Worst CPUs ever, now with poll!

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

What's the worst CPU ever? Please explain your choice.

  • Intel iAPX 432

  • Intel Itanium (Merced)

  • Intel 80286

  • IBM PowerPC 970

  • IBM/Motorola PowerPC 60x

  • AMD K5

  • AMD family 15h

  • AMD family 10h


Results are only viewable after voting.
Jun 4, 2004
12,297
232
146
They indeed ran very hot, but how was HT useless on Prescott? It worked perfectly fine on my Northwood P4 and I'm pretty sure Intel didn't 'break' HT with the transition to Prescott.
HT worked well on my Prescott P4 3.2E. I’m not sure what he’s referring to.

Although maybe he’s talking about how some games supposedly suffered a few % if HT was enabled. I never noticed however.
 

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
313
20
101
I think any Celeron processor sucks and any AMD processor After the Intel Core2Duo architecture was released prior to Ryzen.
I presume you mean any Celeron released since the Netburst era, since the Pentium II and III-era were actually pretty good for what they were.

Also, Phenom II wasn't really that bad at all. Its main problem was that it was released too late; it would have been perfectly competitive had it been going up against Core 2, but Intel had moved onto the Core i-series by that time.

HT worked well on my Prescott P4 3.2E. I’m not sure what he’s referring to.

Although maybe he’s talking about how some games supposedly suffered a few % if HT was enabled. I never noticed however.
IIRC, it was actually on Xeon multi-processor systems from the Netburst era where HT could really end up hurting performance, and even then it was mostly because Windows XP couldn't tell the difference between a physical core and a logical core, and made all sorts of wacky thread allocation decisions that caused performance to tank.
 

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,492
0
61
I presume you mean any Celeron released since the Netburst era, since the Pentium II and III-era were actually pretty good for what they were.

Also, Phenom II wasn't really that bad at all. Its main problem was that it was released too late; it would have been perfectly competitive had it been going up against Core 2, but Intel had moved onto the Core i-series by that time.
.
But... Nehalem was not a good Core i generation after all. It was Sandy Bridge which was the total change for Intel.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
931
104
136
But... Nehalem was not a good Core i generation after all. It was Sandy Bridge which was the total change for Intel.
I would argue that point based on the still popular X58 crowd. Nehalem was definitely a step up from Core 2 due to the IMC, Sandy Bridge of course improved IPC and clocks considerably which is why it is so fondly remembered
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,297
232
146
But... Nehalem was not a good Core i generation after all. It was Sandy Bridge which was the total change for Intel.
I would argue that point based on the still popular X58 crowd. Nehalem was definitely a step up from Core 2 due to the IMC, Sandy Bridge of course improved IPC and clocks considerably which is why it is so fondly remembered
My old i7 920 is still in use and quite frankly doesn’t have a problem running any modern software or game for the most part. Plus I can buy a cheap used Xeon and upgrade to a 6 core processor if I needed it.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,136
0
126
My old i7 920 is still in use and quite frankly doesn’t have a problem running any modern software or game for the most part. Plus I can buy a cheap used Xeon and upgrade to a 6 core processor if I needed it.
I would do that as soon as possible. eBay can be volatile in pricing, that Xeon can go from bargain basement cheap to extremely expensive for a couple years and then back down to cheap when mostly obsolete. Look to AMD Socket 939 (DDR1, PCI-E) dual core CPUs. I bought mine at $40. They were hitting up to $300 for a couple years before coming back down to reality.
 

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,492
0
61
I would argue that point based on the still popular X58 crowd. Nehalem was definitely a step up from Core 2 due to the IMC, Sandy Bridge of course improved IPC and clocks considerably which is why it is so fondly remembered
X58 is another story. Those chips from that socket are beast on their own. If I am not wrong, Westmere is on those group. And those are real monsters. Sandy Bridge are even better than them.
 

kschendel

Junior Member
Aug 1, 2018
21
2
16
The worst CPU ever isn't on the poll; it was the WE32000 in the Western Electric 3B2 desktop. I had the misfortune of having to port a sizeable DBMS system to that machine. The good news is that I've managed to forget most of what made it suck so badly, although I do remember that due to various chip errors, the compilers sprinkled NOP's liberally throughout the code. Just in case, y'know.
 

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,492
0
61
BTW, I add the Sunplus SPG290 SoC that was used on the HyperScan. That chip was even slower than the AMD E1 2100 and the VIA C3 even underclocked. It loaded on more than 1 minute just one screen from the PS1 era that could load it on 20 seconds!
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY