Tony: Between Intel and AMD, it would be pretty incredible if their chips were equally stable, exactly. Since it is possible to find more examples cited on the Internet of AMD based system instability problems, than Intel, and there are 4 or 5X as many Intel, it doesn't take complex math or logic to come to a conclusion here.
It would seem you skipped your statistics 101 class, but so be it ;-).
You cannot infer anything from the data you mention - least of all what you choose to infer. There are just too many unknowns.
Intel has a much larger market share in the business sector, would you agree? Let's assume for the time being that the split is 80% Intel, 20% AMD. Would you say that's reasonable? (I'm assuming somewhat greater Intel presence than is the case for the over x86 market share).
Let's further assume that business sector sales make up 50% (in unit terms) of all x86 sales, which I have no idea how accurate is, so if you have a better guess, feel free to provide it ;-). That results in a market share ratio of 1:2.3333 (AMD:Intel) in the non-business sector - instead of the 1:4 - 1:5 you mention.
The reason for excluding business sector sales is simple - there don't appear to be any "examples cited on the Internet" (as you put it) of this type of PC.
Similarly, notebook problems are also much more rare (although with WinXP, both AthlonXP and older P3s do need a patch, but the number of notebook users who upgrade their OS is likely extremely small). This would push the ration even further in AMD's direction.
There's even more, however. Intel has a greater OEM presence than AMD and the problems seem to be happening almost solely with DIY-type systems, not complete OEM systems. I hesitate to estimate the strength of this effect, but include it merely to point out the complexity of the problem.
Lastly, you are assuming that
1) Intel buyers and AMD buyers are, on average, identical.
2) People who post on the Internet are, on average, identical.
I would argue that both of these assumptions are incredibly dangerous to make - certainly unsubstantiated by any data I have seen.
Allow me, for a brief moment, to give an AMDroid scenario (no, I don't necessarily subscribe to it myself, but it does present an example of how your logic is flawed):
<DROID>
AMD buyers are much more advanced users than Intel users. Anyone who has checked out the facts and knows anything about computers would buy an AMD, not an Intel. Thus, the number of AMD buyers who would potentially post on message boards is much greater. This claim is supported by the numerous "Which CPU do you prefer"-type polls on the Internet, where AMD always wins buy a rather huge margin.
Additionally, since the AMD buyers are more advanced users, they are much more likely to "experiment" with their systems. This includes everything from upgrading their OS, over installing new hardware, to overclocking. All of these naturally increase the risk of something going wrong.
</DRIOD>
Do you see what I'm getting at, Tony?
Your simplistic statement that "it doesn't take complex math or logic to come to a conclusion here" is... well... just too simple. Yes, there are quite a few suppositions in my reasoning, but that is my main point: There just isn't enough data (at all!) to reach the conclusions you do. In fact, it would be just as easy to reach the opposite conclusion!
'Droids choose one, 'bees choose the other ;-). Business as usual…
-fyo |
