I dislike....
Pentium (pre pro) - Slow as balls, at a time when performance requirements were skyrocketing.
AMD K6 - A decent FPU compare to the Pentium, but horrible chipsets and performance that struggled to match a celeron.
Pentium 4 Willamette - Capitalized on the MHZ myth while being both legitimately much slower than what came before it, more expensive, trying to force expensive RDRAM to get somewhat acceptable performance out of it which has led to way too many people having Willamette computers with regular SDR ram and horrible performance and wondering why it doesn't perform well when the game says it only needs a 1ghz processor.
Athlon XP - Don't hate them, but their lack of thermal throttling is almost as annoying as Prescott just being damn hot. On the other hand, they generally had top end performance, were dirt cheap (I broke 2 of the things and didn't care because they only cost $50 a pop), and had an unmatched bang for the buck ratio. Considering they often sold for less than the cost of a Celeron with a mhz equivalent to their model rating, they could afford to have some suckiness.
Pentium 4 Prescott (and derivatives) - Too damn hot, all the time, even when idling they are as hot as an XP at load.
Any VIA CPU - Damn slow POSes whose performance per watt can be eclipsed by just about any downclocked intel or AMD chip made in the last 5 years. Ok, I don't really hate these, I'm actually glad they're on the market since they are competitive and easy to find a setup that suits that market segment, but a downclocked AMD or Intel chip is still better plus often cheaper, too bad it's hard to find a small form factor board that supports overclocking features.
Oh, Pentium 4 based Celerons - Ugh, once again, so many people wondering why their 2.2ghz processor can't run any crap acceptably. Horribly value too, considering how much more bang for the buck durons and semprons gave.
Motorola 68000 - Ugh, TI, use something newer for your calculators! At least HP uses Arm9's! (ok, it was a kick ass cpu back in the day, it's just now it's ugh)
G3 and G4 cpus - No Mac fanatics, your machines are not fast. (they were good when they originally launched, but stuck around way too long)
G5 - Maybe it was a bad chip, it had lower actual performance than Pentium 4s or Athlon 64s and had heat problems just as bad as Prescott. Maybe it was just a victim of unfortunate circumstances. Apple's chipsets had horrible performance with memory latency on par with what a 2001 VIA chipset with PC2100 would have. (maybe not that bad, but still pretty damn bad for the memory they were using) In addition, the strengths of the cpu seemed more geared towards...well the supercomputer/workstation market from which the cpu was derived from, rather than the desktop market. It could get absolutely crushed at some tasks, and even the things it was best at an Opteron would nip at its heels. The only people who would buy Mac high end at this point in time were the Mac faithful or those with legacy Mac software/skills to hold onto. Accordingly, Mac's high end sales nearly disappeared, hopefully Woodcrest will bring them back. I actually give the G3 and G4 some props for once being the leaders in performance, but this thing was slower from day one and the gap only grew as time went on.
The Falcon chip in Philips TVs.....what a buggy deinterlacing chip.
Intel XScale - Ok, I think this is Arm 9 based, but the lack of an FPU in the PDA market sucks. Just switch to low end x86 processors with Windows XP Embedded already. That, or add an FPU and some decent software support. Oh, cell phones could use a nice FPU too, if they're ever going to make good multimedia devices.
Do you really need proof? Asus has convertors for just about everything imaginable, even things nobody wants. And if they don't, some other Taiwanese maker has done it and sold it on ebay or those hokey computer catalogs.
Pentium (pre pro) - Slow as balls, at a time when performance requirements were skyrocketing.
AMD K6 - A decent FPU compare to the Pentium, but horrible chipsets and performance that struggled to match a celeron.
Pentium 4 Willamette - Capitalized on the MHZ myth while being both legitimately much slower than what came before it, more expensive, trying to force expensive RDRAM to get somewhat acceptable performance out of it which has led to way too many people having Willamette computers with regular SDR ram and horrible performance and wondering why it doesn't perform well when the game says it only needs a 1ghz processor.
Athlon XP - Don't hate them, but their lack of thermal throttling is almost as annoying as Prescott just being damn hot. On the other hand, they generally had top end performance, were dirt cheap (I broke 2 of the things and didn't care because they only cost $50 a pop), and had an unmatched bang for the buck ratio. Considering they often sold for less than the cost of a Celeron with a mhz equivalent to their model rating, they could afford to have some suckiness.
Pentium 4 Prescott (and derivatives) - Too damn hot, all the time, even when idling they are as hot as an XP at load.
Any VIA CPU - Damn slow POSes whose performance per watt can be eclipsed by just about any downclocked intel or AMD chip made in the last 5 years. Ok, I don't really hate these, I'm actually glad they're on the market since they are competitive and easy to find a setup that suits that market segment, but a downclocked AMD or Intel chip is still better plus often cheaper, too bad it's hard to find a small form factor board that supports overclocking features.
Oh, Pentium 4 based Celerons - Ugh, once again, so many people wondering why their 2.2ghz processor can't run any crap acceptably. Horribly value too, considering how much more bang for the buck durons and semprons gave.
Motorola 68000 - Ugh, TI, use something newer for your calculators! At least HP uses Arm9's! (ok, it was a kick ass cpu back in the day, it's just now it's ugh)
G3 and G4 cpus - No Mac fanatics, your machines are not fast. (they were good when they originally launched, but stuck around way too long)
G5 - Maybe it was a bad chip, it had lower actual performance than Pentium 4s or Athlon 64s and had heat problems just as bad as Prescott. Maybe it was just a victim of unfortunate circumstances. Apple's chipsets had horrible performance with memory latency on par with what a 2001 VIA chipset with PC2100 would have. (maybe not that bad, but still pretty damn bad for the memory they were using) In addition, the strengths of the cpu seemed more geared towards...well the supercomputer/workstation market from which the cpu was derived from, rather than the desktop market. It could get absolutely crushed at some tasks, and even the things it was best at an Opteron would nip at its heels. The only people who would buy Mac high end at this point in time were the Mac faithful or those with legacy Mac software/skills to hold onto. Accordingly, Mac's high end sales nearly disappeared, hopefully Woodcrest will bring them back. I actually give the G3 and G4 some props for once being the leaders in performance, but this thing was slower from day one and the gap only grew as time went on.
The Falcon chip in Philips TVs.....what a buggy deinterlacing chip.
Intel XScale - Ok, I think this is Arm 9 based, but the lack of an FPU in the PDA market sucks. Just switch to low end x86 processors with Windows XP Embedded already. That, or add an FPU and some decent software support. Oh, cell phones could use a nice FPU too, if they're ever going to make good multimedia devices.
Do you really need proof? Asus has convertors for just about everything imaginable, even things nobody wants. And if they don't, some other Taiwanese maker has done it and sold it on ebay or those hokey computer catalogs.
.
Facebook
Twitter