Worst CPUs ever, now with poll!

[Ferzerp]

Bulldozer was a working part on arrival. I think your head isn't screwed on correctly.

Yes, I've made the comment that there are some people around that a working part and a red box are all it takes to please them.

P4, Bulldozer, non A celery.

restricting my answer to x86 only.

 

[AdamK47]

Pentium 4 in the history of microprocessors.

Some P4s. Northwood was pretty good. Prescott, not so much.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I gotta vote for the Pentium 4 as well. Slow, hot, and tied to RAMBUS.

 

[AdamK47]

Why no hate for the Pentium 60MHz that Intel ultimately recalled?

The bug in the initial Pentium was so specific that it was very rare for anyone to encounter it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

It got a lot of media and press, so Intel recalled it.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

The only reason the P4 sold so much is because they crammed them down OEMs throats. People had no choice but to buy P4s. Dell was huge back then and that was all they sold.

BD is pretty god awful. I'm sure we will see some apologists come in and try to claim it is good at something but we all know how it really is in the real world so no harm done.

 

[Away]

Prescott core, I could heat a house with that damn thing. :biggrin:

 

[cppguru]

Bulldozer was a working part on arrival. I think your head isn't screwed on correctly.

LOL. I have to agree with this one as well. Bulldozer is nothing like the failure of Pentium 4

I have a Pentium 4 Prescott running right now as a heater at 3.06 Ghz with HT Enabled. Winrar Bench reports 280 K/sec (multithreading off)

In contrast I also have a ULV Core 2 running in a laptop @ 1.6 Ghz. Winrar Bench reports 553 K/sec (multithreading off)

Literally twice the clock speed, six times the TDP and twice as slow LOL! Shame on you Intel for shoving P4 down our throat.

Either way that graph shows Athlon MP 1.2 Ghz outperforming anything intel had to offer at that time. We want the Strong AMD Back!!!! AMD really did get themselves into a trap by launching an architecture designed for niche software market that simply doesn't exist to begin with. Fail on AMD's part. What they really should have done is launch Bulldozer for servers ONLY and a different microarchitecture for desktops. Give us 4 Fast cores instead of 8 slouch.

 

[tynopik]

The Pentium 60s were failed Pentium 66s

which is pretty pathetic

 

[jcniest5]

0. Bulldozer

I have to agree. This is the worst that AMD has ever produced up to date.

 

[Sable]

The FPU on the K6 was pretty weaksauce I seem to recall.

Prescott and Derpdozer for obvious reasons.

 

[Sable]

Other honorable mentions:

SX chips (386SX, 486SX)
Cyrix chips...all of them... =)

lol. Yes.

tbf though the 486SX ran basically everything fine with 4MB ram. Tie Fighter, Doom, Jill of the Jungle

 

[Kristijonas]

Anyone else waiting for the day when AMD becomes MD?
Jokes aside, Bulldozer is not that bad.
1. Compared to Sandy Bridge performance/price and consumption/performance it's maybe 20% worse.
2. Bulldozer could have been better if some simple things were done differently. It could possibly be 20% better than it is.
3. Bulldozer is shitty only because of 1 and 2. Anyone with the latest Bulldozer CPU can play any current and near-future game flawlessly, can do any rendering and calculations pretty good.

So 1 and 2 aside, I think because of the point 3, Bulldozer can't be called 'worst CPU ever', or even close to it.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Bulldozer = design
Zambezi = execution

You mean Zambezi, right? ;-)

 

[SickBeast]

The P4 and Bulldozer are the worst CPUs of all time.

 

[jhu]

I have to agree. This is the worst that AMD has ever produced up to date.

Then you have a short memory. The AMD K5 actually was worse, much worse.

 

[Homeles]

Then you have a short memory. The AMD K5 actually was worse, much worse.

K10 was awful too. It arrived late, clock speeds were embarrassingly low, it launched with the TLB bug -- which was handled very poorly, launched at prices higher than Intel's offerings, had higher power consumption, and the "independent clock frequencies" did more harm than good.

But no, Bulldozer's somehow worse.

 

[Idontcare]

I have to agree. This is the worst that AMD has ever produced up to date.

There were two versions of the K5. The original SSA/5 K5 was a total dog in the FPU dept, but its integer performance was on-par (slightly better IPC) than the pentium at the time.

The problem was that even after AMD reworked the K5 and improved its IPC (remarkably well too), they could not manufacture them at the clockspeeds necessary to remain competitive and relevant even with their superior IPC.

(sound familiar? preludes to K8 vs. Netburst)

At 116.5MHz, the PR166 K5 actually did well against the 166MHz Pentium, the problem was the 166MHz pentium was not the fastest pentium at the time and Intel's CMOS was scaling quite well whereas AMD's hit a brick wall.

Anyone else waiting for the day when AMD becomes MD?
Jokes aside, Bulldozer is not that bad.

They are second only to Intel when it comes to fielding advanced microelectronic devices in the world-wide market. No question they deserve the "A" moniker.

The only problem with AMD is that they also deserve the "not-for-profit" classification as they have yet to net a profit as a business despite logging over 30yrs towards such an effort

So, AMD they are, ABS (advanced business strategy) they are not

 

[pantsaregood]

Still not following the Netburst hate.

Also, I can't say I understand the "Northwood good Prescott bad" mentality. Prescott had a marginally higher TDP than Northwood and performed dead even with it in most cases. Sometimes on of the two cores gained a minor advantage over the other. I would honestly expect Prescott to perform better on anything from around 2006 and beyond due to the overall more modern design.

Again, Pentium 4 ultimately took performance beyond what Pentium III ever achieved and gained the overall performance crown from 2002-2003. Bulldozer is actually slower than K10 and has no hope of competing with anything Intel has out. The Pentium G850 actually benches higher than the FX-8150 in a fair amount of benchmarks.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I bought an AMD upgrade chip for my 486 computer, it was a K5 @ 133MHz if I recall correctly. My buddy had a Penitum 166MHz, I hoped to have performance somewhere near him. I can honestly say, in the games I played at the time I noticed zero difference between the 486 66MHz and the K5 133MHz. I think the K5 was a pretty bad chip...

 

[Magic Carpet]

Again, Pentium 4 ultimately took performance beyond what Pentium III ever achieved and gained the overall performance crown from 2002-2003.

The first P4 execution was actually slower than Pentium 3 in a good range of tasks, except for multimedia.

Bulldozer is actually slower than K10 and has no hope of competing with anything Intel has out. The Pentium G850 actually benches higher than the FX-8150 in a fair amount of benchmarks.

You're essentially comparing Zambezi to Willamette which is fine. But, the Bulldozer architecture hasn't seen its best yet. A bit prematurely, to write it off. Only time will tell.

 

[jhu]

Again, Pentium 4 ultimately took performance beyond what Pentium III ever achieved and gained the overall performance crown from 2002-2003. Bulldozer is actually slower than K10 and has no hope of competing with anything Intel has out. The Pentium G850 actually benches higher than the FX-8150 in a fair amount of benchmarks.

When Pentium 4 came out, it was not faster than Pentium !!!, especially not any of the Tualatin-based processors. As for x86 performance crown, that would have gone to either to AMD's x86-64 processors or Pentium M at the time.

 

[jhu]

Pole! Poll! Pull!

 

[KompuKare]

Pole? Pull? Maybe but I was expecting a poll...

Though had collated everything from your other thread and we could note all vote :-(

 

[jhu]

Thread merging probably in process.

 

[jhu]

My choice: Intel iAPX 432

Too many chips, slow performance, too expensive.