Not from a performance perspective but it was a really bad look for AMD in those days. All any Intel shill had to do to shut up an AMD owner was show that video and then cover his ears while the AMD guy went "BUT BUT BUT".
Mkay, not really a counterargument, more of a "but I still think I'm right" response. Anyone running a performance-oriented x86 CPU without a HSF rightly deserves a slap upside the head. There's going to be some unfortunate fringe cases for sure back in that CPU gen's day, but since there are always unfortunate "I killed some hardware" fringe cases through say running a CPU without a properly-installed heatsink, I'm failing to see how remarkable this is. For example, while I've never killed a CPU or board where the pins are in the CPU board socket, plenty of people have. I don't think that's great design either, and yet both AMD and Intel are doing it these days. All we can do is try to install the CPU gently, and pray silently that we're not being too forceful when installing the HSF (if that can actually damage the CPU socket pins, no idea!).
If the point (if there's really any point at all in this) was to come up with a top 50-100 bad CPUs list then there are going to be some very unexciting entries. 5 at most IMO, then at least each one's story is worth telling (at least as far as fellow nerds are concerned).
If you want another thoroughly unexciting entry, then the next time I visit the customer in question, I'll take down the specs of their first-gen Intel i5 CPU which (if I have the model number correct from memory) does not show up on Google: the Intel desktop i5-720, which had the honour of being the only desktop i5 with only two processor cores, and I think it was a lemon that HP wanted, presumably to hoodwink their customers into thinking they were getting a better-than-average processor.