What CPU do you hate the most?

[nonameo]

I have to vote on hating PR 166+ cpu's. The 486-SX. Pretty much all of the non-intel FPU-retarded 586 generation. I haven't really "owned" much else... I've been through socket A, and I like it. I think 754 is(was) a good platform, though I never really got to use it. Netburst just seemed like a bad idea from the get-go... though it seems that the 805's are well priced for their performance and overclockability.

edit: I didn't like the 386 much either(LIF socket or integrated) , we had a computer a long time ago that had a 386SX-16 built into the motherboard... my god! why! why oh why!

 

[potato28]

Socket 423's. They blew, sucked, and came back for more!

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: 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)

Isnt the Ti - 89 have a 10mhz cpu? I though the ti- 92 plus had a 12mhz one. ( you can actually overclock those cpus to like 20mhz if u really wanted to )

I cant really say that the 423 ones sucked cause honestly i have never seen one (wasnt into comps back then), although the 1.7ghz p4 that my family got back then sure was fast compared to the previous comp which was 166mhz pentium 1 lol. It did suck compared to my first comp though p4 2.8ghz HT.

 

[UsandThem]

Didn't the very first Celeron's have no level 2 cache? They performed so bad, that they then added the cache. This would have been around 1995 or so.

 

[orangat]

The Cyrix chips also sometimes ran at non-standard 75/83 fsb speeds which is basically cheating to get better PRs.

 

[MDme]

(puts on flame suit) ....i hate the CELL cpu....all that hype and those fake demos!!!!

now, seriously, I think the cyrix CPUs really sucked. But I really hate the prescotts since our school has them in those micro-atx slim cases and they throttle so bad due to the heat and make a lot of noise too.

 

[Absolute0]

4400+ X2 because it was always a crap OCer and very overpriced, yet a ton of people bought it thinking it was somehow the sweet spot of the X2 lineup.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Absolute0
4400+ X2 because it was always a crap OCer and very overpriced, yet a ton of people bought it thinking it was somehow the sweet spot of the X2 lineup.

It was the only X2 at the time with 2x1MB L2 Cache, so maybe that is what persuaded people over say the 3800+.

 

[BladeVenom]

The Intel Pentium 3 Coppermine with the 820 chip set, the one that used RAMBUS. What a joke. Made me switch to AMD.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: orangat
The Cyrix chips also sometimes ran at non-standard 75/83 fsb speeds which is basically cheating to get better PRs.

Yea i have one of those. The 75mhz bus allowed it to outperform the pentium mmx's of the time which were were still widely used.

 

[GR8Madmax]

My first ever custom build was with a Cyrix PR200 chip and a PCChips barebones kit off eBay - worst combo I've ever had. I thought I was doing something wrong as the chip didn't seem much faster than my 486 DX2. Needless to say, the Cyrix chip was on eBay a week later and some poor chap ended up buying it for $40+. I replaced the CPU with an Intel 233 MMX and held on the the PCChips board for a couple of months. My search for a new motherboard lead me to a site named AnandTech and a FIC socket 7 board. I've kept this combo and it's still going strong!

Ahh, memories....

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: UsandThem
Didn't the very first Celeron's have no level 2 cache? They performed so bad, that they then added the cache. This would have been around 1995 or so.

Yes. Covington had no L2, which immediately changed with Mendocino. Both were Pentium II era.

 

[avi85]

Any prescott!!!

 

[Keysplayr]

I severely disliked Willamette CPU's and cordially despised any K6 CPU.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Willamette Celerons. Poorest excuse of a CPU ever.

 

[zsdersw]

The Intel Pentium 3 Coppermine with the 820 chip set, the one that used RAMBUS

IIRC, the problem with that chipset occurred when people tried to use regular SDRAM in it via some sort of converter. If you used RDRAM, there was no problem.

My current computer features 1GB of pc1066 RDRAM (850E chipset).. and I've been very pleased with it for the 4+ years I've had it.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

The Intel Pentium 3 Coppermine with the 820 chip set, the one that used RAMBUS

IIRC, the problem with that chipset occurred when people tried to use regular SDRAM in it via some sort of converter. If you used RDRAM, there was no problem.

My current computer features 1GB of pc1066 RDRAM (850E chipset).. and I've been very pleased with it for the 4+ years I've had it.

there was no converter...the 820 (camino) came in an SDRAM flavour(it used a special memory hub)as well as the regular RDRAM flavour, I have a 933 slot 1 and a Gigabyte board that is 820 + SDRAM...the problem with them is the memory translator hub was dreadfully slow, it gave worse memory performance then the old 440LX chipset.

the 820 when used with RDRAM wasn't slow at all...but it just wasn't worth the super high cost(Intel you really won us over with RDRAM now didn't you )

 

[zsdersw]

I'm pretty sure Asus had a converter available.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
I'm pretty sure Asus had a converter available.

provide link?

 

[zsdersw]

http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/storage/story/0,10801,47393,00.html

"Originally designed to support the new direct Rambus dynamic RAM (RDRAM) memory, the 820 chips were shipped with a special converter that let the processor run synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM), a cheaper, more available but slower memory technology. Problems with the converter forced 820 users to endure unexpected reboots and other problems. The glitches also knocked back Intel's release schedule for its next-generation Timna CPUs, which were also designed for pairing with RDRAM."

Also: http://www.tomshardware.com/1999/12/06/comdex/page2.html

 

[betasub]

Nice link.

That 1GB of RDRAM must have cost serious money at some stage in the past. Just as the Pentium 233MMX did in its heyday, when the far cheaper 200MMX was a simple OC from 3x to 3.5x multiplier

 

[zsdersw]

It did cost quite a bit of money... but I've had it for quite a while too. I think I've gotten my money's worth out of it.

 

[BladeVenom]

Besides Rambus costing 5 times as much, and offering no real improvement, 820 chipset didn't even work right with Rambus. They had serious memory errors if all 3 memory slots were used. Intel had to recall them and reduce the number of slots to two.

 

[Amaroque]

All the K5, and K6's sucked. Any P4 other then Northwood sucks too.

 

[Kyanzes]

I don't particularly hate any CPUs, I loved all my comps. From the early XTs to my current config. I loved the SLOT-1 and SLOT-A ones the most, looked cool, felt stable. Even Cyrix Ms were good for office work. Not that I ever owned one. My father has an SFF comp with Cyrix for multimedia purposes. Let's just say, that I never felt the urge to obtain a Cyric MIII. I had a lot of problems with Prescotts, mostly overheating issues. Aside from that, can't think of anything else. There were low end CPUs in the past, well befor the Cyric Ms. Remember the 386DLCs/SLCs/SLs/ETCs, 486SXs? Hehe.