CPU hall of fame (sister-thread to the GPU one of same name in VC&G)

[Smoblikat]

8800 ultra
Thats number one
if this was a CPU thread....
1. 2500K
2. 2500K
3. 2500K
4. Q9550
5. I7 920


It's NOT a CPU thread...and this is EXACTLY how thread-derails get started.

Please do not derail threads.

Administrator Idontcare


edit: this thread was created from derail posts added to the GPU thread in VC&G. In its own thread here the discussion on CPU's can continue.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Ben90]

8800 ultra
Thats number one
if this was a CPU thread....
1. 2500K
2. 2500K
3. 2500K
4. Q9550
5. I7 920

1. Q6600
2. Athlon X2 4400+
3. C300A
4. E6400
5. i7 920

 

[Batmeat]

8800 ultra
Thats number one
if this was a CPU thread....
1. 2500K
2. 2500K
3. 2500K
4. Q9550
5. I7 920

Fraid not. The Celeron 300 was an overclocking monster way back when. Typical overclocks were 100-150% of the original. It would be #1.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Fraid not. The Celeron 300 was an overclocking monster way back when. Typical overclocks were 100-150% of the original. It would be #1.

My AMD 3500+ raped on Intel Pentium 4.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

My AMD 3500+ raped on Intel Pentium 4.

Are you honestly doing this again? If your 3500+ could do even a 50% overclock (2.2 -> 3.3), I'll eat my shoes and underwear. And that's only one 3500, let alone the thousands of others. Most 939s had trouble getting to 3GHz stable, and if you did get there it was probably with an Opty.

Face it, most of us on this forum buy a chip with the intention of overclocking it. The 300A excelled in that department... hence its nomination for the CPU HoF.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Are you honestly doing this again? If your 3500+ could do even a 100% overclock (2.2 -> 3.3), I'll eat my shoes and underwear. And that's only one 3500, let alone the thousands of others. Most 939s had trouble getting to 3GHz stable, and if you did get there it was probably with an Opty.

Face it, in terms of value the 300A is hard to beat. Even a 100% overclock is nothing to scoff at. (For comparison... taking a 2500K to 5.0GHz isn't exactly something you'll find every chip will do.)

Doing what again this is the first time I have posted about the Athlon 3500+ which was a faster CPU for gaming back in it's day than the Pentium 4 which was a flop.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

Sorry for going off-topic, last time, I promise...

Doing what again this is the first time I have posted about the Athlon 3500+ which was a faster CPU for gaming back in it's day than the Pentium 4 which was a flop.

Ignoring the obvious, it's no secret that K8 was generally the better architecture. However, the context of reference was the 300A... which came out way before K8. It's not even comparing the same thing. And that's putting aside the fact that the consideration was "CPU hall of fame."

I honestly have no idea how you keep coming up with this stuff to post.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Sorry for going off-topic, last time, I promise...



Ignoring the obvious, it's no secret that K8 was generally the better architecture. However, the context of reference was the 300A... which came out way before K8. It's not even comparing the same thing. And that's putting aside the fact that the consideration was "CPU hall of fame."

I honestly have no idea how you keep coming up with this stuff to post.

Pentium 4 was Intel's version of a BD flop end of story everyone knows that Pentium 4 sucked and was a joke except the fanboys LOL.

 

[Batmeat]

My AMD 3500+ raped on Intel Pentium 4.

You missed the point of post. It's not a debate AMD vs Intel, or even the architecture of the K8 series chips. The Celey 300 was years before your 3500+ and if you really want to compare clock per clock, you would have had to over clock that K8 to at least 4.4Ghz and a max of over 5.5Ghz to even be considered in the same leauge of overclocking potential to be in the hall of fame for overclocking.

 

[MrTeal]

Originally Posted by Batmeat View Post
Fraid not. The Celeron 300 was an overclocking monster way back when. Typical overclocks were 100-150% of the original. It would be #1.
My AMD 3500+ raped on Intel Pentium 4.

Doing what again this is the first time I have posted about the Athlon 3500+ which was a faster CPU for gaming back in it's day than the Pentium 4 which was a flop.

What does that have to do with the 300A? The 300A is based on the PII, and due to its different cache layout you could OC it insanely high at the time, much higher than an equivalent actual PII. For most people the Cely300A was actually faster than any PII chip, and for less money.

That's why it's HoF worth. Now, what does that have to do with your random off topic comment?

 

[chubbyfatazn]

Pentium 4 was Intel's version of a BD flop end of story everyone knows that Pentium 4 sucked and was a joke except the fanboys LOL.

I just said that in the post above yours. Can you read? There's a reason I went with a 3700+ then an Opty 165 for that round.

I'd say something, but MrTeal said it already.

 

[blackened23]

Pentium 4 was Intel's version of a BD flop end of story everyone knows that Pentium 4 sucked and was a joke except the fanboys LOL.

SO, WHAT does this have to do with the 300a being an awesome chip for its time? You really need to stop derailing threads with nonsense, CHRIST.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The very first Athlon 64 I think deserves a mention. I think at the time it was incredible and got better as the tech matured.

First Core2 CPUs, changed everything again.

 

[Bman123]

From what i remember
E8400
Q9550
I7 920
I5 2500k
not in that order but all very good chips

 

[blckgrffn]

Barton 2500+

2500 is a good number

 

[ctbaars]

8 MHz 8088 processors overclocked to 12 MHz :thumbsup:

 

[Ferzerp]

Celeron 300a of course. One of Intel's cheapest procs that was nearly a sure thing to match the performance of their fastest/most expensive proc. The smaller cache at full speed vs the larger, slower cache turned out to be a wash, and I never saw even an anectdote that any of them couldn't work with a 100Mhz FSB. They took a pure lemon (the original Celeron) and made one of their better procs out of it.
$150 vs $700 and there was absolutely no task that they performed more than 1-3% different in.

edit: Now we overclock the mid-range. That was truly a low-end part. It would be like buying the lowest celeron out now, and being able to meet (in every metric) the performance of the $1000 SB-E proc.

 

[Yuriman]

My vote:

Celeron 300A
Opteron 165
Q9550
E8400
AXP 1700+ TBB

The Q6600 seems to me the value champion considering it came out in January of 2007 and is still a decent chip today - still equivalent to a Sandy i3. Later revisions overclocked 50%. The above listed chips all achieved better percentage overclocks but none of them have quite the value of the Q6600 IMO.

 

[Nintendesert]

I miss my original Duron processor and using a conductive pen to overclock the heck out of it.

 

[Smartazz]

1. Q6600
2. Athlon X2
3. 2500K
4. E6300
5. i7 920

My personal favorites, but I haven't been in the enthusiast community long enough to have seen chips like the C300A.

 

[Idontcare]

Both the 300A and later on the 333A were champs, low priced but superb IPC given the on-die fullspeed cache, and they OC'ed to eclipse that of the top-end PII's when OC'ed.

(I owned 300A's, 333A's and PII 450MHz at the same time)

Put two 333A's in a dually BP6 and OC them to 500MHz and you had pretty much unrivaled performance in a desktop box for a ridiculously low pricepoint.

Getting 50% OC is not very common nowadays, and doing it with the budget-end CPU's is not happening.

I got my 2600K to run stable at 5GHz (that's a 42% OC) but it was a $300 CPU with a $300 mobo...not all that impressive if you just throw gobs of money at it.

Likewise my QX6700 would run stable at 4GHz (a 50% OC) but it was a $1500 CPU with a $300 mobo using a $1000 vaporphase cooling setup...quite unimpressive when you consider the gobs of money thrown at accomplishing that OC.

So I still go with the 300A, budget price chip that could be 50% OC'ed with budget priced mobo and budget priced cooling solution (I used stock HSF for all my OC's until my QX6700).

 

[Selenium_Glow]

Back at home I still have a Pentium II MMX ~333 MHz / 128 GB RAM / 10 GB HDD. It was still working about an year ago, and managed to surf the internet using an old version of firefox 2. So, for a processor to work even after 10 - 11 years, this one goes in my hall of fame.

 

[Kenmitch]

Both the 300A and later on the 333A were champs, low priced but superb IPC given the on-die fullspeed cache, and they OC'ed to eclipse that of the top-end PII's when OC'ed.

(I owned 300A's, 333A's and PII 450MHz at the same time)

Put two 333A's in a dually BP6 and OC them to 500MHz and you had pretty much unrivaled performance in a desktop box for a ridiculously low pricepoint.

Getting 50% OC is not very common nowadays, and doing it with the budget-end CPU's is not happening.

I got my 2600K to run stable at 5GHz (that's a 42% OC) but it was a $300 CPU with a $300 mobo...not all that impressive if you just throw gobs of money at it.

Likewise my QX6700 would run stable at 4GHz (a 50% OC) but it was a $1500 CPU with a $300 mobo using a $1000 vaporphase cooling setup...quite unimpressive when you consider the gobs of money thrown at accomplishing that OC.

So I still go with the 300A, budget price chip that could be 50% OC'ed with budget priced mobo and budget priced cooling solution (I used stock HSF for all my OC's until my QX6700).

300A was my first overclock


e5200 was another great chip for it's time. Mine topped out at 4.25ghz on a $50 GIGABYTE GA-G41M-ES2L motherboard. 70% overclock for me. Great bang for the buck!

 

[jmarti445]

My Hall of fame

Pentium 3 650- Could OC to 900MHZ
Athlon XP 2500+
Opteron 170- Was able to OC that to 2.7Ghz
Phenom 2 940- Runs at 3.6Ghz 3+ years after Purchase
Phenom 2 X6 1090T- Been running at 3.8Ghz since I purchased it in 2010.

I am an AMD Fan, though they haven't been perfect. Socket 754 and the Phenom 1 for example.

 

[JBT]

Like another poster said the AXP TBB 1700+ mine cost me $50 and clocked to 2.46 ghz from 1.46.