- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
I've been thinking for a few days about this, mostly because of some comments on the frontpage. Ed keeps talking about how much better the A64 platforms are, and how much faster, and how Intel's offering just doesn't cut it. From what I've heard and experienced, I have to disagree. I've seen a lot of people (PMSFishy and Sentential come immediately to mind, both experienced overclockers/perfomance nuts) who have switched from their faster A64 systems just to get rid of the headache they cause. If you think about it this way, AMD's offering (or rather, the chipset support) is in far worse shape than Intel's.
What I'm really wondering is...how many of you have gone from AthlonXP or A64 to Intel purely for stability reasons or better chipsets? As in..."yes, my AMD system benched faster, but stability/overclocking was a complete pain the butt."
I'm going from an AXP to a P4 in about a week now (waiting on that Intel price cut) and I'm really looking forward to it. I've hated this DFI/nForce2 combo for the little over a year I've suffered through it, and I've heard worse about the nForce3/4. Anyone?
What I'm really wondering is...how many of you have gone from AthlonXP or A64 to Intel purely for stability reasons or better chipsets? As in..."yes, my AMD system benched faster, but stability/overclocking was a complete pain the butt."
I'm going from an AXP to a P4 in about a week now (waiting on that Intel price cut) and I'm really looking forward to it. I've hated this DFI/nForce2 combo for the little over a year I've suffered through it, and I've heard worse about the nForce3/4. Anyone?