![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Ali had a decent chipset though that I had in Asus form with DDR2100.
EDIT: This one: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/asusa7a266.php
It would be nice to include all of AMD's CPU's in a poll, especially when the title says "Best EVER AMD cpu?"
Starting at the oldest best ever-est CPU AMD ever came out with:
1) AMD 5x86 for the 486 platform
2) AMD K-6 III, awesome awesome Quake II running CPU
3) AMD K-6 2+/3+, great lappy CPU's for the Socket 7 and cheap as well and worked on most desktop Super 7 motherboards
3) AMD Thunderbird - Top of the line performance, put Intel into an embarrasing spot with them releasing overclocked P3's to try to keep up with AMD
4) AMD Athlon MP -blew the Xeon's out of the water with the EV6 FSB architecture, and at a fraction of the cost
5) AMD Barton - finally the L2 cache to let the K7 stretch it's legs
6) AMD Mobile XP - fricking awesome, I had one that would run and still runs at 2.6Ghz
7) The Athlon64 - the 64 bit shit is as lame as MMX and SSE are, just marketing crap, the real deal is the integrated memory controller.
Starting at the oldest best ever-est CPU AMD ever came out with:
1) AMD 5x86 for the 486 platform
2) AMD K-6 III, awesome awesome Quake II running CPU
3) AMD K-6 2+/3+, great lappy CPU's for the Socket 7 and cheap as well and worked on most desktop Super 7 motherboards
3) AMD Thunderbird - Top of the line performance, put Intel into an embarrasing spot with them releasing overclocked P3's to try to keep up with AMD
4) AMD Athlon MP -blew the Xeon's out of the water with the EV6 FSB architecture, and at a fraction of the cost
5) AMD Barton - finally the L2 cache to let the K7 stretch it's legs
6) AMD Mobile XP - fricking awesome, I had one that would run and still runs at 2.6Ghz
7) The Athlon64 - the 64 bit shit is as lame as MMX and SSE are, just marketing crap, the real deal is the integrated memory controller.
Desdichado
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2006
- Messages
- 331
Athlon XP
It put AMD on the map for normal users. Mine is 5 years old and still running strong.
It put AMD on the map for normal users. Mine is 5 years old and still running strong.
Phelptwan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 6,915
My fav was my 2500 barton.
X2
i would have voted amd64 (come on, ive owned a clawhammer, that thing was kickass) but i just couldnt do that to my X2 machine
also, turion X2 would be a close second, i love my TL-56 equiped 12" MSI laptop, sure it doesnt beat core 2 duo, but any pentium M or core duo is fair game for it
i would have voted amd64 (come on, ive owned a clawhammer, that thing was kickass) but i just couldnt do that to my X2 machine
also, turion X2 would be a close second, i love my TL-56 equiped 12" MSI laptop, sure it doesnt beat core 2 duo, but any pentium M or core duo is fair game for it
I voted for A64.
Mostly because its the chip that I found was the easiest for me to play around with in my price range, and because it could take a beating.
I've built two machines, one with an athlon64 3000+ and one with an A64 3800+ and they both run nice and cool. The pentiums of the time couldn't even keep up!
But nowadays, I would have to say that x2 takes the cake. I'm just stubborn and like my a64 chips more than my x2 4400+
Mostly because its the chip that I found was the easiest for me to play around with in my price range, and because it could take a beating.
I've built two machines, one with an athlon64 3000+ and one with an A64 3800+ and they both run nice and cool. The pentiums of the time couldn't even keep up!
But nowadays, I would have to say that x2 takes the cake. I'm just stubborn and like my a64 chips more than my x2 4400+
My Top 3:
1) Athlon T-Bird - Cheap overclockable Intel killer - Brought the socket back and opened up the market for some great socket heatsinks.
2) Athlon Barton Mobile - Cheap overclocking monster
3) Athlon 64 - SSE2 & 3(eventually) Runs cool - On-die memory controller
Honorable Mention: K6-3 - L3 Cache For the Win
1) Athlon T-Bird - Cheap overclockable Intel killer - Brought the socket back and opened up the market for some great socket heatsinks.
2) Athlon Barton Mobile - Cheap overclocking monster
3) Athlon 64 - SSE2 & 3(eventually) Runs cool - On-die memory controller
Honorable Mention: K6-3 - L3 Cache For the Win
I voted the opteron. But when selecting that option I was considering the original AMD s940 opteron architecture that paved the way for athlon64, x2 and so on.
I own an opteron 170 now but I don't think that is their best although it is quite good.
I would kill for a dual socket s940 system with two single core 3.0ghz opterons... to me, that is the perfect system... even though it isn't the fastest.
Haha... tell that to the folks in research, web services, distributed computing, people with 4gb or more RAM, ect... some people seem to forget that there are people out there that use a computer for more then games.
If even for just the increased memory address space, 64bit computing will be an everyday reality for most of us in the near future.
I own an opteron 170 now but I don't think that is their best although it is quite good.
I would kill for a dual socket s940 system with two single core 3.0ghz opterons... to me, that is the perfect system... even though it isn't the fastest.
Haha... tell that to the folks in research, web services, distributed computing, people with 4gb or more RAM, ect... some people seem to forget that there are people out there that use a computer for more then games.
If even for just the increased memory address space, 64bit computing will be an everyday reality for most of us in the near future.
FlowGaming
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 150
Opteron 165 3.0 
well, IMO it was the AXP, at the time those 1600+/2100+ cpus were faster than anyhting intel had a less that half the cost.
I dont see how people voted on the opteron, by the time the opteron s939 CPUs came out, intel was king (or soon going to be with the c2d release) the opteron never really had its time to shine. It did but only for a very short time.
not that im compling about a opty 180 at 3Ghz and paid under $200 for it.
I dont see how people voted on the opteron, by the time the opteron s939 CPUs came out, intel was king (or soon going to be with the c2d release) the opteron never really had its time to shine. It did but only for a very short time.
not that im compling about a opty 180 at 3Ghz and paid under $200 for it.
I agree with you there, but I am refering to AMD's marketing of the Athlon64 to the consumer market and using the 64bit fact as the focus point, when in fact there was no 64-bit OS being loaded on those PC's and there still isn't, even though one is available in the form of XP-64. So in fact, the Athlon64 is not being used as a 64-bit processor, but instead a 32-bit processor. So, to sum it up, AMD was marketing a feature that could not be used. Pretty lame and just as bad as Intel marketing the P4 with it's "NetBurst Architecture" to speed up the internet.
This is a close one. I would have to say the original Slot A athlons. After the K6-2, I don't think anyone thought that AMD could compete with Intel when dealing with apps that needed a fast FPU. The K7 showed real hope, and it delivered. It really changed the name of the game (at least after good motherboards came out). I remember buying the K7 600 and enjoying the crazy advantage it had over the K6-2 266 that it replaced.
The K6 line was also awesome for providing excellent integer performance at a cheap price. Overall, this would be 2nd or 3rd when talking about chips. This chip provided a fast (as long as we're not talking FPU) and cheap alternative. It used a Socket 7 interface, which had a great deal of support at the time thanks to the Pentium chips.
Tied with the K6 would be the X2. Excellent performance, reduced power consumption over competitor, and it wasn't blazing hot. However, AMD started charging a premium for their chips at this point, but a premium myself and others were willing to pay. The X2 3800+ at 2.5 was one fast little chip. They are also decent overclockers. This also solidified the image of AMD when discussing the performance advantage. This chip really distinguished itself over the P-Ds.
I have also owned a Thunderbird. This chip was nice, but not spectacular. My 900 could only reliably do 950 but my 1.2C could do 1.4, and still does. However, at 1 GHz the Coppermine was highly competitive on performance. The T-Bird still did quite well at very FPU intensive tasks, but in other things the Coppermine pulled ahead, partly due to better chipsets. The T-Bird later pulled away thanks to the clock speed advantage.
The AXP, IMHO, really helped bring AMD into the mainstream. At this point, their chips were cheap and plentiful. Chipset support improved and we started to see awesome chipsets like the nforce and nforce2. AMD also went through some process shrinks. AMD dominated performance when the P4 was first introduced, but lost the performance crown when Intel released the Northwoods. T-Bred A fell on its face, but T-Bred B was a really nice chip. My T-Bred B still does 2.3. However, I replaced this chip with a P4 2.8C that does 3.5. I never owned a Barton, but I've heard good things.
The A64 was a nice chip that used less power than the Prescotts. However, benchmarks still went back and forth between the two. Encoding usually went to the Prescotts while FPU intensive tasks usually went to the A64. There was also the socket problem at release where the FXs were released on 940 and the A64 released on 754. Both sockets were killed on the desktop. However, AMD succeeded in making this chip very popular and this really helped them gain market share. It also introduced 64-bit processing on the desktop, although it hasn't really taken hold. In the future, we may look back and recognize the importance of going to 64-bit at this time, but that's up to the future. It also set the precedent of having an IMC in the core, something which Intel will later do.
That's my opinion of the different AMD chips. I hope next year will provide me with a chip which will be the new #1. It can replace my Conroe.
The K6 line was also awesome for providing excellent integer performance at a cheap price. Overall, this would be 2nd or 3rd when talking about chips. This chip provided a fast (as long as we're not talking FPU) and cheap alternative. It used a Socket 7 interface, which had a great deal of support at the time thanks to the Pentium chips.
Tied with the K6 would be the X2. Excellent performance, reduced power consumption over competitor, and it wasn't blazing hot. However, AMD started charging a premium for their chips at this point, but a premium myself and others were willing to pay. The X2 3800+ at 2.5 was one fast little chip. They are also decent overclockers. This also solidified the image of AMD when discussing the performance advantage. This chip really distinguished itself over the P-Ds.
I have also owned a Thunderbird. This chip was nice, but not spectacular. My 900 could only reliably do 950 but my 1.2C could do 1.4, and still does. However, at 1 GHz the Coppermine was highly competitive on performance. The T-Bird still did quite well at very FPU intensive tasks, but in other things the Coppermine pulled ahead, partly due to better chipsets. The T-Bird later pulled away thanks to the clock speed advantage.
The AXP, IMHO, really helped bring AMD into the mainstream. At this point, their chips were cheap and plentiful. Chipset support improved and we started to see awesome chipsets like the nforce and nforce2. AMD also went through some process shrinks. AMD dominated performance when the P4 was first introduced, but lost the performance crown when Intel released the Northwoods. T-Bred A fell on its face, but T-Bred B was a really nice chip. My T-Bred B still does 2.3. However, I replaced this chip with a P4 2.8C that does 3.5. I never owned a Barton, but I've heard good things.
The A64 was a nice chip that used less power than the Prescotts. However, benchmarks still went back and forth between the two. Encoding usually went to the Prescotts while FPU intensive tasks usually went to the A64. There was also the socket problem at release where the FXs were released on 940 and the A64 released on 754. Both sockets were killed on the desktop. However, AMD succeeded in making this chip very popular and this really helped them gain market share. It also introduced 64-bit processing on the desktop, although it hasn't really taken hold. In the future, we may look back and recognize the importance of going to 64-bit at this time, but that's up to the future. It also set the precedent of having an IMC in the core, something which Intel will later do.
That's my opinion of the different AMD chips. I hope next year will provide me with a chip which will be the new #1. It can replace my Conroe
.I agree with you - the 64 was impressive of course, but it was the Thunderbird that got a lot of people to realize Intel wasn't the only game in town.
![[Spectre]](/data/avatars/m/89/89728.jpg?1455675927){kind=avatar}
[Spectre]
I Will Find You
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 24,889
Am486DX4-120
LunchboX3904
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,524
Voted for the a 64.
while it didn't start the intel smashing, it did put the biggest hurt on them and held it there for quite awhile.
while it didn't start the intel smashing, it did put the biggest hurt on them and held it there for quite awhile.