AMD vs. Intel subjective overall system observations

[Spartak]

Originally Posted by Aquineas

I'm a longtime AMD user who decided to buy an Intel i7-2600K system last spring because I was beginning to have serious doubts about BD (doubts which ended up being well-founded).

I am very similar to you in this respect.

I've been using my systom for 8 months and have no regret about my choice

So far no serious problems. Basically all issues you mentioned are of software nature (drivers/firmware) and has little to do with silicons.
And Ivy is compatible Asus already supports it in its latest BIOS. BTW Have you tried to update it?

[Shadow Concept]

I had the opposite in my travels. I've had in the past:

AMD 3500+, 3700+, 4200+, 4600+ (65nm), 4800+ and a 6400+, Phenom 9850BE, Phenom 965BE.

I'm now running my first Intel in what you see in my signature.

All I have to say is that AMD's SB600, and most likely it's predecessors, SUCKED. It was honestly the most horrible thing to deal with I've ever experienced. Just google SB600 raid issues and have a look - drives dropping out, arrays being screwed - and my favourite was a particular catalyst install that, once I finally got a raid going, decided to install incorrect raid drivers WITHOUT ASKING and nuked my Windows install.

The Intel system hasn't been without fault - mainly due to me trying to squeeze 5ghz out of a chip that was probably not capable - but as far as things just working - it wins by a country mile.

If only I could get my damn 6970 to run stable under Fedora or Ubuntu I'd have the most solid system I've ever owned - just in time for my major upgrade.

[TakeANumber]

It's also possible that because of socket stability of recent AMD systems and the cross compatibilities across the various families of recent chipsets and sockets, the BIOS is much more mature and thus more stable.