agent_x007 wrote:

Seriosly ? Dual Core with HT is that much slower than my OC'd Celeron D ? Wow... maybe In-order Atoms (basicly : a pre-PentiumPr […]
Show full quote

Carlos S. M. wrote:

btw. Your crazy OC'd Celeron D scored better than my dual core Atom D525 on Windows 7 WEI (4.9 vs 3.5)

Seriosly ?
Dual Core with HT is that much slower than my OC'd Celeron D ?
Wow... maybe In-order Atoms (basicly : a pre-PentiumPro idea with new twist), should be added to worst CPUs ever created list ?
Source : LINK

I actually like Atoms. Sure they’re as fast as some Netburst Celerons, but consume far less power and are quick enough for playing a selection of XP games.

Look at the power draw for an ATOM processor. Then look at Pentium 4.

There is no comparison. It's like comparing a 70's muscle car to a new hybrid. The muscle car gets 10 MPG on the highway where the hybrid will get 50? mpg and it's safer.

The problem with atom was stupid companies selling netbooks to people who were expecting a full power laptop. Atom was glorious for little light netbooks for school.

I love netbooks. They're so convenient. The big problem with them was Intel intentionally crippling the graphics capabilities to avoid taking away from Centrino sales. That and shipping some with GMA500 graphics.

An Atom with hardware H264 decode has a lot of utility, even now. This is why the Ion chipset from NVidia was so cool.

computergeek92 wrote:

Silly you know, post your idea of worst computer builds and compare 'em.

The worst builds ever? i820 chipset MTH + any CPU was hands down the worst build I've ever had to deal with because it would self-destruct after an hour and need to be reinstalled again. Never mind any other part in the system. Everything else could at least get to a running stage, I could not believe Intel would sell such an thing.

So let me tell you about my second cursed system:
- Intel Xeon X3220 2.4Ghz (got swapped with a 1.6Ghz C2D)
- Gigabyte P45 (got swapped back to P35 after self-destructing)
- 4GB ram
- Radeon 2600 XT (failed)
- 700watt PSU (replaced once)

Every part in this system failed at some point, including the chassis fans. I'm still using the chassis and the replacement PSU in the current system, but everything else has been replaced since the original build.

My current build is a Haswell i7 which is also cursed, but it's manageable. This is Intel CPU #3 that has been cursed with crashing under video playback, only this time it's the Quicksync feature on the iGPU. AMD unfortunately is less compatible and I already know it won't work with the X-fi sound card.

Kind of sad that the Atom these days performs better than the mobile Celeron, while drawing less power! (Don't quote me on that last part, haven't checked but it would make sense)

Not kidding, the Z3735F runs a ring or two around the N3050. Although, it could be the extra cores the Atom has helping out... the Cherry Trail series only widens the gap.

I don't think I've ever had a system that was "cursed" but I have had parts fail over the years, mostly because my idiot self decided to push it beyond spec.

What I would consider the "worst" computer build:

Northwood Celeron at 1.6GHz, on a i850 (RDRAM) motherboard. 64MB of RAM. Some kind of ISA Cirrus Logic card, 4GB CF card, Windows XP Pro, 4x CD-ROM drive.

luckybob wrote:

The problem with atom was stupid companies selling netbooks to people who were expecting a full power laptop. Atom was glorious for little light netbooks for school.

The problem I have had with netbooks is not as much the CPU or the built-in graphics. Even though both were crippled. No, my biggest problem is non-standard displays, which don't allow many programs to run correctly.

Sedrosken wrote:

Kind of sad that the Atom these days performs better than the mobile Celeron, while drawing less power! (Don't quote me on that […]
Show full quote

Kind of sad that the Atom these days performs better than the mobile Celeron, while drawing less power! (Don't quote me on that last part, haven't checked but it would make sense)

Not kidding, the Z3735F runs a ring or two around the N3050. Although, it could be the extra cores the Atom has helping out... the Cherry Trail series only widens the gap.

I don't think I've ever had a system that was "cursed" but I have had parts fail over the years, mostly because my idiot self decided to push it beyond spec.

What I would consider the "worst" computer build:

Northwood Celeron at 1.6GHz, on a i850 (RDRAM) motherboard. 64MB of RAM. Some kind of ISA Cirrus Logic card, 4GB CF card, Windows XP Pro, 4x CD-ROM drive.

Bay-Trail and Braswell/Cherry-Trail weren't that much different, in fact is only a 14 nm die shnirk of Bay-Trail without any/significant IPC improvement, in fact, the Pentium N3700 loses to the Pentium N3540 and 3530 which is supossed to replace

About that Celeron build, replace the i850 RDRAM with an i845 SDRAM and you'll get even worse perfomance by bottlenecking the memory subsystem

stamasd wrote:

luckybob wrote:

The problem with atom was stupid companies selling netbooks to people who were expecting a full power laptop. Atom was glorious for little light netbooks for school.

The problem I have had with netbooks is not as much the CPU or the built-in graphics. Even though both were crippled. No, my biggest problem is non-standard displays, which don't allow many programs to run correctly.

Yeah, 1024x600 was an issue in many programs, especially ones which requiered 1024x768

Here we go, worked on one of these once, was painful

E-Machines
Celeron 1.6
128mb PC133
Geforce 2 MX200
Windows XP
20gb 5400RPM Hard Drive

Thing was so slow, the user bought it at wal-mart for 400 dollars in 2003.

My Netbook isn't a Windows PC, so non-standard res doesn't bother me.

I got a good one that I used to have.

half working Asus sk370 via mobo (forgot which one)
1.5gb cl2 pc133 ram
fx5950 ultra.
140gb 10k rpm hdd with pci sata card

sounds good so far 🤣

1.2ghz via c3 cpu and vista

😵 🤣

Jade Falcon wrote:

I got a good one that I used to have. […]
Show full quote

I got a good one that I used to have.

half working Asus sk370 via mobo (forgot which one)
1.5gb cl2 pc133 ram
fx5950 ultra.
140gb 10k rpm hdd with pci sata card

sounds good so far 🤣

1ghz via c3 cpu and vista

😵 🤣

Why would anyone put Vista on that, I wouldn't run 98SE on a C3 its to slow

candle_86 wrote:

Jade Falcon wrote:

I got a good one that I used to have. […]
Show full quote

I got a good one that I used to have.

half working Asus sk370 via mobo (forgot which one)
1.5gb cl2 pc133 ram
fx5950 ultra.
140gb 10k rpm hdd with pci sata card

sounds good so far 🤣

1.2ghz via c3 cpu and vista

😵 🤣

Why would anyone put Vista on that, I wouldn't run 98SE on a C3 its to slow

I didn't put vista on, I ran 2k on the system, it was not too bad, but boy run anything thing that's needs a good FPU your dead in the water.

candle_86 wrote:

Jade Falcon wrote:

I got a good one that I used to have. […]
Show full quote

I got a good one that I used to have.

half working Asus sk370 via mobo (forgot which one)
1.5gb cl2 pc133 ram
fx5950 ultra.
140gb 10k rpm hdd with pci sata card

sounds good so far 🤣

1ghz via c3 cpu and vista

😵 🤣

Why would anyone put Vista on that, I wouldn't run 98SE on a C3 its to slow

There was a video of a 667 MHz VIA C3 running Windows 7 RC. in Windows Experience Index, the CPU scored 0.8, i saw Pentium IIs scoring better than this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM6VQGM3Kc4

All that talk about Core i5/i7 vs. Core 2 Quad made me think back to how I viewed my old Q6600 system.

I figured that once I had the clock speed jacked up, it would be sufficient for gaming, right? Well, about six years in (2013), I got a pretty hard wake-up call in the form of PlanetSide 2. The framerates were generally pretty terrible, but the FPS counter did something most game engines don't - tell you if the CPU or GPU wasn't the limiting factor.

It wasn't the GPU, even with a GTX 480.

That's what pushed me over the edge, resulting in the i7-4770K build I have now, and framerates went way up - in PlanetSide 2, in DCS World, and in all those other heavily single-thread-bound titles that have cropped up over the years, despite all those Sandy Bridge holdouts saying that games want GPU more than anything, all on that same GTX 480. I knew I had made the right choice.

Now I'm seeing stuff like BeamNG.drive that performs awfully on that Q6600 even pushed to 3.6 GHz on water where my i7-4770K doesn't break a sweat, recent games that require SSE4.1 to run and thus will not run on that computer unless I felt like giving it a Penryn upgrade (which would be wasting money at this point), and all in all, it seems like it's a waste to keep that 50% overclock when modern CPUs make Core 2 look like Pentium 4 in terms of the IPC difference. Oh, and this is all with a GTX 760 to replace the now-dead GTX 480, and that 480 was already being bottlenecked as is!

It's not often that we can say that a single CPU remains viable for 5 or 6 years, though. I still remember the ludicrous 1990s/early 2000s pace of CPU speed boosts to the point where you'd literally have to spend $1,000+ on a whole new computer the very next year if you wanted to get decent performance (read: consistent 60 FPS on high/max settings) in titles like Quake, Unreal, and their numerous sequels with increasingly demanding versions of their engines.

And, hey, if you're not all about silky-smooth gaming on the latest titles, it'll hold out longer than that. The same Q6600 CPU/mobo combo is about to see its 9th year of service come November, and my little bro's enjoying it for PC gaming just fine, even with slideshow framerates here and there. It also doesn't choke on modern Web sites the same way a PowerPC Mac or a Raspberry Pi Zero does, making it viable enough for general computing.

candle_86 wrote:

Here we go, worked on one of these once, was painful […]
Show full quote

Here we go, worked on one of these once, was painful

E-Machines
Celeron 1.6
128mb PC133
Geforce 2 MX200
Windows XP
20gb 5400RPM Hard Drive

Thing was so slow, the user bought it at wal-mart for 400 dollars in 2003.

I have the case to one of these systems that shipped w/o AGP and used a 4mb limited Intel Extreme graphics IGP instead of the geforce. . .

NamelessPlayer wrote:

All that talk about Core i5/i7 vs. Core 2 Quad made me think back to how I viewed my old Q6600 system. […]
Show full quote

All that talk about Core i5/i7 vs. Core 2 Quad made me think back to how I viewed my old Q6600 system.

I figured that once I had the clock speed jacked up, it would be sufficient for gaming, right? Well, about six years in (2013), I got a pretty hard wake-up call in the form of PlanetSide 2. The framerates were generally pretty terrible, but the FPS counter did something most game engines don't - tell you if the CPU or GPU wasn't the limiting factor.

It wasn't the GPU, even with a GTX 480.

That's what pushed me over the edge, resulting in the i7-4770K build I have now, and framerates went way up - in PlanetSide 2, in DCS World, and in all those other heavily single-thread-bound titles that have cropped up over the years, despite all those Sandy Bridge holdouts saying that games want GPU more than anything, all on that same GTX 480. I knew I had made the right choice.

Now I'm seeing stuff like BeamNG.drive that performs awfully on that Q6600 even pushed to 3.6 GHz on water where my i7-4770K doesn't break a sweat, recent games that require SSE4.1 to run and thus will not run on that computer unless I felt like giving it a Penryn upgrade (which would be wasting money at this point), and all in all, it seems like it's a waste to keep that 50% overclock when modern CPUs make Core 2 look like Pentium 4 in terms of the IPC difference. Oh, and this is all with a GTX 760 to replace the now-dead GTX 480, and that 480 was already being bottlenecked as is!

It's not often that we can say that a single CPU remains viable for 5 or 6 years, though. I still remember the ludicrous 1990s/early 2000s pace of CPU speed boosts to the point where you'd literally have to spend $1,000+ on a whole new computer the very next year if you wanted to get decent performance (read: consistent 60 FPS on high/max settings) in titles like Quake, Unreal, and their numerous sequels with increasingly demanding versions of their engines.

And, hey, if you're not all about silky-smooth gaming on the latest titles, it'll hold out longer than that. The same Q6600 CPU/mobo combo is about to see its 9th year of service come November, and my little bro's enjoying it for PC gaming just fine, even with slideshow framerates here and there. It also doesn't choke on modern Web sites the same way a PowerPC Mac or a Raspberry Pi Zero does, making it viable enough for general computing.

The core 2 quad is to a hanswell i7 what a BMW 330 is too a trabant. Very different architecture, with massive gains in single core and exponentially greater multi-threaded performance. Sandy bridge vs Hanswell however is a different story. Hanswell chips are 10-12% faster then sandy bridge, so no, it's not worth the upgrade. I'm currently sitting on a 6600k i5 (my sister's rig) - that's the newest Skylake chip. Stock, it's about 5% faster in single threaded apps then my 3770k - but if I bump my 3770 to 3.9GHz, it's actually a little faster then the 6600 because of HT and 2mb of extra cache.

The 6600k is still faster, since my sisters sample will OC to 4.8GHz pretty easily, while my 3770k tops out at 4.6 - but for my needs, the 3770k at 4GHz is sufficient.