I'd have to say Intel because I never had problems with them, although VIA is decent when it works. AMD have problems here and there, and the only SiS chipset I had experience was from some OEM system with integrated video into system RAM, bad situation there.

As big of a Via fan that I am, I really can't dispute Intel's reliability overall. I rarely hear any complaints about an Intel chipset-based motherboard, although I'm quite sure some unfortunate soul has had an issue. I consider myself to be pretty moderate on chipsets and CPU's, but considering all levels of the market, Intel rules all.

ServerWorks kicks a$$, but I voted Intel because it applies to both consumer and commercial level products.

My current motherboard (an AOpen AX6BC) is based on the i440BX chipset and I've never had any trouble at all with it. After what I've read about and experienced with Intels latest chipsets, I honestly can't hold them in the same regard. For example, the i810 (and most likely the i815 derivative as well) is a slow as a wet week (my ~500Mhz PII shouldn't be able to outpace a 600Mhz Coppermine Celeron. Not only is the core superior, it has 100Mhz of extra clock speed and full speed L2 cache backing it up as well). The i820 relied too heavily on RDRAM, even moreso that Intel intended considering the memory Translator Hub for SDRAM didn't work (and introduced a 15% performance hit when it did). The i850 was also let down by RDRAM (or more to the point, the ridiculously high price of it). The first i845 was let down by SDRAM. Only now with the i830 and i845-D are Intel starting to prove they can make good chipsets again but since you can't pair them with other manufacturers CPUs anymore they are let down by the ridiculously high prices Intel place on their CPUs.
 
Via have made some crap in the past with their Slot 1 and Socket 7 chipsets usually being slower and more buggy than Intels however they have a nasty habit of filling in niches that Intel can't or won't have anything to do with (such as Super Socket 7 and an alternative to i820 boards). However the current KT266a and KT333 looks like it's turning that around however they came hot on the heels of the KT266 which was a real dog.
 
SiS were like Via, typically filling niches but have recently come into their own with some great products.
 
AMD screwed up their first Athlon chipset, the 750, allowing Via to get a greater foothold in the single Athlon market than they really deserved. The 760 was a fairly decent chipset but was quickly overshadowed by the SiS 745 and the Via KT266a. AMDs multiprocessor chipsets haven't exactly been perfect either with the 760MPX having a bug that prevents the USB ports in the South Bridge from working.
 
nVidia's nForce chipset looked like a real winner with integrated graphics and sound that weren't crap without compromising performance (Via and SiS typically couldn't balance these things) however it seems to have a problem with it's memory controller. Not bad for a first effort though.
 
I haven't heard much about Ali, either positive or negative so I really can't form an opinion
 
The short answer: I really can't put any weight behind any of the aforementioned chipset manufacturers but if I had to choose it would be between AMD, SiS, nVidia, Via and Intel in that order.

Quote:
I haven't heard much about Ali, either positive or negative so I really can't form an opinionWell I had 2 socket 7 ALi-based boards & it would take a LOT of persuasion [& probably large bribes] to get me to use another ALi-based board.

I would like to have confidence in SIS, but we used to sell these CYrix based machines, with SIS chipsets, they were real POS, the lowest garbage this place could find to make a computer.
 
ANyway that's my only experience with SIS.
 
BTW I quit that job because they Wouldnt let me sell INTEL.