Epinephrine, Re: "Let's see if I am reading you right"
No, you are reading me wrong.
1) First, there wasn't any overclocking in the review in question, and second, there wasn't any mention of BIOS tweaking, other than what people presume to happen in these reviews. I suggest you go and read what they had to say, instead of making assumptions on how "minor" the instabilities were.
Also, this does question the AMD platform that was tested. While not all AMD platforms may be affected, having a reputable review site cite instabilities certainly gives the readers of the review a bad impression, overall.
2) The difference is that when Intel has a show-stopper, the response is immediate, and satisfactory. So far, I have not heard anything justifying the instabilities that occurred in ALL of the AMD chips in the review, but NONE of the Pentium 4 chips.
3) The fact that Intel did recall their products speaks of a commitment. The fact that they had to recall their products speaks of shabby validation of that platform. Current evidence suggests that the validation process has improved since then.
4) The fact that AMD has blamed a lot of other equipment for failures, while similar equipment works fine on Intel based systems, suggests that AMD may be better off improving their own products, rather than issuing web pages recommending what kind of equipment they know won't fail.
5) The perception is that Intel has a more reliable and stable product, and this is reinforced by incidents such as this one. If AMD wants to improve the perception of their products, they really ought to make sure that buggy motherboards don't end up getting in the hands of reviewers that make can make statements about the instability of the platform.
I'll try to do better in getting my message across. Might I suggest you do a better job paraphrasing?
wanna_bmw |
