The Intel P4 netburst prescott needs to make this list too. Might as well throw the entire P4 line in there while they are at it.
Top 5 Worst CPUs: Let's Have a Little Fun
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
The press has alot to answer for . At times certain publications look little more than publicity materials for the chips.
Never buy on the word of a journalist as soon as something comes out .wait,wait, wait. Whether it's chips or phones first impressions are so often bad . Better to wait a couple of months especially with high end stuff.
Never buy on the word of a journalist as soon as something comes out .wait,wait, wait. Whether it's chips or phones first impressions are so often bad . Better to wait a couple of months especially with high end stuff.
Last edited:
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,438 +10,205
I really dont think the newer generation is so dense they cant use google. Even the early gen y individuals will have used pentium IVs, especially in schools.
I DO think, though, that netburst in general deserves an honorable mention for sucking as hard as it did.
Reehahs
Posts: 1,297 +970
DynamoNED
Posts: 19 +7
As a long-time AMD fan, I remember well the massive disappointment that was Faildozer. I was using a Phenom II X6 1055T at the time and was excited to move to an FX-8150. Thankfully, I looked before I leaped, and was confused that my CPU was performing better in most of the benchmarks. I stuck on the 1055T for 3 more years as my main rig, before moving to a Core i7-3820 system I got secondhand. At least I can enjoy my Rzyen 7 now...
hood6558
Posts: 353 +110
You included Kaby Lake X CPUs for what reason? Because you don't understand why Intel released them? Your AMD bias is showing - i7-7740X has the best single thread performance of all CPUs. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
KLX also overclocks higher than any other, 5.3-5.5 GHz on air/water, on the best ones.
This should actually be on the list of the BEST CPUs of all time, the pinnacle of the quad-core era.and I'm sure it will be, once reviewers get tired of bashing Intel out of ignorance. Your inclusion of i7-6950X is more Intel-bashing, it was the absolute best consumer CPU of all time when released, and it's price was okay with the people who bought them, they obviously could afford it. Including the i3-7350K was also misguided - it's #4 on the single thread performance list, not bad for $140.
I know everyone has AMD fever lately, But why damage your credibility as a journalist by publishing this obvious click-bait?
KLX also overclocks higher than any other, 5.3-5.5 GHz on air/water, on the best ones.
This should actually be on the list of the BEST CPUs of all time, the pinnacle of the quad-core era.and I'm sure it will be, once reviewers get tired of bashing Intel out of ignorance. Your inclusion of i7-6950X is more Intel-bashing, it was the absolute best consumer CPU of all time when released, and it's price was okay with the people who bought them, they obviously could afford it. Including the i3-7350K was also misguided - it's #4 on the single thread performance list, not bad for $140.
I know everyone has AMD fever lately, But why damage your credibility as a journalist by publishing this obvious click-bait?
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,438 +10,205
Calm down intel fanboi. (because the only people screaming about a reviewer being an AMD fanboi are butt hurt intel fanbois).
Poor pricing, **** TIM, too high of a price, gimped PCIE and memory performance, and being quad cores on an enthusiast HDET platform in 2017 are all good reasons to classify that chip as a junk chip.
Lol best chip ever, not by a LONG shot. The i7 920, the 2500k, 1090t, ece are all better candidates.
High prices are terrible for gamers and endusers alike. Intel is the king of overpricing. The 7740x is best example of overpricing. And they'll get on the way going in and on the way going out, you pay more for the CPU and you need to pay more for motherboard. There is no disputing this fact. Extreme editions is Intel milking donations to the extreme, everyone knows this. The i3-7350K is horrid at $140, especially when you can get Ryzen 3s for $100 and it is especially bad when you can get
and i5 for $154 see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/432161/Core_i5-4590_Haswell_33_GHz_LGA_1150_Boxed_Processor?ob=1
Intel i3 should have a max ceilling price of $90.
BadThad
Posts: 1,357 +1,634
Cyrix processors SUCKED. However, they did have good bang-for-the-buck when they were out. At the time, Intel CPU's were way, way overpriced.
You did not get Cyrix to get top line performance. You got cyrix to save money and it target applications were to a class of machines that needed even less performance than celerons. I had one for linux printserver and it worked great, saves power, ran headless and cheaper than getting some overpriced HP network print module.
Oh god I did too, and worse still I got a Dell. I got about 2-3 years out of it. Was crazy not to self build.
Stingy McDuck
Posts: 300 +268
$13000 would get me a second hand car in very good shape. Please, tell me you didn't use that PC for gaming only LOL.
namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
Worst, immediately after building it I got into some major legal trouble (remember napster or whatever it was called ). I got wind of it before cops showed up, so I gave it to my sister. I enjoyed it for about 1 month.
hood6558
Posts: 353 +110
Of course you don't understand the importance of single-tread performance, you're an AMD fan, and you've never had it, so you think a slug like Ryzen is fast. You'll eventually figure it out...
hood6558
Posts: 353 +110
That's why they sell Ryzen, so people who don't know better can get cheap crap. People who can read and think will always choose Intel, and who cares about price? Cheap is for losers...
TempleOrion
Posts: 116 +98
dirtyferret
Posts: 899 +1,274
No mention of the original Phenom, three and four core processors that could barely break 2ghz. The Phenom I and II series were a precursor to the new FX and Ryzen chips.
There's always one in every comment section...
namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
Not trolling, I'm implying that you're full of shyte stating that you spent $13K on a P4 system. Then on top of it, you claim you gave it away one month later. Neither statement sounds even remotely believable. Elaborate on this "$13,000 P4 system" or it didn't happen.Aww how cute, a Troll is going fishing (y)
namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
Dude! That was sum 17 years ago! I can tell you I put 4 of the biggest Seagate barracuda drives you could get at the time. I believe they were around 256gig each, I remember being so happy because I had 1TB of harddrive, all in raid 0. At that time I had to buy a separate card for the raid because the motherboard didn't offer it, and it was hard to find a SATA raid controller, but I did, and I put 64megs of ram on it for cache. I also remember I didn't know **** back then " and still now " about raid and all, and after I had the system set up I got the bright idea to change the cluster size for better performance and lost it all.
Don't remember the video card, but it was the top of the line at that time.
Don't remember the amount of ram, but I remember it was corsair with silver heat spreaders, and it was the max amount that was offered at the time.
The CPU was a P4, not the top of the line one, but the SKU number was a great overclocker.
Case was LianLi
Monitor was a Viewsonic 24" CRT. I remember that clearly because it pissed me off when I got the monitor in and there were 2 horizontal lines across the monitor. I called Viewsonic and it wasn't a defect, it had something to do with how they make their monitors, it was 2 wires inside the monitor that held something.
Anyways, don't know why I took your bait but I did.
People have hobbies, at that time, I wanted to build the most elaborate computer I could, and at that time I was still living with my parents, but was working 60+ hours a week, so I had money to build a stupid ridiculous computer. People collect baseball cards, hotwheels, bottle caps, vintage consoles, you name it, and people spend outrageous amounts of money on their hobbies. To call them liars just because you wouldn't shows how narrow minded you are.
I got a wife and kid now, I got my own place, I still work the 60+ hours a week, but I see none of it anymore. As much as I would like to still build an awesome computer I cant afford it now, I have to provide for my family. I got a new hobby I guess, and in the end its going to be much more rewarding.
PS: You were Trolling, and you did a good job
I'm sure you had a nice system for the day, but it doesn't seem possible to have spent $13,000 on one rig for home use in ~2000 when the P4 came out. SLI/Crossfire weren't a thing until 2004/2005 respectively, so it's not like you were driving multiple GPUs.
I'm not narrow minded, but I know my tech enough that unless you were duped into spending ten times the retail price for each component, $13K can't be accurate. It's not about whether I would do it, it has to do with knowing what was available back then and realizing the math doesn't work.
Listen, it's not that important; you stated something that I don't believe and this happens everywhere, all the time... I'm thinking this one of those "I caught a fish this big" stories, where every year the hands get wider apart.
GreenNova343
Posts: 454 +336
And when was the last time that you ran a single-thread application -- not just an application that could actually run on a 1C/1T CPU, but one that will only ever use a single thread (even if it were to run on a 16C/32T CPU) -- & that was the only application running? When was the last time that you had a multi-core/multi-thread CPU that was running a separate application on every single thread, so that every application only had access to the resources of a single thread at any given time?
Not to mention that you're missing the point as to why those Intel chips made the list:
-- i7-6950X was on there because it offered very little performance improvement (from your single-thread PassMark chart, it was only 7.63% faster than its i7-5960X predecessor) for a massive increase in cost (based on current costs from that same chart, it's still 63.37% more expensive). In fact, because of the massive price difference (currently $640 USD), consider this: you could buy the i7-6950X & pair it with a GTX 1050 for $1,770 USD...or pair the i7-5960X with a GTX 1080TI for $1,750 USD. Or, if you're not trying to build a gaming machine, & just plan on using the iGPU, you can spend $1,650 for the i7-6950X without anything else (no motherboard, no RAM, etc.)...or buld a complete system with the i7-5960X.
-- i7-7740X was on the chart because it didn't bring anything new. Remember, they just took their i7-7700K chip, OC'd it a bit (remember that 1T PassMark chart you referenced? Take the i7-7700K's result, calculate its PassMark-to-GHz ratio, multiply it by the 4.3GHz of the i7-7740X...& you get the i7-7740X's result), & put it into the LGA 2066 package so that it needs the more expensive X299 motherboards (even though it can't use all of those boards features -- https://www.techspot.com/review/1442-intel-kaby-lake-x/). That was the point: not that the CPU had bad performance, but that because of the package choice & motherboard requirements it makes no sense.
People who can read & think don't just buy a product because it's from Company X. They read the reviews, they read the benchmarks...& they read their bank account balance statement, rather than just assuming there's room on the credit card "to pay for it later", or that someone else will cover it for you. The vast majority of computer buyers don't have the luxury (for whatever reason) of simply saying, "money is no object". They have house payments (or monthly rental payments), car payments, (generally) student loans, & other expenditures that they have to worry about. When your PC purchase is more than your monthly house payment, or costs more than a family trip to Walt Disney World (or a nice vacation for 2 to Hawaii or Europe), you take a long, hard look at what your money is buying you. If buying System A only gives you a 5-10% improvement in performance over System B, but costs you 20% more (which means a few hundred dollars, remember), you start questioning whether it wouldn't be better to have that extra $200-300 to spend on something else...like maybe another flatscreen TV, or a 2nd/3rd monitor for the PC, or even be able to buy a few new games for that new PC.
pencea
Posts: 351 +336
Really mate?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
BlizzGone: Blizzard cancels 2024 convention but promises an eventual return- GodisanAtheist replied
