[TechManCan]

I wanted to ask everyone here about the stability argument. I like both brands(have had both) and am glad they both exist, gives us more choice as consumers. So with that out of the way:

I have heard people who build many systems(experts) that a pro for intel builds are that they are more stable than amd builds. Specifically they say:

• Intel has been around a long time and their architecture has not changed too radically from release to release with incremental improvements. Making it stable.
• Intel has better compatibility with a wider range of hardware. Specifically, with ram where you can essentially choose any ram your mobo supports and you are good to go.
• Intel mobos have better designed and more stable bios and driver software.

What are your feelings regarding this? Are intel builds noticeably more stable than amd build? The answer to this is important to me. Stability means a lot to me in my current build since it is a daily use workstation build, which I cannot have go down. Not a build where I am tinkering.

The answer to this will allow me to make a final decision on if I should do an intel or amd build this time. I like set it and forget it. I would hate to do a build and have constant issues with the bios and software.

thanks.

 

[Blameless]

What are your feelings regarding this?

It's mostly nonsense.

Are intel builds noticeably more stable than amd build?

No.

It's prudent to wait for mature firmware before jumping on a new platform, but that applies to anything. Current AMD platforms are more sensitive to memory performance, but should work flawlessly at JEDEC settings, or with properly tested & validated OCs. XMP probably has more issues on AMD platforms, but no one with any sense expects XMP to be plug and play for mission critical systems.

 

[o1dschoo1]

I wanted to ask everyone here about the stability argument. I like both brands(have had both) and am glad they both exist, gives us more choice as consumers. So with that out of the way:

I have heard people who build many systems(experts) that a pro for intel builds are that they are more stable than amd builds. Specifically they say:

• Intel has been around a long time and their architecture has not changed too radically from release to release with incremental improvements. Making it stable.
• Intel has better compatibility with a wider range of hardware. Specifically, with ram where you can essentially choose any ram your mobo supports and you are good to go.
• Intel mobos have better designed and more stable bios and driver software.

What are your feelings regarding this? Are intel builds noticeably more stable than amd build? The answer to this is important to me. Stability means a lot to me in my current build since it is a daily use workstation build, which I cannot have go down. Not a build where I am tinkering.

The answer to this will allow me to make a final decision on if I should do an intel or amd build this time. I like set it and forget it. I would hate to do a build and have constant issues with the bios and software.

thanks.

There's a reason 90 percent of servers use intel for CPUs and nvidia for gpus for render farms. It just works. Set and leave with insane longevity.

I've popped 5 amd boards in the past 15 years from overclocking and only 1 intel board. Intel board died from condensation aka was my fault and all of the amd boards except for one died from vrm failure. And I'm talking high end chipsets 790fx 990fx couple am2 boards. I stick with intel as I've never seen a high end intel board go out that wasn't user error.

 

[Peanuts4]

You know when I want a non biased AMD vs. Intel discussion the best place to find answers is in the Intel section of the forum. 🤨

 

[StAndrew]

There are a few prevailing issues with Ryzen that I've noticed that lead to the "Un-stable" theory of Ryzen.

#1: At the release of Ryzen 1000 series (1st gen) there were software efficiency issues with the design. This has been addressed both on the software side and minimized with the latest Ryzen chiplet design.

#2: Overclock stability of the latest Ryzen 5000 series has had some issues as the infinity fabric is pushed upwards of 1900MHz. AMD said it should go up to 2000 so...

#3: AMD Generic Encapsulated Software Architecture (AGESA) has had some reliability issues in the past but I don't see this as a conn. While on one hand, motherboard manufacturers have bios stability issues, for Ryzen, it was a Ryzen wide issue regardless of motherboard manufacturer, however its also an AMD wide fix when a newer version is released if that makes sense.

#4: Intel fans. When you can't argue IPC, you find something else to argue.

 

[cstkl1]

1)intel
all i can say. u go to china. take a scrap engineering raw intel mobo. throw in a cpu with it. see some raw ami bios. throw some jdec rams.. put a decent cooler rated as intel tdp for dat cpu. aslong the vrm not melting. it wont bsod.

rkt vs cmt.. go rkt.

2)amd
cant trust a company who cant even publicize a working electrical spec and imc timings data sheet.

but if u are lucky. it does work pretty good even though out of spec. but i wont be running them with 24/7 reliability.

amd fans always oblivious to things working as advertised. they are now paying premium prices. its no more da cheaper option. bsod aint a feature one pays for.

 

[Avacado]

Known plenty of people who have red or blue systems that have longevity. Personally I have never owned an AMD platform, not because of any stability reason or pricing, but based on comfort in ease of use knowledge. I don't want to learn PBO or have to **** with my RAM timing's. Pepsi and Coke are a thing, whenever I want a soda, I grab a coke.

 

[ubbb69]

So for years we have run both teams in this house. I run amd, my wife runs intell. We do this since i build the pc's and have been interested in this exact question. Through the years it has flip-flopped on stability. In today's market they are equal i would say. The first Ryzen with 300 series boards was terrible. Those issues have disappeared now though. Even the first gen Ryzen now used by my daughter has been stable. I am now running the 570 chipset and 5000 series chip. If you build the system and run it without oc it is stable. As soon as you start messing with voltage it is not. Is this a bad thing? Not really as the performance to be had ocing this chip is minimal. The time is better spent working on ram timings. Just because a chip runs great at stock settings is not a bad thing.

Now for the Intell systems my wife and 2nd daughter run it is a little different. The X99 platform had its own issues when i built that system. Still to this day one of those problems exist. It has a hard time with m.2 drives and finding them. Other smaller issues existed at launch but have been worked out over the years. Basically now it is set the multiplier and forget about it. My wife has moved from 6,7,8,9,and now 10th gen. All basically the same chips really. Set the multiplier and forget about them.

If you are discussing past chips then both have had their issues and both have been on top of the game at some point. If you ask me about the new hardware i would say just pick one and be happy. Both are stable and fast. Depending on the workload you have may push you to one platform over the other. Sorry for the book, and i hope this helps somebody.

 

[mothergoose729]

I wanted to ask everyone here about the stability argument. I like both brands(have had both) and am glad they both exist, gives us more choice as consumers. So with that out of the way:

I have heard people who build many systems(experts) that a pro for intel builds are that they are more stable than amd builds. Specifically they say:

That kind of blanket statement makes me think you either misunderstood them or that they are not experts on that particular topic.

• Intel has been around a long time and their architecture has not changed too radically from release to release with incremental improvements. Making it stable.

Stable usually means it doesn't poop the bed. This argument doesn't really lend any credibility to that statement. What problems are there with which platforms and how is Intel better?

• Intel has better compatibility with a wider range of hardware. Specifically, with ram where you can essentially choose any ram your mobo supports and you are good to go.

That could be true, but at a consumer level I doubt it. XMP profiles are sometimes not validated on both AMD and Intel platforms, and memory compatibility can be an issue either way. I can't say I have had the experience of one being significantly better or worse than the other. Intel might be better here but chance are excellent if you buy a kit today it will work on either platform.

• Intel mobos have better designed and more stable bios and driver software

That really comes down to board partners. There are excellent AMD bios layouts and really poor Intel ones.

What are your feelings regarding this? Are intel builds noticeably more stable than amd build? The answer to this is important to me. Stability means a lot to me in my current build since it is a daily use workstation build, which I cannot have go down. Not a build where I am tinkering.

The answer to this will allow me to make a final decision on if I should do an intel or amd build this time. I like set it and forget it. I would hate to do a build and have constant issues with the bios and software.

thanks.

Intel and AMD offer a different set of features with a lot of overlap. There are good reasons to go either way. You should do research on how you specifically want to use your computer and make an informed decision if you can.

 

[StAndrew]

1)intel
all i can say. u go to china. take a scrap engineering raw intel mobo. throw in a cpu with it. see some raw ami bios. throw some jdec rams.. put a decent cooler rated as intel tdp for dat cpu. aslong the vrm not melting. it wont bsod.

rkt vs cmt.. go rkt.

2)amd
cant trust a company who cant even publicize a working electrical spec and imc timings data sheet.

but if u are lucky. it does work pretty good even though out of spec. but i wont be running them with 24/7 reliability.

amd fans always oblivious to things working as advertised. they are now paying premium prices. its no more da cheaper option. bsod aint a feature one pays for.

Known plenty of people who have red or blue systems that have longevity. Personally I have never owned an AMD platform, not because of any stability reason or pricing, but based on comfort in ease of use knowledge. I don't want to learn PBO or have to **** with my RAM timing's. Pepsi and Coke are a thing, whenever I want a soda, I grab a coke.

^
#4

I don't understand the Ryzen memory argument. Yes, you should probably get a kit that is certified for Ryzen which limits your options a bit. I could see this being a big issue if Ryzen memory was more $$$ and not readily available for purchase but for the most part that doesn't appear to be the case . Now, you probably don't have the memory overclock headroom as Intel but who cares if, in the end, you're still faster?

As a builder and user of a Ryzen system, I'd admit, the bios was a learning curve but I love the Ryzen Windows tweaking software and rarely ever go into the bios anymore. AGESA has some great advantages! CTR is another amazing tool if you're into tweaking.

I don't know, I don't see this being a huge deal, certainly not a deal breaker if you are inclined to get Ryzen processor.

And to be clear, not a fanboy of either club; I don't have any issues with Intel and have run Intel for years (and have one now)

 

[D-EJ915]

Really depends on what you get, a lot of brands make crappy boards for both platforms. Intel motherboards and server boards (actually from intel) were so unreliable the company I work for switched off of them even though their OEM kickbacks and partner pricing was amazing, our customers just hated them because of how often they would just die. Intel actually stopped manufacturing consumer boards in part because of this lol. I'm not a big fan of the hundreds of dead boards and NUCs we've had to recycle but it is what it is. Asus also had a series of their CSM boards for the 80 series chipset that all failed as well, that was pretty nice lol. I built an AM3 box for my dad a few years ago and the asus board in there died too, common part to all of these cases is crap sub-100 dollar motherboards. Any quality board I've had for either amd or intel is still working now.

One thing I heard many reviewers say is after Ryzen 3000 series came out brands finally started to release more quality motherboards to match the upper tier Intel ones. Based on that it doesn't you'd run into the amd boards failing as often now as compared to pre-ryzen.

Regarding your question about memory compatibility and software, that is just because vendors did not put any effort into it. Now that AMD is more widely adopted the support has improved a lot. Some Intel vendors like EVGA have the worst memory compatibility out of anyone.

Hope this helps.

 

[GanjaSMK]

@OP

If reliability is your thing, you're asking the wrong question by concerning yourself with 'Intel vs AMD'. Either platform, you'll want to ask these questions:

1. You say workstation - does that mean video editing, audio work, radio work, multi-cast streaming, deploying multiple VM's for testing.... etc?

2. Good luck finding ECC RAM readily available - for stability have you considered ECC RAM?

3. UPS, backup setup, up time requirements, etc - what have you planned for any of these scenarios?

4. Tenure - how long are you planning on maintaining the workstation without the necessity for upgrades due to your workload?

To put it pretty bluntly, both systems are pretty dang reliable at stock speeds.

 

[Schmuckley]

Well, AMD is plenty stable and faster if you run Windows 10. (for gaming)

If you want to run something else, (XP, Linux, etc..AMD probably isn't compatible.)

I tried AMD with Linux and got "kernel panic" and a failure.

 

[Blameless]

Overwhelming majority of complaints people have about AMD have nothing to do with AMD. Board and firmware quality is all over the place and will be the cause of most issues.

Anything that could be considered overclocking (which would include using XMP on most setups) is down to the system builder to configure and correctly test...nothing should be assumed. Hell, nothing should be assumed even for bone stock setups, if one actually cares about stability.

I tried AMD with Linux and got "kernel panic" and a failure.

Haven't had any particular issues in Linux with any of my AMD based systems, nor have I heard anything about any fundamental incompatibilities.

 

[Schmuckley]

Overwhelming majority of complaints people have about AMD have nothing to do with AMD. Board and firmware quality is all over the place and will be the cause of most issues.

Anything that could be considered overclocking (which would include using XMP on most setups) is down to the system builder to configure and correctly test...nothing should be assumed. Hell, nothing should be assumed even for bone stock setups, if one actually cares about stability.



Haven't had any particular issues in Linux with any of my AMD based systems, nor have I heard anything about any fundamental incompatibilities.

Interesting. What distros and versions?

 

[essanbee]

A conglomeration of PC parts designed to work together as a system is stable, until it is not. There are many reasons for the "not". And they are fairly equally distributed between both manufacturers. They both have black eyes and both have blue ribbons. If you cannot have your system go down the obvious choice is to get one of each and let us know in a year how it goes.

 

[Blameless]

Interesting. What distros and versions?

I do most of my validation testing on Lubuntu 18.04 LTS and tend to use Manjaro when I use Linux for non-testing purposes. Not even sure which version of Manjaro I've got installed currently, but it's a rolling release--one of the main reasons I use it--and I'm nearly always using the most up to date stable kernel available.

 

[TechManCan]

Lot of good comments. I haven’t had a chance to read all comments in detail, just glanced through them quickly. I will read them in detail though.

Overall as a lay person/consumer with a concern of stability and general parts compatibility Amd vs intel doesn’t matter? With all the attributes we look through before building a system, stability should not be one of the reasons to go with an Intel build?

 

[o1dschoo1]

Lot of good comments. I haven’t had a chance to read all comments in detail, just glanced through them quickly. I will read them in detail though.

Overall as a lay person/consumer with a concern of stability and general parts compatibility Amd vs intel doesn’t matter? With all the attributes we look through before building a system, stability should not be one of the reasons to go with an Intel build?

It's subjective honestly. Some of us had bad luck with one and won't go there some of us the other some just fanboy for no reason. With a high end board on either system these days aslong as it's stock settings your good. Amd has agesa issues when overclocking memory and infinity fabric on the 5000 CPUs.

Tldr unless your running a server side mission critical setup pick whichever fancies you and get a high end board.

 

[cstkl1]

Overwhelming majority of complaints people have about AMD have nothing to do with AMD. Board and firmware quality is all over the place and will be the cause of most issues.

Anything that could be considered overclocking (which would include using XMP on most setups) is down to the system builder to configure and correctly test...nothing should be assumed. Hell, nothing should be assumed even for bone stock setups, if one actually cares about stability.



Haven't had any particular issues in Linux with any of my AMD based systems, nor have I heard anything about any fundamental incompatibilities.

as far as i know its amd issue not board vendors
its the delivery of agesa which controls hardware

its like marketing told software what it wants without checking hardware (board design valid)

until today theres zero data-sheet to know what is the operating electrical condition or ram timings on imc.

amd argument is p&c . hence bsod.
a simple thing as default vrm loadline for cpu. does anybody know them??

^
#4

I don't understand the Ryzen memory argument. Yes, you should probably get a kit that is certified for Ryzen which limits your options a bit. I could see this being a big issue if Ryzen memory was more $$$ and not readily available for purchase but for the most part that doesn't appear to be the case . Now, you probably don't have the memory overclock headroom as Intel but who cares if, in the end, you're still faster?

As a builder and user of a Ryzen system, I'd admit, the bios was a learning curve but I love the Ryzen Windows tweaking software and rarely ever go into the bios anymore. AGESA has some great advantages! CTR is another amazing tool if you're into tweaking.

I don't know, I don't see this being a huge deal, certainly not a deal breaker if you are inclined to get Ryzen processor.

And to be clear, not a fanboy of either club; I don't have any issues with Intel and have run Intel for years (and have one now)

not sure why i was quoted..

think he is trying to tell u
he bought 3800 ram. 3800 ram should work. year 2020 where ddr4 gonna be eol thats a waste in time to tweak.