Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-07-2012, 07:24 PM   #26
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,256
Default

I like the P4 S423 as the worst, perhaps with cacheless Celeron as a close 2nd. Cyrix 6X86 and AMD K5 were pretty crap as well, but I don't rate them as badly because their pricing wasn't horrible. 6x86 was actually okay for general Windows nonsense, just horrible at most gaming due to the almost complete lack of any FPU performance. K5 was pretty crap, luckily K6 fixed everything and was much better. Too bad Super 7 chipsets sucked for the most part, limiting the fun with the K6-2/K6-3.

Best :

Athlon XP
Pentium 4 Northwood

What a fantastic rivalry that was. On either you could get a cheap low-clocked one and OC to top-tier levels or beyond for bargain pricing.

Core 2 Duo / Core 2 Quad might take the cake though. Still usable today for many things, much faster still than crap tablet processors, and a 3.4ghz+ C2Q will still run basically any game out there.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:33 PM   #27
Fallengod
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: so-cal
Posts: 5,582
Default

Yeah C2D's were badass. Its the last CPU I had too before I upgraded to an i5-2500k. I really didnt even need an upgrade, but the i5-2500k was quite a bit faster. However C2D E6400 @ 3ghz which I only paid $100 for was pretty badass.
__________________
heatware
Fallengod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:38 PM   #28
Shephard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 766
Default

I know the Core 2 Quad is ok, that's what I still have.

But weren't the Core 2 Duo worse than the Athlon X2. Athlon X2 5600+, 6000+, and 6400+.

I thought it wasn't until the Quad came that AMD still had the best CPU there.
Shephard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:39 PM   #29
HeXen
Diamond Member
 
HeXen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,002
Default

i had an AMD K2?? 350hz. performance was so bad it was mostly pointless to use Win98 on it with anything other than IE.
Celeron my second.
__________________
Some words that more American's need to learn so as not to become a burden onto others nor ones self.

"Moderation" "Self discipline" "Willpower" "Responsibility" "Think ahead" "Independent"
HeXen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:41 PM   #30
Z15CAM
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: North Channel, Lake Huron, Ont CDA
Posts: 1,007
Default

Great CPU's:

I ran and still run an Athlon XP Barton 1.8G at 2300MHz's on a GA-7N400 Pro2 (rev2) / OCZ 2.3.2.5 1T/Radeon HD 2600XT with Win7 Ultimate loaded and it doesn't miss a beat.

I got a Slot 1 Asus P3V4X (200 Mhz Clock gen) with a 100 Mhz Celeron 1.3 Flip Chip Taulatin vidded on a converter card running at 1800Mhz / Radeon 9800XT/ 150Mhz SDRam with WinXP loaded - One of the fastest Slot 1 MB's in the World. Eat your heart out Celeron 300A ;o)

Last edited by Z15CAM; 11-07-2012 at 07:44 PM.
Z15CAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:53 PM   #31
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A sandpit with casinos
Posts: 4,899
Default

Q6600 - even now they perform quite well.
Celeron 300A - Budget but excellent gaming performance
First Gen Athlon 64 x2 - Got a lot of use out of mine.

Worst:

Early P4's.....total garbage. Still have a few at work and they are just horrible beasts. Noisy as hell too.
__________________
Intel i7 4790K, GIGABYTE Z97X-UD5H, 16GB G.SKILL Ares DDR3 1866MHz , ASUS R9 280X DirectCU II TOP 3GB, Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB + 3 x 1TB Samsung F3, 1 x 2TB Seagate Barracuda. Windows 8.1 Pro

Late 2013 13" Macbook Pro, Intel Core i5-4258U 2.4Ghz, Intel Iris 5100 GPU, 8GB ram, 256GB SSD
StinkyPinky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 07:58 PM   #32
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shephard View Post
I know the Core 2 Quad is ok, that's what I still have.

But weren't the Core 2 Duo worse than the Athlon X2. Athlon X2 5600+, 6000+, and 6400+.

I thought it wasn't until the Quad came that AMD still had the best CPU there.
No.

Core 2 duo was way better than amd x2. Amd x2 was way better than the previous pentium D .
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 08:02 PM   #33
tynopik
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,516
Default

there was that PIII (1.13GHz or something?) that was the only one i can think of that was released and then completely cancelled because of bugs

other processors have been respun because of bugs (phenom), but none have just been completely cancelled.
tynopik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 08:22 PM   #34
Shephard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaign View Post
No.

Core 2 duo was way better than amd x2. Amd x2 was way better than the previous pentium D .
oh right. Pentium D was Intel's first dual core.

AMD X2 4400+ I think that was AMD's first and one of the most popular chips for a long time.

What was the best Core Duo that was first released?
Shephard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 08:27 PM   #35
Centauri
Golden Member
 
Centauri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,413
Default

Can't help but think this thread would be a lot better were it created and guided by somebody who knows about the subject. No offense.
__________________
AMD A10-7850K APU ~ Radeon R7 IGP/8GBs of Patriot Viper 3 1866
128GB Samsung 830 SSD/2x 4TB Seagate DM000s/Gigabyte GA-F2A88XM-D3H
Antec EA-380D/Fractal Design Core 1000/Windows 8.1 Pro/Netgear Nighthawk
Centauri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 08:41 PM   #36
Cerb
Elite Member
 
Cerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shephard View Post
I say 1998 because CPUs started chaning a lot since then.
They changed a lot before then, too. Possibly much more than since. But anyway, Netburst was far from worst. It had a few of Intel's worst CPUs, but the biggest problem with it was deviating too much from what everyone wanted, and what would really work out, just like IA64. People didn't want to change their code, recompile their executables, nor require 50-100% more clock cycles for the same performance.

The worst:
1. Covington Celerons
2. Willamette and Northwood Celerons
3. Anything VIA

The 128KB L2, and no-L2, Celerons were just pathetic. With VIA, it's not merely performance, but that even today, stability and compatibility are major concerns. They never lived up to their potential, and were way too expensive prior to Atom, as well.

The best:
1. A64 X2
2. Core 2 Quad

Recent stuff is great, but those two were game-changers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Centauri View Post
My favorite chip from the past decade or so is IBM/Motorola's PowerPC 7410. A very stout CPU with a 4-stage pipeline that punched far above its weight. It just scaled atrociously. But that doesn't take away from how efficient it was.
I concur. Apple trying to hang on to IBM gave the "G4" a much worse rep than it deserved, either early on, or outside of Apple. It scaled fairly well, but >1GHz was a bit too much, and it was being retired by the time power efficiency started to matter to most users.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeXen View Post
i had an AMD K2?? 350hz. performance was so bad it was mostly pointless to use Win98 on it with anything other than IE.
Celeron my second.
There never was a K2, AFAIK. There was a K6-II 350MHz, but the only case where it was really slow was games with no 3DNow! support, and it tended to be passable even then. My gaming box back then was one, and it was pretty nice. Even with 192MB of RAM, it was cheaper than any PII PC of the time. I can't speak to Win98, as I had already gotten rid of MS-DOS for good, by the time I made that upgrade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shephard View Post
AMD X2 4400+ I think that was AMD's first and one of the most popular chips for a long time.
3800+, and it stayed at a high price for a long time.

Quote:
What was the best Core Duo that was first released?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ssors#Core_Duo
2.33GHz Yonah

AMD had a couple faster CPUs, at the time, and the Core Duo was made primarily as a mobile CPU.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crono View Post
I'm 90% certain the hipster movement was started by aliens from another galaxy who have an exaggerated interpretation of earth culture(s).
Cerb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:09 PM   #37
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerb View Post

The 128KB L2, and no-L2, Celerons were just pathetic.
what?!

128k l2 Celeron was excellent, it could be overclocked to 450MHz, and it would perform just like a PII 450 in many cases...
the Celeron had 1/4 the l2, but it worked at full speed, while PII had half-speed l2 cache...

even the first Celeron without L2 was a fun CPU to overclock and was not to slow at 400MHz.
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:25 PM   #38
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shephard View Post
I know the Core 2 Quad is ok, that's what I still have.

But weren't the Core 2 Duo worse than the Athlon X2. Athlon X2 5600+, 6000+, and 6400+.

I thought it wasn't until the Quad came that AMD still had the best CPU there.
You should read this: Intel's Core 2 Extreme & Core 2 Duo: The Empire Strikes Back (by Anand Lal Shimpi on 7/14/2006)
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:37 PM   #39
exar333
Diamond Member
 
exar333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NTMBK View Post
inb4 Bulldozer bitchfest
Williamette: slower than previous archs and crappy.

Bulldozer: slower than previous archs and crappy.

See a corollary here?
__________________
My Cars:
-2011 DGM WRX Limited
My Rig:
4670K @ 4.0 Ghz w/ CM 212
EVGA GTX 970 SC @ 1501/7780
3440x1440 LG 34UM95 QHD Display
exar333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:39 PM   #40
exar333
Diamond Member
 
exar333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
Bulldozer obviously has power-usage issues when you compare to the performance in a competitive landscape. It is hard to blame bulldozer though, for all we know the power usage issue is static leakage that is the fault of GloFo and their 32nm process.

Prescott was also a cpu that had power-issues and it could hardly hold its own against a comparably clocked northwood.

Willamette was not good compared to a P3 or the Athlon XP. But it wasn't the end of the world either, so I don't think it should be labeled the worst cpu "ever".

When I think of "worst" cpu I think of things like the pentium with its FDIV bug, or the 1.13GHz P3 that could barely run stable at stock. I had a cyrix P150+ chip that was like that, at stock it was buggy as hell and routinely crashed in the summer when it was naturally running hotter versus the winter.

And in the end, to me anyways, that is what makes a cpu the worst. When you've been up all night pounding away on the keyboard typing out a report for your semester term project and the damn computer borks on you and corrupts your file (even though you've been diligently saving it every 10 minutes) then that elevates that cpu to the podium of "worst cpu ever" in my book.

Cyrix P150+, consider yerself nominated, ya POS
I had this Cyrix too and it SUCKED. Glad my mobo fried and I replaced the computer with a 166MMX (which I flipped a jumper to up to 200).
__________________
My Cars:
-2011 DGM WRX Limited
My Rig:
4670K @ 4.0 Ghz w/ CM 212
EVGA GTX 970 SC @ 1501/7780
3440x1440 LG 34UM95 QHD Display
exar333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:39 PM   #41
exar333
Diamond Member
 
exar333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPBHM View Post
what?!

128k l2 Celeron was excellent, it could be overclocked to 450MHz, and it would perform just like a PII 450 in many cases...
the Celeron had 1/4 the l2, but it worked at full speed, while PII had half-speed l2 cache...

even the first Celeron without L2 was a fun CPU to overclock and was not to slow at 400MHz.
Yup. Those rock.
__________________
My Cars:
-2011 DGM WRX Limited
My Rig:
4670K @ 4.0 Ghz w/ CM 212
EVGA GTX 970 SC @ 1501/7780
3440x1440 LG 34UM95 QHD Display
exar333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:47 PM   #42
JumpingJack
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 59
Default

Worst from Intel -- hands down,Prescott. Best From Intel -- the quad penryns OCed nicely, then Sandy turned out very good, hard to pick.

AMD best? opty 130 or the x2 3800. Worst from AMD -- K5 or Agena (Phenom I) would be my votes.

The worst CPU I have ever owned has to be a tie between the Cyrix 6x86 and the K5.
JumpingJack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:03 PM   #43
FrankSchwab
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 212
Default

Well, the most notable in my experience:
The NEC V20/V30. Pin compatible and 30% faster, or put it in a clone for some 8 MHz speed.
The Celeron 300A. Budget overclocker of the decade.
The AMD K6-2.
The AMD Athlon "Thunderbird". Overclocked with a pencil. Superior performance to everything Intel, and what the Cool Kids had.
The I5/2500K.
FrankSchwab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:12 PM   #44
Shephard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
nice article.

A lot of competition back then. Now Intel just wipes the floor with AMD.

thanks to AMD though we have low prices for amazing Quad Core aka i5 3570k!
Shephard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:14 PM   #45
Cerb
Elite Member
 
Cerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPBHM View Post
what?!

128k l2 Celeron was excellent, it could be overclocked to 450MHz
I meant the Willamette and Northwood ones with that comment, sorry about that. I wasn't even thinking of Medicino and Coppermine, which were good CPUs for the money, OCed or not.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crono View Post
I'm 90% certain the hipster movement was started by aliens from another galaxy who have an exaggerated interpretation of earth culture(s).
Cerb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:24 PM   #46
RU482
Lifer
 
RU482's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 12,598
Default

Coppermines, First Athlons (forgetting that they melted if you took the heatsink off) , Nehalem, Sandy.....lots of greats
anything P4, AMD-K6, Pre-P3 Intel Clones - bad
RU482 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 12:08 AM   #47
AznAnarchy99
Lifer
 
AznAnarchy99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11,072
Default

AMD X2 3800+

One of the first dual cores paired with my DFI mobo (one of their lasts). System lasted me 5 years before I definitely needed the upgrade (which is to the one in my sig now). A computer lasting 5 years was pretty much unheard of back then. The one I have now is going on 3 and hasnt slowed me down at all yet.
__________________
Intel i7 860 @ 4.0ghz, MSI P55-GD80, g.skill RipJaw DDR3 PC1600 8GB, ASUS GTX770 OC, Asus Xonar Essence STX, Crucial M4 256gb, WD Black 640, WD Green 1TB, Raven RV02 Case, Corsair 650HX
AznAnarchy99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 12:18 AM   #48
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 6,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExarKun333 View Post
I had this Cyrix too and it SUCKED. Glad my mobo fried and I replaced the computer with a 166MMX (which I flipped a jumper to up to 200).
Yeap, i had the Pentium 166MHz (non MMX) OCed to 200MHz via jumper on a ABIT motherboard (first ABIT mobo i owned). It lasted me two years when i replaced it with a cache-less Celeron 300 OCed to 450MHz. It wasn't that bad at 450MHz but then i got my self one of the best CPUs of all time.

Intel Celeron 366MHz (Mendocino) OCed to 550MHz. It could put the Pentium III 500MHz in to shame at a fraction of the cost. Paired with ABIT BE-6 II and ThermalTake Golden Orb was a killer combination at the time.

Also, Pentium III 650MHz(100MHz FSB) was one of the best chips at the time, I had mine OCed to 975MHz and it could go above 1GHz with a cood cooler. The only prob was the lack of PCI dividers that resulted in HardDrive failures (2 or 3 HDDs gave up on me with OCes above 133MHz FSBs at the time)

Pentium 4 Willamette was the worst CPU at the time, AMD Athlon 1400MHz was the king (pencil unlock). Although AMD Athlon was considered the best i believe Pentium 4 1.6A (Northwood) OCed to 2-2.2GHz was excellent as well the Pentium 4 2.4GHz Northwood.

First AMD Athlon X2 was the start of a new era for desktop followed by the Core 2 in 2006.

Those were good times
AtenRa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 01:03 AM   #49
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RU482 View Post
Coppermines, First Athlons (forgetting that they melted if you took the heatsink off) , Nehalem, Sandy.....lots of greats
anything P4, AMD-K6, Pre-P3 Intel Clones - bad
What?

P4 Northwoods were fantastic, and the fastest at the right clocks for most gaming and basically all encoding/compression. Athlon XP was also awesome of course, good balance between them there.

I agree that :

P4 w/Rambus = bad (super expensive, not much gain in performance)
P4 Socket 423 as a whole (Willamette, not enough cache or FSB to really do that well)
P4 Prescott was a waste, they were slower per clock than Northwood and hotter to boot
P4 Cedar Mill was largely a fixed Prescott and worked well, but by that time the Athlon 64 had clocked high enough to just annihilate it
P4 Emergency Edition / Gallatin was overpriced

But for a long time, from the 1.6A to the 3.2 (and extremely rare 3.4 models), the Northwood P4s stood as some of the best chips you could get. Some people forget that by the end, P4 3.2 was flat-out faster than Athlon XP 3200+ in virtually every single benchmark. They even stood fairly well against Athlon 64 3000+ and 3200+, splitting the benches enough that there was no compelling reason to drop a 3ghz+ northwood for an early A64. Of course then came 3400+, 3500+, etc, etc, and A64 rightfully destroyed the P4, just as A64 X2 destroyed Pentium D. Another lost point is that there were some outright terrible Athlon chipsets during the P4 era. Personally I disliked working with them until the outstanding Nforce2 came about, it really boosted performance quite a bit, great stability, overclocking, and audio as well.

K6 was really nice, because Intel topped out the desktop Pentium MMX at 233Mhz, and the K6 let you get faster chips in 66mhz bus Socket 7 systems. Then when Pentium II was super expensive, K6-2 offered a decent alternative for a ton less money.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 01:32 AM   #50
jhu
Lifer
 
jhu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: تهران
Posts: 11,046
Default

Best is Itanium, at least for Intel. Why? Just the announcement ensured the destruction of Alpha and PA-RISC. MIPS soon follows to relative obscurity.
__________________
moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - h.g. wells
夜思 - 床前明月光, 疑是地上霜. 舉頭望明月, 低頭思故鄉
jhu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.