Seems a bit shallow but I like to stick to what I know. I've used Intel for a good while and its always performed really well. I have a friend who has an AMD cpu, conked out after a year. Might be a one-off but that also put me off.Originally Posted by CookieM
Only one I have ever lost was I think the result of a Shuttle motherboard VRM failure. That put me off Shuttle. CPU failures seem pretty rare IME from Intel or AMD.
I've had one CPU fail on me, ever, and that's because I figured a 16w chip could survive being booted into BIOS without a heatsink. I was wrong
Otherwise I've put CPUs into storage for years, pulled them out and dropped them straight into motherboards. The only thing I've regularly had die or be DOA after buying second hand are motherboards. CPUs and RAM just seem to chug along without batting an eyelid.
Yeah CPU failures at stock settings, where the CPU itself is at fault, are really quite rare. I've personally only ever heard of it when, for example, a crap PSU has exploded and nuked the rest of the system, or the motherboard was to blame for similar bad power reasons.
One CPU (or any components for that matter) failing, assuming it was actually at fault, is far too small a sample size to draw any sensible conclusions, frankly. It's not uncommon for people to irrationally avoid a brand when they have one item fail, but the reality is that all brands will have failures.
Take, for example, the Intel Cougar Point bug. It was quite a serious and widespread bug, and at a minimum frustrating for a lot of people having to replace stuff. Would I avoid Intel because of it? Certainly not.
I've personally had unusually bad luck with a certain memory manufacturer; I've not owned too many of their products, but out of four I've owned recently, all four have been bad and had to be returned/binned. Now, based on that experience I'll admit, all else being the same I'd probably go for another brand, but would I buy something from them again if it was suitable? Of course. From what I can tell their failure rate isn't too different from others, so there's no logical reason to assume the next thing I buy from them is any more or less likely to be bad than if I'd gone with another manufacturer, and I'd be potentially missing out on better value/performance by avoiding them.
Noxvayl (02-08-2014)
Ha. It's funny you should say that watercooled. I've just had my very first CPU failure in all my years of computing.
To be fair, it's not actually the CPU part, but the integrated Intel HD4000. It's a laptop chip and as soon as the graphics drivers try to load, it black screens and GPU recovery errors get spammed to the point of it being unusable. I suspected the mobo at first, but the results were conclusive: swapping in another CPU with a HD4000 stopped the issue immediately.
I suspect we'll see it a bit more as the chips start integrating more aspects to them. I've seen crap memory controllers before now, but none that wouldn't run at stock, so not faulty as such.
watercooled (01-08-2014)
Weird, especially since it can't be that old either. I wonder if some part of the silicon has actually degraded, or something like a dry/cracked solder joint is to blame? I'd personally want to send that back to Intel, not necessarily just for warranty replacement, but so they can investigate it. Of course, even if the CPU has become faulty, it could potentially still be peripheral components to blame e.g. power surges or ESD.
I did say stock because, depending on yields etc, CPUs might be binned in a way which doesn't allow much deviation from their shipped 'stock' speed. However it would concern me if they were extremely close, as 'borderline stable' might translate to, stable in factory testing, but more likely to cause intermittent issues when running at higher temperatures or with a less stable VRM for instance. I expect that sort of thing is taken into consideration though, and a reasonable safety margin given.
Yeah i've never had a cpu fail, I just want to stick to intel. I guess i'm an intel fanboy
If there's a reason behind choosing them each time then fair enough. If not, you're just limiting your options; companies don't reward you for doing it so brand loyalty gets you nowhere.
There's really no difference in how they function at a high level, so I don't see why 'sticking with what you know' should come into it. That's the sort of justification I'd understand for sticking with an operating system or software package where you'll have to re-learn how to do things if you switched, for instance. Although even in that case, the short-term frustration could pay off.
If one one of the most powerful supercomputers in the world uses AMD CPUs,then they are perfectly fine for anyone else IMHO when it comes to reliability at least:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6421/i...idia-gpu-cores
Noxvayl (02-08-2014)
Awesome! What does it score in 3d Mark Firestrike?
That was a joke by the way. What I don't understand is why they opted for nVidia K20X GPUs, I thought AMD GPUs were better when it came to scale computing projects using Open Compute or other similar standards, I remember reading the OpenCL APIs on an nVidia card usually produced better results than using the CUDA libraries but really don't know how much of that I understood correctly and also given my own usage none of that really matters to me, but I would love to have a basic understand of the key differences between the standards, just not badly enough to want to do the research myself.
I am very happy with my FX 8350, I got it after a bunch of issues I had with i5 3570K and 2500K, most of them caused by me and the rest I suspect were the motherboard rather than the processor. I eventually decided to go for an entirely new system rather than finding the fault and chose AMD because it had the better features for the price I was willing to pay. Intel's offering didn't even come close feature wise, might of out performed my setup by a small amount, nothing noticeable.
I like AMD and the way they do things, so supporting them was also appealing to me. So far I've had no problems with my system and I have put this motherboard and CPU through hell voltage and clock speed wise. I've gone up to 1.55V just to see if I could on the CPU and up to 1.45V on the motherboard to get the clock speeds as high as possible. I got the motherboard to 3600MHz and the CPU up to 5200MHz and they both handled it ok, passed the stress tests. I couldn't keep them at those settings though so they are on much more modest 1.45V for the CPU and 1.35V for the motherboard, clock speeds are more modest to match. This reminds me, I should post my results in the Cinebench thread CAT started.
As for why AMD are not competing at the high end, I agree with others that it is a combination of factors, the most important probably Intel's behaviour in the market. Another good reason to buy AMD and not to support Intel in my book.
dfour (05-08-2014)
Actually this is one of the reasons I was using AMD GPUs instead of nVidia for quite some time, I just felt that nVidia were acting like bullies and now Intel have been proved guilty of the same behaviour it has somewhat tainted my feelings towards the companies.
I get them feels too. This all makes me feel more love for Amd. I'm not a fanboy, but because of these things, I want to support Amd more than Intel or Nvidia. I just wish Amd would relase a badass enthusiast desktop chip! I'm selling my desktop computer. But I will be building another when Star Citizen is in full Beta. I just hope Amd have something nice for us by that point! Because I would love to throw my wallet at them
mantle is the only good thing AMD has done recently
FX 9590 is pretty badass. But it's expensive, has a high power draw, needs top-end cooling, and doesn't have a decent modern platform to sit on.
There's no real profit in serving the enthusiast market, and AMD simply doesn't have the R&D budget to fight a war on two fronts. So they're concentrating on the one that will actually make them money, and I don't think you can blame them for that. Since Intel decided to focus on CPU core leadership (starting with Core 2) AMD haven't really stood a chance of catching up, let alone taking a lead: Intel could probably throw AMD's entire annual revenue at R&D if they wanted! As much as I'd love to see a new, enhanced, enthusiast platform from AMD, I'd much rather see them turning in consecutive profitable quarters and ensuring their footing was stable going forward.
Yeh I agree. I mentioned those things about that chip earlier in the thread actually. And if I already had an Am3 board on the go, then it's an upgrade I would've taken! But my 955 started to struggle too much once Skyrim and Bf3 came out. And that was in 2011/12. So I had no choice but to go to Intel :/
And yeh, hopefully they can do good with what they're working on now. I assume they made a nice bit of money from the consoles as well! I'm pretty sure/hopeful we'll see a nice enthusiast chip from them again within the next couple years
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
