Our IT guys share the same prejudice, but I've never had any trouble with AMD machines.  I use an Athlon at home (my third), and I used to use a Cyrix.  Lately the price difference hasn't been as large as it used to be, though, and my next machine might be an Intel.

from pricewatch.com:
Pentium 4 motherboard combo 2.2GHz starts at $234
Athlon 2200 motherboard combo starts at $194

Keep in mind that an Athlon 2200 is actually a 1.8GHz machine - 2200 is a "Pentium-equivalent speed" (read marketing mumbo-jumbo)

Athlon 2200 is the fastest AMD combo that I see on pricewatch, while there are P4 combos available up to 2.8GHz ($559)

I really wouldnt worry about it. I have owned both Athlons and Pentiums and have never noticed a difference in stability. The best philosphy when it comes to all things computer related is buy the fastest thing for your money , as in 2 months its out of date anyway!

IMHO, with Mathcad especially, make sure you've got plenty of RAM on board and your laughing. Hope this helps.

I've used MathCad2001 on Win98SE on an Athlon 1700 o/ced to 1650 (ha!) with no probs. Many years ago there was a compatibility issue between MathCad 4 or 5+ and AMD's 80387 but that's all I know of.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Thanks for the info guys....

I've got an AMD at home that I've had no problems with... I just don't run Mathcad.  Boss is thinking of upgrading a few machines, and I was looking for info for him.  

Personally, I like AMD a bit better, seems to be a bit less expensive for the same amount of toys.  But, that's also at home, with my money.... Boss's money is another matter....

At this point, you're at risk either way.  The primary issue is whether the math processor in either processor works as intended under all conditions and whether you'll encounter any hidden problems.

For most math problems encountered in everyday engineering, it's probably machts nichts.  The likelihood is low that you'll wind up processing a problem that would cause the math engine to hiccough.

If you are doing complex math or or mathematical theory, then either processor is equally likely to have an obscure bug deep in the math processor.

TTFN

I have used MathCAD on an Athalon 950 MHz
without any incidents !

Yes, AMD does indeed provide more bang for your buck !!

Merry Christmas

When I bought AutoCad 2000 a couple of years back the local ACAD tech support guys advised agains AMD.  They said there were compatability problems.  Don't know if that is still a problem.

Dave Adkins

p4's can be a problem.

while they use an advanced instruction set they only implement part of the IEEE floating point standard.

additionally they have removed one of the ALU's (the P6 architecture, used in pentiums,PII,PIII's, and pentium pro's had dual ALU's). Less heat, generation but performance is geared to software that uses the advanced instruction set.

if you are using p4 1700 for example with 80 bit floating point calc.(so called extended precision) the performance is comparable to a pentium 233 mmx! ouch. AMD chips seem to hold there own for some reason.

the PIII-s chip set is fine, and presumably so is the Xeon.  

FWIW

I'm running Mathcad v11.0b on three different AMD and v6.0 Pro on another AMD .... Never a hiccup ....
Only way I'd convert to Intel is if they bought AMD or AMD did an el foldo ... which I don't see on the bubble.

jOmega