The original P4 is at the top of my worst list. Dog slow, expensive and not power efficient. I hated that thing. It sold quite well which made things even worse, so many people suffered though using that thing.
Two real good ones there! :thumbsup: I owned that Cyrix... (or was it the 6x86 after it?) and I'm very glad I live in cold Canada! I rarely had any heat issues thanks to that... if it was a hot, stuffy room it would've cooked!
The Pentium 60 & 66 (with the bug and all) ran circles around my 486DX4/120 and I was so jealous...
That's the 15h option.Wheres bulldozer?
Phenom I?
My home/gaming computer was affected. If I remember correctly, the bios setting disabled the TLB (as a fix), which slowed it down by around 10%.
It took the shine off my excitement, at getting one of the new range of Phenoms.
I had read a lot about it (I think), and was looking forward to it.
But they (AMD) fixed it in later chips, so it was only an initial blip, for early adopters, such as myself.
I seem to recall it reducing performance significantly in some scenarios (not just servers). It obviously was a big enough issue that AMD quickly tried to replace the original bugged chips with fixed xx50 series chips.
This article here http://www.anandtech.com/show/2477/3 shows it effected more than just server type loads (especially winRAR) contrary to what AMD stated in a quote on the first page.
I think they wanted it to be ready, in very tight timescales, and somewhat lowish cost to produce, so the 8088 (with 8 bit externals, rather than 16 bit), made sense to them.
I think they only expected to sell a relatively small (to IBM) number of these "micro computers".
(Speculation and/or slight recollection on my part in this sentence) They may have been worried about losing sales/profit on their other expensive computers (such as Mainframes), if the IBM PC was TOO good.
If I had a time machine, I would try and talk them into using the Motorola 68000 and NOT using Bill Gates Microsoft. Instead go for D.E.C.'s new OS. Which I have heard rumors that Microsoft purchased the original DOS (early pre release version), which was itself an unauthorized copy (rewritten though, to avoid copyright issues or something) of what D.E.C. was about to release at some point (maybe).
Wheres the pentium 4 wilamette? Wheres the original cacheless celeron? Wheres bulldozer? Phenom I? Atom?
I'm talking about neither of you needed to install that patch and lose that performance.
I'm talking about neither of you needed to install that patch and lose that performance.
AMD admitted the presence of the erratum prior to the Phenom's public introduction, but the firm's initial statements gave the impression that the erratum affected only virtualization, which is a server-class application and an uncommon use for a desktop CPU. In truth, the erratum can cause instability with desktop-style usage patterns, as well, and systems with Phenom 9500 and 9600 processors will have to be patched and suffer the accompanying performance penalty.
Too lazy to google it at the moment but to recollection there were many versions of "DOS", and MSDOS (microsoft DOS) was just yet-another-version at the time. But they did something to convince IBM to endorse or require their specific version of DOS such that it locked out a huge chunk of the competition at the time, pretty much solidifying their position as the premiere DOS supplier for years and starving every other company's R&D depts.
And risk data corruption and/or BSODs? No thanks. No matter how rare it was.
It was a BIOS setting not patch.
This does not happen in my experience. I've had my PHI in two motherboards, never had a crash at all. Right now the uptime has been over a month, and it's currently in a motherboard that doesn't even officially support the CPU. Also the supposed WinRAR slowdown is not true either, I just ran the benchmark it came in at about 1.7 times slower than a PHII@3.4GHz, about what I would expect given the clock/architectural differences.AMD admitted the presence of the erratum prior to the Phenom's public introduction, but the firm's initial statements gave the impression that the erratum affected only virtualization, which is a server-class application and an uncommon use for a desktop CPU. In truth, the erratum can cause instability with desktop-style usage patterns, as well, and systems with Phenom 9500 and 9600 processors will have to be patched and suffer the accompanying performance penalty.
This does not happen in my experience. I've had my PHI in two motherboards, never had a crash at all. Right now the uptime has been over a month, and it's currently in a motherboard that doesn't even officially support the CPU. Also the supposed WinRAR slowdown is not true either, I just ran the benchmark it came in at about 1.7 times slower than a PHII@3.4GHz, about what I would expect given the clock/architectural differences.
AMD gave us two confirmed situations where the TLB erratum would rear its ugly head in real world usage:
1) Windows Vista 64-bit running SPEC CPU 2006
2) Xen Hypervisor running Windows XP and an unknown configuration of applications
That's a very narrow usage scenario, at least for me. I'm not saying there is no problem, only saying I have not been able to exploit it. I'd say running Linux for months on end is a pretty good test, I also have Win8.1 x64 installed have not had any issues with that either.
and that BIOS setting was not there before the BIOS patch which you applied by updating the BIOS.
and the CLR and other compilers could handle it for you without the BIOS update, once they were updated (which they were, because many people wouldn't bother installing it).
The original P4 is at the top of my worst list. Dog slow, expensive and not power efficient. I hated that thing. It sold quite well which made things even worse, so many people suffered though using that thing.
You're right, but I was lucky to have very little computing time with that snail.I'd say their Celeron counterparts were even worse. Take a horrible architecture and gimp it, even better!
We all operate CPUs which have an unknown number of bugs in them. No such thing as a bug-free consumer grade CPU.
It is the tradeoff we accept in exchange for not having our CPUs cost 2-3x more so they can sit in a validation warehouse somewhere running umpteen billion tests.
But of course no two bugs are created equal. There is the matter of frequency experienced by the user combined with the severity of the havoc wreaked by the bug.
Infrequent but deadly? Frequent but innocuous?
As with most things, the risk factor for known bugs can be objectively measured but the end user applies a subjective rationale in terms of whether the risk profile is acceptable or unacceptable.
Few people will find agreement in their subjective assessments of known and quantified risk threats.