Best and worst CPUs since 1998

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by Shephard, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. Arkaign

    Arkaign Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    19,305
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Fallengod

    Fallengod Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2001
    Messages:
    5,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Shephard

    Shephard Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. HeXen

    HeXen Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,526
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  5. Z15CAM

    Z15CAM Golden Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    1
    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)
     
    #30 Z15CAM, Nov 7, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2012
  6. StinkyPinky

    StinkyPinky Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,759
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  7. Arkaign

    Arkaign Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    19,305
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.

    Core 2 duo was way better than amd x2. Amd x2 was way better than the previous pentium D .
     
  8. tynopik

    tynopik Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  9. Shephard

    Shephard Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  10. Centauri

    Centauri Golden Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Cerb

    Cerb Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    17,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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.

    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.

    3800+, and it stayed at a high price for a long time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_microprocessors#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.
     
  12. SPBHM

    SPBHM Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,012
    Likes Received:
    4
    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.
     
  13. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. exar333

    exar333 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    8,503
    Likes Received:
    2
    Williamette: slower than previous archs and crappy.

    Bulldozer: slower than previous archs and crappy.

    See a corollary here?
     
  15. exar333

    exar333 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    8,503
    Likes Received:
    2
    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). :)
     
  16. exar333

    exar333 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    8,503
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yup. Those rock.
     
  17. JumpingJack

    JumpingJack Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  18. FrankSchwab

    FrankSchwab Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. Shephard

    Shephard Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. Cerb

    Cerb Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    17,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  21. RU482

    RU482 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2000
    Messages:
    12,681
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  22. AznAnarchy99

    AznAnarchy99 Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    13,683
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  23. AtenRa

    AtenRa Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    11,259
    Likes Received:
    42
    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 ;)
     
  24. Arkaign

    Arkaign Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    19,305
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  25. jhu

    jhu Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    11,878
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.