Worst CPU ever

We have many threads devoted to the best CPUs, but very few devoted to the worst.

Post'em.

Other urls found in this thread:

anandtech.com/show/1201
tomshardware.co.uk/good-old-newbie,review-468-12.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron#NetBurst-based_Celerons
youtube.com/watch?v=nUD44i5Aaq4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_4_microprocessors#Northwood_.28130.C2.A0nm.29
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Any mobile chipset

8350

Pentium 4 was actually very based. It was the Pentium D that was terrible.

Bad CPU: AMD Phenom mobile processors. The mobile variants were fucking awful, battery draining hot plates.

>8350
it's bad, but not worst

9370, now that is a shitty shitty cpu

VIA C7

i386

god the fx4100 was bad

Pretty much any atom cpu. I can barely run one as a next to bed fap machine.

The first gen atoms
The first celeron

Baytrail and newer are pretty good. Ifyour application is properly threaded, it can reach core 2 duo levels of performance

...

>P4
>Worst

So many people who haven't been cursed with the shit that is Cyrix MIIv, Durons, and socket 478 Celerons.

Had 3 of these fuckers break down on me

The z520 in the Vaio P.
Goddamn Vaio, release a new one with an M processor. I'll happily give you my first born.

...

You say that, but the Durons were much faster than the first Pentium 4s.

is this a joke? i picked up a PD machine at one point and it was great

6/10. I would have taken you seriously if I didn't have one and know for a fact it's a fucking beast.

...

Bulldozer is most likely the worst uarch ever made if you look at how much damage it did to AMD's image and business.

Pentium Ds were nothing more than two Pentium 4s shoehorned into a single chip. Pentium 3 had better performance at lower clock speeds.

all i know is it felt much smoother than my next-best athlon64 3500+
that said, that pentium D machine was the first dual core machine i'd used, so maybe it was bad /for a dual core/, for which i didn't have anything to compare it with

dubs speak the truth

The Duron was barely faster than the Willamette and only the lower clocked versions, Northwood P4s were easily faster and overclocked far better too.

Fucking AMD shills and their Duron 800mhz back in the days, one of the worst purchasing decisions of that era.

> all these pedestrian opinions ...

actual worst CPU: random commieshit (slav or chink) that nobody here ever heard about

crappiest ISA that got popular: x86

crappiest microarchitecture that got popular: NetBurst

biggest flop by people who should've done better: Intel iAPX 432

The Datapoint 2200. Literally fucked the last 35 years of computing.

lol no the Duron 1.6ghz was slower than the early P4 1.8A
You're thinking of the Celerons.

You are being ironic, aren't you?

The 1.8A was a Northwood, therefore not one of the first Pentium 4s (i. e., Willamettes). What I said stands.

>all the desperate damage control intel reps defending netburst ITT

Holy shit, I literally can't stop laughing!


No, the Pentium 4 was literal dogshit.

The Durons were faster, and the MII was just late to market.

Nope, they lost to the Athlon 64 X2 on almost every benchmark.

Replace "Bulldozer" with "Netburst" and "AMD" with "Intel", you shill.

No it didn't because it was slower, you're an obvious shill.

The Willamette was an embarrassment to Intel, it managed to lost in performance to literal Pentium 3 clocked over half 1GHz below, and it used DoA RAMBUS RAM and caused housefires too.

Nice cherrypicking, but anyone can see the whole comparison here: anandtech.com/show/1201

Why would Intel defend Netburst if all modern Intel processors use the objectively superior Core architecture? They pretty much admitted that Netburst was a failure.

While the Celeron cannot keep apace with its older brother or the Duron at the same clock speeds, it has to run much faster by default - so it not only offers fast performance, but it fits perfectly into Intel's "clock speed sells" strategy.
In the end, it seems to work out: The Celeron Willamette 1.7 GHz is currently the fastest budget CPU. At $83, it is even slightly cheaper than AMD's Duron 1300 ($84).

tomshardware.co.uk/good-old-newbie,review-468-12.html

Celeron Willamette is faster overall than the Duron and cheaper.

Amd e1-2100.
No other modern processors can beat that garbage

ITT: faggots who think "worst CPU" = "worst consumer x86 CPU made by Intel/AMD"

MII was late, couldn't scale well, had fucking heat issues and had that fucking 83mhz bus that fucked everything up. Also Soundblaster was incompatible.

any AMD cpu

not even trolling, i don't mind their GPUs, but every AMD cpu I have ever used has been total shit and was really slow

>It was the Pentium D that was terrible.
Hello sir the 805 will see you now.

I think the only reason AMD is still making CPUs is so that Intel doesn't become a monopoly. Gotta have those fair-trade laws,

>Willamette Celerons were launched 15 May 2002, initially at 1.7 GHz, and offered a noticeable performance improvement over the older 1.3 GHz Tualatin-based Celeron part, being able to finally outperform an 1.3 GHz AMD Duron
>finally
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron#NetBurst-based_Celerons

Also, notice the launch date. Morgan Durons had been launched a full year earlier, and the 1300Mhz model was launched January that year.

Intel damage control shills literally grasping at straws at this point.

Damage control, son. They'd never admit their company has ever done something so embarrassing. They're literally trying to Correct the Record™.

>but the Durons were much faster than the first Pentium 4s.
So were the Pentium 3's

So was literally anything.

Holy fuck I don't ever wanna see that fucking name again! First time I delta with one it took 2 hours to install office 2007! 2 fucking hours! That is a truly a masterful piece of shit!

Spotted the Intel damage control shills trying to red-herring-derail an embarrassing thread for their company.

friend of mine had one, only time i've ever used one
ran at "2GHz", apparently, and had a whopping 64k of L2 cache which puts celerons to shame, and struggled terribly playing mp3's in winamp

Yeah the Willimette Celeron is the same as the Willimette P4 which still makes the Willimette P4 faster than the Duron which was the original argument.

Now you're shifting goal posts to Tualatin Celerons.

you shut your whore mouth

cool shitpost

I currently use an intel cpu with amd gpu, amd cpus are total shit

No I'm not, the Tualatins just happened in the citation like Pilate in the Creed, but the keyword there is "finally" (I even pointed that out for you). The point is: the first Willamettes were dogshit slower even than the Duron. The Celeron you mentioned didn't come up until much later.

This. I'm not a shill, I just use what works best.

₹2 have been deposited in your accounts ;^D

>implying 8350/20 wasn't the best price/ performance CPU on the market until recently

Got mine to 4.8 Niggahurtz, and it was the best experience I've had with any processor until very recently. I do love my 6700k, but damn, that 8350 was a little beast for awhile, there.

i5 6500 is a turd. upgrading to superior Zen asap.

Ever heard of the 9590? That shit melted a motherboard and boiled the liquid in a cooling loop.

>Pentium 3 had better performance

No shit, everyone knows that's why the i series was based off of the mobile variants of the Pentium III

>Replace "Bulldozer" with "Netburst" and "AMD" with "Intel", you shill.

P4 wasn't as bad as bulldozer was relative to competition at the time and it didn't cause Intel to lose 90% of their business' value on release.

Bulldozer killed AMD and has caused them to put out garbage products since it's release because they haven't had any money for R&D.

This. Mostly anything Via. Some exceptions but few.

The FX-9590 is faster than even the fastest Pentium 4.

It also destroys the computer it is in.

okay? and p4 is faster than the fastest amd k6

You're a fucking twat and also wrong

I had the Pentium D 805 and overclocked to over 9k Ghz. Was bretty good back then.

There are still plenty of P4s running out there in the world, too bad you can't say that for Durons har har.

i5-2500k.
At least mine is. Can't get past 4.3Ghz without 1.45 fucking volts.

>Intel releases product which is much slower and power-hungry that last generation
>business as usual for Intel

>AMD releases product which is just as fast as last generation
>AMD plummets and dies in the water

>th-there is no Intel monopoly guys, we swear!

You need to be wilfully blind not to see!

bulldozer was slower than 10h though.

In Eastern Europe people still game on Durons

youtube.com/watch?v=nUD44i5Aaq4

>There are still plenty of P4s running out there in the world
Unfortunately for our energy bills...

phenom ii x4 955 is the worst meme CPU ever made

that's why they still used them for cracking passwords.
stop spreading bullshit, faggots.

Thats not a northwood P4 you utter utter fucking terrible fucking utter cunt of a person

I always wonder what would happen if we pair run these old CPUs with DDR3 RAM. would it be just like the CPUs in phones, fast enough to play shitty games?

Anything with the letters "AMD" stamped on it.

I hope you're just pretending to be retarded.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_4_microprocessors#Northwood_.28130.C2.A0nm.29

Don't compare CPUs with the same number of "cores". Instead compare CPUs with the same number of floating point units like the FX-8170 and the Phenom II X4 940 BE. Then you will see that Bulldozer actually won.

Dumb Intel poster

Why isn't anyone mentioning VIA. their c6 series was a torture. Most of my junior school, we had to learn basic and dos off it. It is still so bad that google can't find a decent picture.

9000ghz?
Not bad but my ti82 can oc well over 9000ghz.

At least i got paid for shitposting :^)

you didnt though

The Pentium 4 also couldn't scale and had heat issues.

Depends on which version Northwoods and late 6XX 64bit cedarmills were decent

Prescott was the super housefire.

It better damn fucking well be.
Coincidentally, the i7-6700k is faster than even the fastest Athlon 64 X2.

>Implying that I limit myself to only x86

I had a mini-ITX PC with a 1GHz VIA C3 back in 2010, and it was slow as shit. it was struggling to play youtube videos at 240p

Yea, don't compare CPUs based on sane criteria, compare them in a way that makes a bad architecture look okay.

Celerons.
Any celerons.
Celerons literally = cancer.

Used it for four years before getting a decent processor. despite it being shit i still like it cos mine was a fucking trooper, oced to 4.8ghz for most of its life, earned itself a cushy retirement in my storage pc.

the first ones that had no L2 cache were really slow, and the netburst ones were shitty, but apart from that, celerons aren't that bad.

the original AMD Phenom
>slow
>TLB bug

>The z520 in the Vaio P.
>Goddamn Vaio, release a new one with an M processor. I'll happily give you my first born.
This
A new Vaio P would be perfect

I've never had anything but a bad experience with a celerons but that's probably because the rest of the hardware it was embedded into were pieces of crap too, reflecting its budget market.

Still, pretty muc h the only celeron I'd even think about considering are the skylake-era which seem pretty well regarded.

I just hear the word 'celeron' and after so many years of bad experiences I hear 'cancer' back.

>tfw I had a 3GHz Prescott back in the day

probably the original 8120 or the late 9590

literally literally housefires

>i5 6500 is a turd
lolwut

Buy IBM Power 9.

But this is the best CPU ever made.

Lower single thread performance than a much cheaper i3-6100.

There were cpus that litterally killed ISAs because they were trying too hard and couldn't deliver. Things like SPARC, CELL and Itanium literally died because they were terrible. Anyone bringing up any x86 cpus are just consumer whores.

x86 is shit though.

>posted from an x86-x64 machine