 loose big for AMD's XP.
No, I am not a hotshot who has the best and knows nothing...
My computer has a PIII in it's core, and believe me when I say it's the best INTEL ever made.
Don't intend to hurt anyones feelings, but that's my founded opinion, I would like someone could discuss with arguments instead of defending INTEL.
Just because you have a INTEL CPU, you don't have to defend it's public discussion with your life. (I'm not doing so!!!)
Play with the facts and discuss as real pros...

[RayH]

When people first start and come to these forums, they look to the senior members for advise. And when they see a comment like yours they tend to believe it. So as someone just starting out you should know better than to make statements about things you have no knowledge of. You cause people to have false information

rlemieux YOU may think senior members have some sort of inside. I've already stated that I'm a senior member because of a lot of posts...most of which were probaby questions.

My understanding is that Intel locked the clock on its processors after the Celeron 300, which people were overclocking to 450 easily. It was done more to stop unscrupulous dealers than to hinder hobbyists. I thought they were still doing so.

All of us post on the basis of what we believe to be true. Sometimes we understand a question wrong. Sometimes we have wrong ideas about the solution.

When we have incorrect information, generally someone comes along to HELP us correct our mistaken ideas. Your rudeness and attack on mistaken ideas is not within the spirit of a HELP board.

If you read my original post, it never attacked Intel. I was just giving a couple of reasons (based upon what I've read) why some people don't want to have an Intel system.

[rlemieux]

Originally posted by kazuza
If Intel can't make good processors :D then how can their chipsets be any good?
Which do you think is the best chipset manufacturer?

And where are the reasons. All I see is stupid person saying stupid things. No explanations, nothing to back it up. Just a couple of uneducated sentences.

And to further you stupidity, Intel multipliers are locked. You use the FSB to overclock. And even with the locked multipliers they overclock more than AMD. Also AMD's multipliers are locked from the factory, but you can unlock them.

I said new members look at senior members as knowing a little more. That doesn’t mean they do, just most that come on this forum think that if you have 1000 post you should at least be knowledgeable. As we have seen you are not.

And you’re right I am rude. Stupid people make me that way. You have given no reason for your word. They are still just a couple of uneducated phases that lead nowhere.

Again, educate yourself on a topic before you throw things out like this agian.

[cheapster]

Now, now, let's not get personal. It is counterproductive and frankly off topic. To respond nicely, but to disagree is fine. The statement that Intel processors don't overclock is untrue as they overclock just fine using the front side bus. Both of my intel Celeron sytems are overclocked and stable (a 600@900 and a 900@1.08 G) And I would disagree with the statement that the PIII is the best processor that Intel has made, while admitting that the early P4 were underperforming and overpriced. The current Northwoods are very overclockable and quite fast. Also I would love to compare the tualatin Celeron (with 256K cache) to the morgan cored Durons to see which is the faster budget chip. I suppose the Duron would win, but I bet it would be close. I do have a Duron 850 system with the MSI K7T Turbo motherboard, and it runs right with my celeron systems (although the benchmarks favor the 1.08 gig Celly, as they should given its' 200+ mhz advantage in clock speed.)
And I freely admit the AMD processors have more flexibility if you choose to unlock the multiplier and your board supports changing it in the BIOS. I am very thankful for AMD, since without the Athlons, Durons and T-Birds, Intel would still be charging $600 or $700 for 1 gig processors. I will still continue to buy the best I can afford in the price/performance ratio. Whichever that is. The edge that Intel has is that their processors run cooler, if all else is equal, including price. That would be enough (for me at least) to go with Intel. On the other hand if AMD provides significantly superior performance at a significantly lower price, then I will go AMD. (hence my Duron system, the latest one I have put together).
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and some even have valid reasons and personal experience to back it up. There just isn't any need for name calling.
Now, group hug. :D

[rangeral]

rlemieux it against the rules of conduct at this site to attack or call another member names or be rude as you have said, his comment was an opinion and not even advice to solve a problem to begin with. Everybody makes mistakes and no one is perfect including myself, there is no excuse for this so this post is being locked since its going nowhere.

Please do not do this again.

A new post can be started again in a more polite manner.