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.

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
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
440
216
116
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paratus

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,655
138
106
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnitaPeterson

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
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
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
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
10,161
984
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
2,655
138
106
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

Senior member
Aug 1, 2018
260
186
116
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
2,655
138
106
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!
 

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,655
138
106
Guys... I resurrect this topic since I want to know if the ARM A57 design could fit in this topic. Since one of the processors that used the design was the infamous Snapdragon 810.
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,207
4,939
136
Guys... I resurrect this topic since I want to know if the ARM A57 design could fit in this topic. Since one of the processors that used the design was the infamous Snapdragon 810.
It's also used in the Tegra X1, which has shipped in tens of millions of Switch consoles. I would call that a fairly successful design!
 

idiotavonspita

Junior Member
Oct 22, 2020
1
0
6
maybe the amd phenom 9500 it looks absolutly horrible benchmarks 28% at its most on desktop and 18% on gaming
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
I guess I am in the dark here, not a noob, but slang/abbreviations sometimes get me. Got any specific nomenclature ?
601, 603 (and 603e) and 604 (and 604e).
i think really the only thing negative you could say about them is that the 604 was a bit overpromised and underdelivered, forcing apple to run 603 variants for longer than it had planned, before moving to the so-called G3 powerpc processors.
 

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
5,937
382
126
I had to Google the Intel iAPX 432, since it's the first item in the poll now.
Was this an original choice when the poll was made in 2013?

Because we're talking about a 1981 architecture O_O
 

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
5,937
382
126
Nice to revisit this thread while searching for something else.
Now I wonder - was there an equivalent "Best Ever CPU" thread?

Hmmm... maybe this one. It's all relative, anyway :)
 

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
721
446
136
This poll is ridiculous. The
601, 603 (and 603e) and 604 (and 604e).
i think really the only thing negative you could say about them is that the 604 was a bit overpromised and underdelivered, forcing apple to run 603 variants for longer than it had planned, before moving to the so-called G3 powerpc processors.
This poll is ridiculous. All those PowerPC processors were better than anything Intel had to offer at the time. Apple built some great Macs with the 601, 604 and 604e variants. The Performa series was gimped till the 6500 came along. Also the IBM 970 was the G5 which was a tremendous processor. A monster. It just wouldn't work in the mobile space so Apple went Intel. Why isn't the Pentium D at the top of the list?
 
  • Like
Reactions: scannall

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,842
3,295
136
Celeron Covington should be at the first places for worse CPUs, at least on Intel side, way below the P4 based ones in comparison to the Pentium brand...
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,055
408
126
it wasn't even that bad, because the competition was what? k6?
P4 Celeron had to compete with cheap k7 variants which were way better at pretty much everything,
the OG Celeron was much better than k6 at plenty of things.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,842
3,295
136
it wasn't even that bad, because the competition was what? k6?
P4 Celeron had to compete with cheap k7 variants which were way better at pretty much everything,
the OG Celeron was much better than k6 at plenty of things.

K6-III was better than Pentium in anyhthing Integer, it was weak FPU wise comparatively, so no, Covington wasnt better at all, in the test below it s the Celeron Mendocino with an L2 that followed the Covington.

 
Last edited:

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,055
408
126
K6-III was better than Pentium in anyhthing Integer, it was weak FPU wise comparatively, so no, Celeron wasnt better at all...

by the time k6 3 was around, you could buy a 300A@450 for cheap, and IMO the 300A is better.