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 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-08-2012, 09:05 AM   #51
PingSpike
Lifer
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 20,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaign View Post
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.
I can think of one compelling reason. The 3ghz northwood was the end of the line for that platform where as s939 and even s754 had a number of faster chips coming out for them.

But yeah, I don't think northwood was terrible overall. I'd just moved away from Intel during that era and it would have taken a much better product to move me back, not just competitive. You're absolutely right that prior to the introduction of nforce AMD chipsets were a huge weak point. I think VIA was the biggest supplier for quite awhile, I remember rocking an sdram thunderbird setup and never really loving that motherboard.

I think the worst was probably the cacheless celeron. People dump on prescott and it was terrible but they still made a ton of them. And AMD is still making bulldozers. The celerons without cache were so bad they stained the whole celeron brand right out of the gate. Even after the awesome 300A had been out for a long time and the prior ones were dead and buried I still had people telling me how shitty celerons were based on the initial reviews. Hey, the misconception kept the prices down for those in the know. There were certainly some shitty celerons since but I'm talking about during the 300A's heyday I was hearing this.
__________________
Error reading poptart in Drive A: Delete kids y/n?
PingSpike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 09:09 AM   #52
Nemesis 1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuriman View Post
I can't speak for companies like Cyrix, but Intel's Willamette P4's and later Prescott and its derivatives were all subpar. The P4 based Celerons were horrible. I don't think Intel has made an arguably bad chip since they discontinued Netburst though.

AMD's entire Athlon line was pretty strong until Core came out, and their budget Duron line were definitely superior to Celerons of the day.

I wasn't fond of the AXP Palomino cores but they weren't "bad" per se.
Thats jjust not true . Back in 05 on a single core my 3.2c overclocked with the best memory on earth did not take a back seat to AMD 64. Back than I posted my benchmarks none here could defend against those results
Nemesis 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 09:41 AM   #53
Barfo
Lifer
 
Barfo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in your mom
Posts: 27,148
Default

My Prescott P4 would rise my room's temperature quite a bit, it really sucked in that regard.
__________________
3570K | ASUS P8Z77-V |16 GB | Sapphire 7950 w/ boost | HAF 922| Seasonic 550W |Win7 x64

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/10/21/7yjuny7a.jpg
Barfo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 09:45 AM   #54
Insert_Nickname
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,730
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
Cyrix P150+, consider yerself nominated, ya POS
Hear, hear... I think we have a "winner" there...

As many other have pointed out, the early Willamettes where c***tastic. The Celeron Williamette/Northwood versions even worse. The runner up would be Presco... PresHOT... combined with POS OEM computers.

As for the best... Celeron 300A gets my vote, with the Core2 a hair behind...
Insert_Nickname is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 10:13 AM   #55
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesis 1 View Post
Thats jjust not true . Back in 05 on a single core my 3.2c overclocked with the best memory on earth did not take a back seat to AMD 64. Back than I posted my benchmarks none here could defend against those results
I think you misunderstood his comment. He didn't really address Northwood, which is almost certainly what you were running with your 3.2C. Prescott was slower than Northwood and hotter as well. Anyway, yes, a 3.2C northwood even stock did very well against A64 3000/3200+. But the A64 line quickly included 3400+, 3500+, etc .. and P4 began to fall behind both stock v. stock, and OC vs. OC.

It's accurate to say that P4 northwood was competitive and even class leading at times during it's entire release schedule. P4 both before and after northwood is the weak spot. But northwood was a pretty long timeframe, about as long if not more than the era Athlon X2 had against Pentium D (until the C2D came and squashed it, just like P4 eventually got squashed).
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 10:22 AM   #56
Borealis7
Platinum Member
 
Borealis7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,044
Default

i think the first Conroes (like the E6400) were the best, they really were revolutionary in terms of performance. i remember the SSD guy at Anandtech saying "Intel just Conroe'd the SSD market."

and obviously the 2500K, it's too good!
__________________
Jesus Saves. The rest of you take 2d10 Fire Damage.

Rig:
i5 2500K @ 4.4GHz / Noctua NH-C14 | GA-Z77X-D3H | ZOTAC GTX680 | 8GB DDR3-1600 G.Skill | Samsung S23A700D 120Hz | SeaSonic 650W PSU

Last edited by Borealis7; 11-08-2012 at 10:26 AM.
Borealis7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 10:31 AM   #57
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PingSpike View Post
I can think of one compelling reason. The 3ghz northwood was the end of the line for that platform where as s939 and even s754 had a number of faster chips coming out for them.

But yeah, I don't think northwood was terrible overall. I'd just moved away from Intel during that era and it would have taken a much better product to move me back, not just competitive. You're absolutely right that prior to the introduction of nforce AMD chipsets were a huge weak point. I think VIA was the biggest supplier for quite awhile, I remember rocking an sdram thunderbird setup and never really loving that motherboard.

I think the worst was probably the cacheless celeron. People dump on prescott and it was terrible but they still made a ton of them. And AMD is still making bulldozers. The celerons without cache were so bad they stained the whole celeron brand right out of the gate. Even after the awesome 300A had been out for a long time and the prior ones were dead and buried I still had people telling me how shitty celerons were based on the initial reviews. Hey, the misconception kept the prices down for those in the know. There were certainly some shitty celerons since but I'm talking about during the 300A's heyday I was hearing this.
True enough, I guess what I was trying to say is that during the release of the first 3000/3200+ chips, a ~3Ghz+ P4 NW was not worth moving from unless you wanted to do a sideways move and be ready for more upgrades. At the time though Intel was still promising that Prescott and future releases would remain competitive. We know how that turned out though, with only a couple of S478 Prescotts that sucked butt hahah. And then S775 looked like garbage until C2D came out, and of course C2D wouldn't work on basically any early S775 mobos anyway, making it what I would term the darkest days ever for Intel.

My first AMD64 build was a S940 Opteron before S754/S939 were released at all with the AMD64 consumer chips. I remember being incredibly impressed with it.

I totally agree about the 300A, a great secret for those in the know. 300A @ 450 was as fast or faster than the fastest CPUs on earth at the time (it was released well before Slot-1 P3s I think as well), so you could spend a tiny fraction of the money compared to even a P2-333 and get as good or better performance depending on app. Same core, smaller but had cache on-die running at full clockspeed. This brings me to another interesting point :

Slot-A Athlons had off-die cache for a long time, I think all the way up to the very first 1Ghz models. What was funny about that is that 1Ghz Athlon only had 333Mhz external L2 Cache, which really put a fairly notable damper on things in some regards. Thunderbird, which included both Slot-A and Socket A variants, had the on-die cache and was the super buttkicker everyone remembers when thinking of the Athlon branding. Slot-A Athlon (Pluto and Orion) basically tied up pretty evenly with Pentium 3 models, whereas Slot-A Athlon Thunderbird and Socket-A Thunderbird opened up and maintained a notable lead over P3 and even extended that lead over Willy P4s in most things (I think Quake and encoding were about the only things P4 had the lead in : eg P4 1.5Ghz > pre-XP Athlons on those sole benches).

Oh how I hated *most* socket-A chipsets though. VIA and partners had a bunch of doozies. Weird BSD problems, incompatibilities with certain hardware (SB Live caused a bunch of issues IIRC on some setups), and iffy performance, hindering the awesome Athlon XP. Irongate 750 or whatever wasn't much better, and worse in some regards. Then Nvidia came out, and their 2nd try, Nforce2 .. it was just awesome. The same AXP chip, taken off a KT266 or KT333 board, would really fly on an NF2 board. The quality difference was amazing. About the only impressive VIA chipsets I remembered were the KT133A, which delivered amazing SDRAM performance, and the KT400 at the very end. Most of the interim releases seemed half-assed, particularly when compared to the seamless and rock-stable experience of running a good DDR 845 or 865-based P4 setup. Of course, P4 had it's own crappy VIA and SIS chipset options, along with the horribly overpriced RDRAM 850 and horribly slow SDRAM original 845.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:07 AM   #58
krumme
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,038
Default

What is not to like abouth a thread of CPU love

The first AMD K7 because it had a bad ass FPU from another planet

The core duo, from the excellent Intel Israeli team, because it has enough power to drive win 7 today of acceptable speeds, using very low power. Brought AMD 3800x2 power for a laptop. What an achiewement, - all brought to market very fast.

Sandybridge for the notebook market, because it had low idle power, and really brought effective power gating to the table, and at the same time usable gfx speed.

Bobcat. Because it brought x86, dx11 and good videodecoding, to every corner of this world, together with core duo speeds. All for dirt cheap.
krumme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:27 AM   #59
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,279
Default

My two cents:

Worst: Coppermine 1.13, Willamette, Prescott, the entire Bulldozer lineup

The Coppermine P3 was a dark page in Intel history.

Willamette, which threw everything good that Intel was doing for the sake of clock speeds, same with Prescott, that threw away the improvements done in northwood for the sake of more clock speed.

Bulldozer was the architectural harakiri that is killing AMD.

Best: A64, Tualatin, Conroe, Nehalen IVB

A64 was the ship the efficiency benchmark for desktops and servers from its introduction until Conroe arrival.

Tualatin was the seed that generated Conroe, and it single handed created the market for low-power notebooks.

Conroe brought notebook efficiency to servers and desktops, and became the efficiency benchmark.

Nehalen was a huge performance improvement

Ivy Bridge brought a revolution in performance per watt.
mrmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:33 AM   #60
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,205
Default

Why would you say Coppermine is a dark page? They were fast, basically equal clock for clock with Athlons. They had volume problems towards the end, and released the 1.13 unwisely when it wasn't ready (they actually released a fixed 1.13 coppermine afterwards). At worst you could say it was merely competitive. It was certainly a step up from Katmai. They also had some great OC value, example 600E was easy to take to 900Mhz frequently, etc.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:35 AM   #61
aaksheytalwar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,129
Default

Best CPUs in decreasing order
Core i7 920
Core 2 Duo E6400/6600
A64 3000+ s939
Amd xp 2500+ Barton

Worst CPUs:
Willamette
Prescott
Intel pentium d
__________________
3770k @ 4.3 with H100i, Asus Z77 Deluxe, Samsung 30nm 4x4gb ddr3 @ 1866 9-9-9-28 1T, MSI R9 290 Gaming 4G, Coolermaster Silent Pro Hybrid 1300 watts, Crucial M4 512gb, 3x Seagate 7200.14 3TB each
aaksheytalwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 12:06 PM   #62
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaign View Post
Why would you say Coppermine is a dark page?
the 1.13Ghz version wasn't the only trouble spot with Coppermine. Intel is all about manufacturing millions of chips at insanely high yields. Coppermine was an exception to this rule. Intel had significant yields problems with Coppermine to the point that the launch was delayed and they had to explain that in an EC. The 1.13Ghz trouble was just the icing on the cake.
mrmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 12:18 PM   #63
Yuriman
Platinum Member
 
Yuriman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesis 1 View Post
Thats jjust not true . Back in 05 on a single core my 3.2c overclocked with the best memory on earth did not take a back seat to AMD 64. Back than I posted my benchmarks none here could defend against those results
The 3.2C was neither a Willamette, nor a Prescott.

A friend of mine swapped his Athlon64 system out for a Pentium D and ended up going through 3 motherboards, the VRMs burned out each time.
__________________
3570K @ 4.6GHz 1.29v | ASRock Z77 Extreme4 | Gigabyte HD7850 2GB @ 1125/1575 | Swiftech WC Loop | 2x 4GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3 1600 1.25v | OCZ Agility 3 240GB | WD Green 1.5GB | BFG LS 680w | Skyhawk MSR-4610
Yuriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 12:52 PM   #64
Insert_Nickname
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,730
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuriman View Post
A friend of mine swapped his Athlon64 system out for a Pentium D and ended up going through 3 motherboards, the VRMs burned out each time.
Wow. I have heard some stories about Pentium Ds being too hot to handle, but that takes the cake. What model CPU/MB was that...?
Insert_Nickname is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 12:53 PM   #65
Yuriman
Platinum Member
 
Yuriman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,450
Default

I'll have to ask him but if I were to put money on it, I'd bet that they were low-end Intel branded boards, and he wasn't overclocking either.
__________________
3570K @ 4.6GHz 1.29v | ASRock Z77 Extreme4 | Gigabyte HD7850 2GB @ 1125/1575 | Swiftech WC Loop | 2x 4GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3 1600 1.25v | OCZ Agility 3 240GB | WD Green 1.5GB | BFG LS 680w | Skyhawk MSR-4610
Yuriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 01:34 PM   #66
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmt View Post
the 1.13Ghz version wasn't the only trouble spot with Coppermine. Intel is all about manufacturing millions of chips at insanely high yields. Coppermine was an exception to this rule. Intel had significant yields problems with Coppermine to the point that the launch was delayed and they had to explain that in an EC. The 1.13Ghz trouble was just the icing on the cake.
Hmm, yeah on the business side of things it was fairly disappointing. On the user/enthusiast side they were fine (or great, if you OC'd a lower model). As a 'best' or 'worst' CPU I can't say that it makes any sense to include it as a whole. The 1.13 itself was bad, but very rare and pulled quickly, but I could see that individually included as a 'worst' CPU.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 01:36 PM   #67
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insert_Nickname View Post
Wow. I have heard some stories about Pentium Ds being too hot to handle, but that takes the cake. What model CPU/MB was that...?
I had a Pentium D 805 that ran for years and years at 3.5Ghz+ with no mobo failure.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 02:05 PM   #68
Insert_Nickname
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,730
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaign View Post
I had a Pentium D 805 that ran for years and years at 3.5Ghz+ with no mobo failure.
Given a decent board, no problems. The ones with dodgy (or just cheap) VRMs where the problem. Remember we are talking about a dual core 130W Prescott. The 805 was a 95W if I remember correctly...?
Insert_Nickname is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 02:24 PM   #69
nemesismk2
Diamond Member
 
nemesismk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,361
Default

My fav CPU was the AMD Athlon XP 2500 Mobile which used to be a demon overclocker upto 2.5Ghz. My worst CPU was the Cyrix 166 or maybe IDT Winchip 200
nemesismk2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 02:34 PM   #70
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insert_Nickname View Post
Given a decent board, no problems. The ones with dodgy (or just cheap) VRMs where the problem. Remember we are talking about a dual core 130W Prescott. The 805 was a 95W if I remember correctly...?
Yeah cheap boards are a PITA. I'm a sucker for paying $20-$30 more at least for a very important part of my PC I'm very rarely disappointed with going a couple steps up. Granted, I usually don't go berzerk and spend $400 on a board with features I'll never use and don't care about, but want the caps, VRM, heatsinks to be better than average for sure.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 02:45 PM   #71
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesismk2 View Post
My fav CPU was the AMD Athlon XP 2500 Mobile which used to be a demon overclocker upto 2.5Ghz.
another great AXP was the 1700+ jiuhb dlt3c
it was so cheap, at 1.46GHz with low voltage, I could push it to 2.2GHz with the default 2800+ voltage and higher fsb, and 2.4GHz with good cooling and overvolt, that thing with a nforce 2 MB was quite nice to use.... it wasn't a big challenge to make it perform like a 2800-3200+
SPBHM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 03:06 PM   #72
exar333
Diamond Member
 
exar333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 6,448
Default

I truly think the Cyrix takes the cake for 'worst' because not only was it slow, but also often unstable at stock levels. Even some of the crappy CPUs listed in this thread were generally stable at stock speeds. The Cyrix was trouble all around...
__________________
My Cars:
-2011 DGM WRX Limited
My [Interim as I wait for Haswell-E] Rig:
4670K @ 4.0 Ghz w/ CM 212
GTX 670 @ 1250Core/6772mhz memory
3440x1440 LG 34UM95 QHD Display
exar333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 03:36 PM   #73
smitbret
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pocatello, ID
Posts: 2,268
Default

The Athlon 1.4Ghz Thunderbird was such a huge game changer. It smoked anything that Intel had at the time and was one of the first CPUs that forced people to recognize that shear Mhz was not the only factor when it comes to CPU speed.

The Athlon 1700+ and the 2500+ were great single cores that followed. Both were extremely overclockable and were dirt cheap. The 1700+ with the Throroughbred core could do some outrageous overclocks that made it nearly pointled to buy something more expensive.

Intel C2D took everything that AMD had created for the previous few years and just smashed it with a hammer. When the Conroe core came out it made the AMD CPUs its bitch and Intel hasn't looked back since.
smitbret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 04:35 PM   #74
Z15CAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: North Channel, Lake Huron, Ont CDA
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
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?
Especially on a nVidia chipped GA-K8N-SLI Mainboard - It was like having 2 Athalon 3200 XP Bartons on board. Although CPU bottle-necked you could run 2 GeForce GTX 280's in SLI and processor OC to 2700MHz.

Last edited by Z15CAM; 11-08-2012 at 04:42 PM.
Z15CAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 04:47 PM   #75
Munky
Diamond Member
 
Munky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,377
Default

Worst? The original s423 P4, not only from the weak CPU perspective, but from the platform choices as well - you either had to shell out for overpriced RDRAM for purely political reasons, or be stuck with old-fashioned SDRAM. I remember that pissed me off at the time, and that put me on a long AMD steak afterward.

As the best, I'd chose the Nehalem core i7/i5. Fast and power-efficient. Over 3 years later I've yet to see anything compelling enough to upgrade.
__________________
Core i7 @ 3.2-3.8 / AMD 6950 / 12GB DDR3 1600 / Asus Xonar D2 / Samsung 275t / Logitech z5500
Munky 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 08:34 AM.


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