Best CPU's of all time?

has to be the e6600. I was shocked by the performance difference when I went from a 3.0ghz 630.
 
I'm probably dating myself here but one of my all time favorite CPUs was the AMD 386DX/40. I had a lot of fun with that chip.
 
Dan_D said:
The Super-7's were trash.
Click to expand...

Let's go down the list of why you are wrong about what you listed relative to what I posted:

AGP compatibility problems and a host of other issues.
Click to expand...

Had nothing to do with the socket or the bus but rather shitty VIA and SIS implementations.

Mainly shitty drivers.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the hardware.

On it's best day I hated the Super 7's.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the socket or bus.

Let's not forget it was home to the worst motherboard of all time. The FIC VA503+.
Click to expand...

One bad VIA board.

Really Dan? Super Socket 7 was a brilliant solution to a problem that would have killed AMD and none of your points had anything to do with Super Socket 7. What you should have said is "I hated VIA chipsets in 1998/1999" at least that would have been accurate. You will also notice I said under-appreciated, which it was and you demonstrated very nicely with your off the mark dislike of VIA not the processor or socket.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
#1 8088

This CPU makes the top spot only because it was the first to use the x86 instruction set. Although this instruction set is hardly the same anymore, it's influence is still present in today's microprocessors. This instruction set remains firmly entrenched and has been for the last three decades. There is no signs of it going away anytime soon either.
Click to expand...

Well, you can still use that instruction set; Intel's backwards-compatibility commitment means it's still a subset of what's available now. :p
 
Celeron 300A still one of my favs. Dual C300A goodness for a lot of fun, and pain, if you know what I mean when dealing with Tyan dual socket offerings.
 
They would have used the 8086 like IBM later did in its PS lines if it wasn't cheaper to go with the 8088, which actually came later.

Now Pentium 66MHz were a rare sight for the same reason, everyone usually went with the 60MHz if at all because of cost. Same with the 100MHz once it became available. My Gateway tower, which I still use to this day with an I7 in it now, came with 16MB RAM, 1GB hard drive, 17" monitor, and Pentium 100MHz, for around $4500 in March 1995....the 120MHz came out later that year. Even that was a good price for top of the line in those days, the first Pentium systems were well north of $6000 during 1993-1994.

So I'll have to add Pentium 100 to the list...it served me well until 1999.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
Celeron 300A still one of my favs. Dual C300A goodness for a lot of fun, and pain, if you know what I mean when dealing with Tyan dual socket offerings.
Click to expand...

I believe I paid $1200 for my two 300As, slotkets cooling and Epox mobo. I am pretty sure I ran them at 466 or 500 MHz. This was my first paid overclock system. I mean I got chips tested to run together with the board and guaranteed to do 466 stable,
 
Definitely the Celeron 300A That chip got some mad loving in my circle of friends.
Following that I'd say my ol 386SX16, it didn't really get interesting until I gave it to a friend and he overclocked it and had to keep replacing jumpers that "jumped" off the board.
 
amd k7 fastest for its time,beat intel badly
athlon 64 with its onboard memory controller...beat the hell out of p4
core 2 duo finally beat amd and o/clocked like mad.
i7 the most impressive cpu ive ever come across
 
Def my 2 fav processors that I have owned are my Pentium Pro 200 w/ 2MB L2 cache on it. Also a very close second was my AMD FX-60. Then I upgraded to my current rig. Both very good machines...
 
i7-920 is my #1 favorite
second is Q9650
and third is the E8400
all three are OCing monsters that can easily do 4.5GHz
 
id have to say the 2500xp barton core that was the overclockers cpu of choice when it came out most of them could easily do 3200xp speeds and greater and had a whopping 512kb l2 cache compared to the 256kb l2 cache of the 2500xp thoroughbred
 
Well, there are others I think are good, but I have to admit that 939 dualcore cpu's were the best.

reason, they were the first to have proper dual core support as said earlier in the thread, plus even now, 5 years on, the high end 939 chips are still great chips for pc's.

I have had 3800 4400 4800 and fx60, the 48 and fx60 can play all the latest games, and windows is still uber fast, ok some games can be a struggle, but with proper tweaking they play perfectly.

So I would have to say that they are my numero uno chip's. Although there are more worthy chips from years earlier and years later, but the x2's are my fav's.
 
I had my Pentium 60 for 4 years and I've had my Q6600 G0 for over 3 years so I vote for those.
 
Roman79 said:
Although I've never owned one, my vote goes to the Q6600. If I could go back in time to when they first came out, I'd just fork out the extra initial cash and I'd probably have saved money over the 2 or 3 AMD platforms I've had since.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is that the Q6600 was $850 when they first appeared. I got mine after the first major price drop when they hit $549.99 or something like that. I still have that CPU running my HTPC. Definitely worth the investment. It's probably the CPU I've had in active service the longest ever. Aside from my Pentium Pro 180's anyway. Those served about as long I believe.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
Let's go down the list of why you are wrong about what you listed relative to what I posted:



Had nothing to do with the socket or the bus but rather shitty VIA and SIS implementations.



Nothing to do with the hardware.



Nothing to do with the socket or bus.



One bad VIA board.

Really Dan? Super Socket 7 was a brilliant solution to a problem that would have killed AMD and none of your points had anything to do with Super Socket 7. What you should have said is "I hated VIA chipsets in 1998/1999" at least that would have been accurate. You will also notice I said under-appreciated, which it was and you demonstrated very nicely with your off the mark dislike of VIA not the processor or socket.
Click to expand...

Your right, I should have worded my post differently.

It wasn't the socket itself that was trash. It was every chipset that used it that was shit. That is very much at the core of why the platform sucked. Yeah it kept AMD afloat during a turbulent time, and the platform as a whole saw some moderate success due to being relatively inexpensive and compatible with older Intel Pentium MMX CPUs. As for the CPU it was amazing in that it was really good given the outdated platform and bad chipsets those CPUs were paired with. Still it wasn't a match for the Pentium II and like the Phenom / Phenom II's of today the only thing it really has going for it is price.

EVIL-SCOTSMAN said:
Well, there are others I think are good, but I have to admit that 939 dualcore cpu's were the best.

reason, they were the first to have proper dual core support as said earlier in the thread, plus even now, 5 years on, the high end 939 chips are still great chips for pc's.

I have had 3800 4400 4800 and fx60, the 48 and fx60 can play all the latest games, and windows is still uber fast, ok some games can be a struggle, but with proper tweaking they play perfectly.

So I would have to say that they are my numero uno chip's. Although there are more worthy chips from years earlier and years later, but the x2's are my fav's.
Click to expand...

"Proper" dual core support is really a BS argument. While I'll agree that the solution was far more elegant than the dual die's shoved into one package that Intel used, the approach alone didn't matter. The Core 2 Quad's were dual core CPUs with properly integrated dies sandwiched together. Those Core 2 Quad's absolutely raped the more elegant Phenom processors which were a more "proper" setup. So where the rubber meets the road the "native" or "proper" approach doesn't mean a damn thing and it never did.
 
Dan_D said:
What's funny is that you guys keep talking about the Pentium 90. I've seen very, very few of them. I've seen more Pentium 75's and Pentium 100's than I ever did the 90's.
Click to expand...

Still got my old gateway P90 in the attic - all i need is a PSU and i bet the damn thing would still boot!!
 
My top 3 notible cpu's that I have owned

3# Amd K6-2 - cheap and overclocks well (350mhz @ 550mhz)
2# Amd's Burton (I had a few) - same reasons as above
1# Intel Q6600 - First quadcore for the masses, overclocks well and nearly 3 years on it is still ample cpu for most
 
x2 3800 brisbane
celeron 300a
p2 300 slw2a stepping.
p3 500 coppermine
athlon 1200 slot a
q9550
i7 920 d0
 
My favorite processor setup was dual Pentium III 600's (the 100MHz FSB version) on an ABIT VP6 mobo. Easy bump to 133FSB @ stock voltage. Never could get them past that point, though. Anyone remember Golden Orb HSFs?
 
The cheap Dual-Cores from a few years back.... best bang for the buck EVER for almost all of basic internet/computer users.

My Pentium D was under 199 bucks new with a motherboard included (and that was years ago) and it will likely be used by someone until it fries out of life.

Just a reliable, cheap CPU that will do just about anything you ask of it.... just awesome.

the new i7's are supposed to be a little overkill for most PC people *youtubing, craigslisting, googleers, etcetc but may be more of a popular choice for techy people
 
celeron 333a

AMD Barton 2500+ mobile

Original AMD A64

Early Conroe series

q6600

q9550
 
Dan_D said:
Your right, I should have worded my post differently.

It wasn't the socket itself that was trash. It was every chipset that used it that was shit. That is very much at the core of why the platform sucked. Yeah it kept AMD afloat during a turbulent time, and the platform as a whole saw some moderate success due to being relatively inexpensive and compatible with older Intel Pentium MMX CPUs. As for the CPU it was amazing in that it was really good given the outdated platform and bad chipsets those CPUs were paired with. Still it wasn't a match for the Pentium II and like the Phenom / Phenom II's of today the only thing it really has going for it is price.



"Proper" dual core support is really a BS argument. While I'll agree that the solution was far more elegant than the dual die's shoved into one package that Intel used, the approach alone didn't matter. The Core 2 Quad's were dual core CPUs with properly integrated dies sandwiched together. Those Core 2 Quad's absolutely raped the more elegant Phenom processors which were a more "proper" setup. So where the rubber meets the road the "native" or "proper" approach doesn't mean a damn thing and it never did.
Click to expand...

The X2's were the first with an intergrated memory controller and intergrated multi cores on a single die, which counts for something regardless if you dont think so. Admittedly the quads were fast and did rape the X2's, but this thread isnt about "the fastest cpu".

If as you say, it doesnt matter about how they are implemented, then how is it that since that day when the X2's first came out, how is it that nearly all new multi core cpu's followed the same approach more or less by putting all the cores onto a single die, then followed a couple of years later by intel intergrating the memory controller, if it didnt matter, then why do it ?

So why even mention the C2Q's ? so it was faster, wow, I would expect a quad to be faster than a sckt 939 cpu. The point I was making was that the X2's were a breakthrough in the way they were designed and made, which has translated onto nearly every mutlicore chip released since then.

Certainly amd and intel seem to think that it matters, only you dont. If it didnt matter, the i7's would carry on from the 6600's.

Hence it's MY fav chip.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sherk said:
My favorite processor setup was dual Pentium III 600's (the 100MHz FSB version) on an ABIT VP6 mobo. Easy bump to 133FSB @ stock voltage. Never could get them past that point, though. Anyone remember Golden Orb HSFs?
Click to expand...

Yep, I remember the piece of trash Golden Orb heatsinks.... The $10 cheapy heatsinks we sold during the same timeframe cooled just as good if not better.
 
Sherk said:
My favorite processor setup was dual Pentium III 600's (the 100MHz FSB version) on an ABIT VP6 mobo. Easy bump to 133FSB @ stock voltage. Never could get them past that point, though. Anyone remember Golden Orb HSFs?
Click to expand...

I had a pair of slot 1 P3 coppermine 600s running at 866 in a Tyan Tiger 133 motherboard with golden orbs for coolers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top