What CPU do you hate the most?

[Maximilian]

Like for whatever reason, do you specifically hate one more than any other? Ive been reading about emm and looking at pictures of older cpu's, hence my other thread about wtf those things are underneath most of them. Ive realised i have a little list of ones i dislike.

Disliked all these, but theyre in order from most to least:

1. Socket 423 P4.... The thing isnt even symmetrical, the cores off center significantly, and it didnt perform all that well anyways. I think its the only non symmetrical mainstream CPU.

2. Anything on socket A - Theyre so weak and easily broken its unbelieveable. The whole "thou must be careful!!" thing is comple trash, even pro's with a socket a cpu have chipped a core or two. Weak, pretty toasty too.

3. Those 128 L2 cache celerons. Thats really pitiful, athlon 64's have the same amount of L1 cache!

 

[Stumps]

none really...but Cyrix MII's weren't a nice one...same with Duron's, not really worth owning(they cost as much as a similar speed Athlon)

 

[orangat]

Early Cyrix shut off L2 cache, hot, lousy fpu.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: orangat
Early Cyrix shut off L2 cache, hot, lousy fpu.

I remember those...it was some kinda bug in the processor and it only affected those who ran WinNT IIRC.

Actually now that I think about it..I will have to say SKT 423 P4's...what a waste of time...too slow, too expensive(you needed to buy RDRAM) and very short lived.

 

[Regs]

I tend to stay away from them.

 

[Green Man]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Like for whatever reason, do you specifically hate one more than any other? Ive been reading about emm and looking at pictures of older cpu's, hence my other thread about wtf those things are underneath most of them. Ive realised i have a little list of ones i dislike.

Disliked all these, but theyre in order from most to least:

1. Socket 423 P4.... The thing isnt even symmetrical, the cores off center significantly, and it didnt perform all that well anyways. I think its the only non symmetrical mainstream CPU.

2. Anything on socket A - Theyre so weak and easily broken its unbelieveable. The whole "thou must be careful!!" thing is comple trash, even pro's with a socket a cpu have chipped a core or two. Weak, pretty toasty too.

3. Those 128 L2 cache celerons. Thats really pitiful, athlon 64's have the same amount of L1 cache!

To address your points in reverse order...

3. 128 L2 cache celerons rocked!
Do you realize that the competition was P2 with 512 1/2 speed cache and ... wait for this ... k6 with the L2 on the mainboard. 128 L2 cache freakin rocked because it was full speed!

2. Socket A rocked!
with some conductive paint you have adjustable multipliers! Plus WAY faster than the competion which was socket 423 p4s

1. Socket 423 p4
OK, slower than p3. They sucked.

 

[Henny]

The early AMD CPU's that would self destruct.

 

[ForgetCassettes]

I wasn't real fond of my 11 Mhz 286 that had trouble playing Leisure Suit Larry. I think it was 11 Mhz anyway. It's been awhile.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Green Man

Originally posted by: Soviet
Like for whatever reason, do you specifically hate one more than any other? Ive been reading about emm and looking at pictures of older cpu's, hence my other thread about wtf those things are underneath most of them. Ive realised i have a little list of ones i dislike.

Disliked all these, but theyre in order from most to least:

1. Socket 423 P4.... The thing isnt even symmetrical, the cores off center significantly, and it didnt perform all that well anyways. I think its the only non symmetrical mainstream CPU.

2. Anything on socket A - Theyre so weak and easily broken its unbelieveable. The whole "thou must be careful!!" thing is comple trash, even pro's with a socket a cpu have chipped a core or two. Weak, pretty toasty too.

3. Those 128 L2 cache celerons. Thats really pitiful, athlon 64's have the same amount of L1 cache!

To address your points in reverse order...

3. 128 L2 cache celerons rocked!
Do you realize that the competition was P2 with 512 1/2 speed cache and ... wait for this ... k6 with the L2 on the mainboard. 128 L2 cache freakin rocked because it was full speed!

2. Socket A rocked!
with some conductive paint you have adjustable multipliers! Plus WAY faster than the competion which was socket 423 p4s

1. Socket 423 p4
OK, slower than p3. They sucked.

I meant the pentium 4 celerons with 128kb cache, 3-4 years on and the cache stayed the same as the old P6 based ones. I liked the old P6 based ones, their cache was built into the chip and as you said, full speed. Only with the celeron D has the cache been upped to 256kb.

Socket A was only faster than the competition for a very short time, when the northwoods came out in 533 and 800FSB flavours they crushed the socket A offerings. Plus they still ran hot and were physically weak for their entire life, from 1ghz tbird to 3200+ barton.

 

[Duvie]

Pretty much every chip INtel has made since the northwood and up to yonah/conroe...prescotts suck and P-Ds are double that action...I also disliked the 400fsb Bartons and their whacked rating...terrible chips that INtel really started to put a smackdown with the northwood C's...

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: Green Man

Originally posted by: Soviet
Like for whatever reason, do you specifically hate one more than any other? Ive been reading about emm and looking at pictures of older cpu's, hence my other thread about wtf those things are underneath most of them. Ive realised i have a little list of ones i dislike.

Disliked all these, but theyre in order from most to least:

1. Socket 423 P4.... The thing isnt even symmetrical, the cores off center significantly, and it didnt perform all that well anyways. I think its the only non symmetrical mainstream CPU.

2. Anything on socket A - Theyre so weak and easily broken its unbelieveable. The whole "thou must be careful!!" thing is comple trash, even pro's with a socket a cpu have chipped a core or two. Weak, pretty toasty too.

3. Those 128 L2 cache celerons. Thats really pitiful, athlon 64's have the same amount of L1 cache!

To address your points in reverse order...

3. 128 L2 cache celerons rocked!
Do you realize that the competition was P2 with 512 1/2 speed cache and ... wait for this ... k6 with the L2 on the mainboard. 128 L2 cache freakin rocked because it was full speed!

2. Socket A rocked!
with some conductive paint you have adjustable multipliers! Plus WAY faster than the competion which was socket 423 p4s

1. Socket 423 p4
OK, slower than p3. They sucked.

I meant the pentium 4 celerons with 128kb cache, 3-4 years on and the cache stayed the same as the old P6 based ones. I liked the old P6 based ones, their cache was built into the chip and as you said, full speed. Only with the celeron D has the cache been upped to 256kb.

Socket A was only faster than the competition for a very short time, when the northwoods came out in 533 and 800FSB flavours they crushed the socket A offerings. Plus they still ran hot and were physically weak for their entire life, from 1ghz tbird to 3200+ barton.

not quite true...I have a 3000+ and a 3.06ghz P4(533fsb Northwood), I found that on comparable rigs (NF2 vs SIS655) the AMD was marginally faster (with exception to encoding which I never do anyway), I was always able to get higher and more constant frame rates out of my 3000=@2.33ghz than my P4 3.06@3.45ghz...the P4 ran benchmarks faster but the AXP always got higher frame rates in Doom3, Q4 etc(I tested them with my good ole 9700pro), but generally there was no real difference between them.

But the temps of my AMD were higher(not horribly hot generally around 50c full load with stock HSF) and in the early days of socket A, I saw plenty of crushed cores(many many T-bird 1.4ghz died this way )

Socket A was a good platform for it's time...but thats just my opinion.


Those 128k P4 Celerons were horrible CPU's...but mega Overclockers, I took a 2.0ghz upto 3.4ghz with a standard HSF and no Vcore increase..it was pretty fast. but my 3000+ could always run rings around it.

 

[thescreensavers]

socket LG775 i hated it. and those stupid Prescott PSU's always throttling and getting to hot.

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: Green Man

Originally posted by: Soviet
Like for whatever reason, do you specifically hate one more than any other? Ive been reading about emm and looking at pictures of older cpu's, hence my other thread about wtf those things are underneath most of them. Ive realised i have a little list of ones i dislike.

Disliked all these, but theyre in order from most to least:

1. Socket 423 P4.... The thing isnt even symmetrical, the cores off center significantly, and it didnt perform all that well anyways. I think its the only non symmetrical mainstream CPU.

2. Anything on socket A - Theyre so weak and easily broken its unbelieveable. The whole "thou must be careful!!" thing is comple trash, even pro's with a socket a cpu have chipped a core or two. Weak, pretty toasty too.

3. Those 128 L2 cache celerons. Thats really pitiful, athlon 64's have the same amount of L1 cache!

To address your points in reverse order...

3. 128 L2 cache celerons rocked!
Do you realize that the competition was P2 with 512 1/2 speed cache and ... wait for this ... k6 with the L2 on the mainboard. 128 L2 cache freakin rocked because it was full speed!

2. Socket A rocked!
with some conductive paint you have adjustable multipliers! Plus WAY faster than the competion which was socket 423 p4s

1. Socket 423 p4
OK, slower than p3. They sucked.

I meant the pentium 4 celerons with 128kb cache, 3-4 years on and the cache stayed the same as the old P6 based ones. I liked the old P6 based ones, their cache was built into the chip and as you said, full speed. Only with the celeron D has the cache been upped to 256kb.

Socket A was only faster than the competition for a very short time, when the northwoods came out in 533 and 800FSB flavours they crushed the socket A offerings. Plus they still ran hot and were physically weak for their entire life, from 1ghz tbird to 3200+ barton.

not quite true...I have a 3000+ and a 3.06ghz P4(533fsb Northwood), I found that on comparable rigs (NF2 vs SIS655) the AMD was marginally faster (with exception to encoding which I never do anyway), I was always able to get higher and more constant frame rates out of my 3000=@2.33ghz than my P4 3.06@3.45ghz...the P4 ran benchmarks faster but the AXP always got higher frame rates in Doom3, Q4 etc(I tested them with my good ole 9700pro), but generally there was no real difference between them.

But the temps of my AMD were higher(not horribly hot generally around 50c full load with stock HSF) and in the early days of socket A, I saw plenty of crushed cores(many many T-bird 1.4ghz died this way )

Socket A was a good platform for it's time...but thats just my opinion.


Those 128k P4 Celerons were horrible CPU's...but mega Overclockers, I took a 2.0ghz upto 3.4ghz with a standard HSF and no Vcore increase..it was pretty fast. but my 3000+ could always run rings around it.

The 800fsb northwoods were much better, with the 2.8ghz nearly beating all athlon xps, the 3.0, 3.2ghz and 3.4 ones were in a leage of their own.

I dont get how people crushed the athlons, i have a athlon xp 1700+ and had to remove and mount the heatsink lots of times, its a real pain, but as long as u have the heatsink flat its pretty hard to damage anything.

The 128kb cache celerons were useless, when it came to games and tasks more complex tasks, as well as cache useing tasks like office stuff the celerons were useless. My old willamette p4 1.7ghz was quicker than the 2.6ghz celeron. But in number crunching stuff they were not too bad.

Worst so far would have to be the athlon xps and all netburst chips after the northwood C.
I dont really have opinion on the chips before than cause i didnt have my own comp back then.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Can't really say I hated any CPUs that I've used; can't really comment on my P2 300MHz (it was before I really knew anything about hardware but it seemed to do the job, fanless HS too ) my two Athlon XPs were fine, the Northwood C was great, and then my A64 and Opteron 165 have been outstanding.

The only CPU I could say I hated would be the G3 700MHz in an iBook I inherited...although I'm not sure that it had a fair showing because it only came with 128MB of ram

 

[Xonoahbin]

Duron. Garbage, period. Breaks easily, runs near 70' C, was expensive, not very powerful. Horrible.

 

[irwincur]

Socket 423 was terrible.

I remember getting a brand new P4 kick ass computer at work that took ten seconds to open the Win2K Start menu.

What a dissapointment.

Never even bothered to give them another chance. As a matter of fact, I have pretty much owned AMD since - with a few exceptions.



Now the best by far was my PII - 300MHz that easily clocked to 512MHz without sweating - all on a cheap ECS motherboard. Great for an OEM box.

Second best were late model Socket A boards when heat sink manufacturers built decent and easy to mount heat sinks.

 

[secretanchitman]

any intel pentium 4 prescott. i HATE those cpus. and i hate how my friends have them think its "so much better" than my northwood p4. sorry, i dont need a flamethrower in a box.

last good chip intel made was the northwood pentium 4, then the pentium M, and now core solo/duo. cant wait for core 2 duo!

 

[dug777]

the 333mhz AMD K6-2 'Chomper' in my lappy.

OMFG it sucks

 

[betasub]

K6-2 that had no on-die L2 cache. It relied on a slow motherboard cache chip, which wasn't even present on older Skt7 boards (only on "Super" Skt7 boards). Their weakness was highlighted by the decent performance of the K6-III and K6-x+ (mobile) processors that had on-die full speed L2 cache & could compete with similar speed PentiumIII.

Skt478 NetBurst Celerons, crippled by a small L2 cache & and woefully inadequate memory interface (100/400FSB). Pathetic in comparison to their P4 Northwood big brothers, which had 4x the L2 cache and 2x FSB.

 

[996GT2]

THe 12 mhz Motorola 68000 Processor in my TI-89 takes 40 seconds to calculate 1000 digits of Pi...so on the speed scale that sits pretty low .

But as far as hating...well, I don't really HATE any CPU, but I do have a dislike for the socket 423 Pentium 4s, those things were much slower running windows compared to my 1 GHz PIII Dell back in the day (the ones I used had only 256mb RAM compared to the 512 in the PIII comp, but still...the next gen is supposed to improve on the previous gen in terms of speed)

 

[wolfman11]

Cyrix PR166+ had it for < 30 days - what trash.

 

[nyker96]

the Intel netbursts (423s) are hot and noisy, I don't like them much. Actually used to own Celerons for a while way back, they pretty decent, but intel just kept on changing m.b. making upgrade impossible. Liked AMDs or MADs ever since.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Like for whatever reason, do you specifically hate one more than any other? Ive been reading about emm and looking at pictures of older cpu's, hence my other thread about wtf those things are underneath most of them. Ive realised i have a little list of ones i dislike.

Disliked all these, but theyre in order from most to least:

1. Socket 423 P4.... The thing isnt even symmetrical, the cores off center significantly, and it didnt perform all that well anyways. I think its the only non symmetrical mainstream CPU.

2. Anything on socket A - Theyre so weak and easily broken its unbelieveable. The whole "thou must be careful!!" thing is comple trash, even pro's with a socket a cpu have chipped a core or two. Weak, pretty toasty too.

3. Those 128 L2 cache celerons. Thats really pitiful, athlon 64's have the same amount of L1 cache!

i use a socket A sempron as my second rig but for the whole of 2005 i used a socket A sempron. i can tell you its an awesome chip. and 128 KB l2 cache ! pfft hardly matters to budget builder. i just cared that my whole rig cost less than my current processor did.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Still got a functional 486 in my attic that I futz around with every few months, was my project when I started assembling it a couple years ago to make the worlds fastest 486.

It is complete with 128MB EDO-Ram, a 16MB PCI card, PCI SCSI (forgot what type of SCSI) A 10/100 PCI NIC, and a ISA soundblaster16 card. Needless to say all opticle drives are SCSI, and I was going to play around with USB on it, alas... I ran out of PCI slots. It runs 98 with no errors and is fully functional. I must admit tho. The thing is a total piece of junk that I threw together for shits and giggles. Took hours just to load 98 onto the system (albiet it loaded 98 faster then Windows 3.1 ever did, undoubtably due to SCSI and memory)

One of these days I just gotta try loading XP onto it. I just cant imagine throwing the thing out, it took too long building finding pieces here and there. Now the cursed joke of the computer has a setimental value to me >.<

 

[stardrek]

I hated the orginal non-xeon PII's. Half speed cache was such a step back from the Pentium Pro. Thank god they fixed that with the PIII's.