I never had a problem with my Northwood based P4s and I had two of them. I also had Willamate and Prescott based P4s that ran well too.
I know Tulatin came out after P4, and I mentioned that in my post, but my point was that releasing Tulatin after the P4 essentially punished the early adopters who ditched their S370 systems for S423, which was a doomed socket, when essentially S370 had just as much longevity. Is there anything a 1.7 Ghz Willamette can do that a 1.4 Ghz Tulatin can't?
Maybe it was popular and good value for money. But clearly, Pentium 4 was not the gamers choice. In fact, AMD was much faster per clock and used less power at the same time.I don't get all of the hate for the entire P4 family. I distinctly remember the Northwood 2.4c or whatever it was being a very popular CPU on this board. So much so that I actually built a computer in 2003 based on one. It used DDR memory, had decent MB options and OC'ed well.
Wrong, they fit just easily as Coppermines. Tualatins could work in most 370 boards with a simple hard mod, or with the help of converters. I had it working in so-called "incompatible" boards as well. They did not require any special microcode to begin with (incl. the "S" parts).Tualatins wouldn't fit in most socket 370 boards. They used a different package than Coppermine. I think Coppermine-T used the same package as Tualatin.
In the first iteration, Netburst was expensive and slow-performing, requiring RAMBUS. Zambezi isn't great either, but at least it works with the same memory and some the higher-end AM3 motherboards would allow you to use them. IMO, Bulldozer has had a much better start (both in terms of the price and performance) than Netburst. And like I said earlier, the Bulldozer architecture hasn't seen its best yet. So it's only valid to compare it with the first Pentium 4s.Netburst was bad, but it was not a complete disaster on the scale of Bulldozer. Netburst did what it was intended to do - in its life, it went from a 1.5 GHz unit that struggled against Tualatin to a 3.8 GHz unit that was slightly competitive (though decidedly on the losing end) with AMD's CPUs. That's more than a 250% increase in clock speed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't expect AMD to begin pushing out 7.2 GHz units any time soon.
In the first iteration, Netburst was expensive and slow-performing, requiring RAMBUS. Zambezi isn't great either, but at least it works with the same memory and some the higher-end AM3 motherboards would allow you to use them. IMO, Bulldozer has had a much better start (both in terms of the price and performance) than Netburst. And like I said earlier, the Bulldozer architecture hasn't seen its best yet. So it's only valid to compare it with the first Pentium 4s.
wait what was wrong with the 286? it was a perfectly good cpu... 16bit bus, 16bit operations ... very fast for its time. and you could even get a 16mhz or maybe 20mhz one from some of the clone companies like harris semiconductor at the time.
i'd say the cyrix 6x86 was horribly poor especially with its fairly exaggerated PR ratings, and 10000 variants with slightly different bus speeds. national semiconductor mediaGX might be the worst.
and most people here probably won't remember (unlike most sane children i spent my 8 year old years reading pc mags like byte) the 80186 was an actual cpu that only a few companies adopted...
Why would they? Cacheless celerons were the bomb. Where else could one go from 226 mhz to 448 mhz by simply upping the bus speed and get amazing performance in games of the era. PII processors of that era rarely could do above 75 or 83 mhz FSB, nowhere near the 112 mhz FSB that could be done with the ASUS P2B and a cacheless celeron 266.
and most people here probably won't remember (unlike most sane children i spent my 8 year old years reading pc mags like byte) the 80186 was an actual cpu that only a few companies adopted...
Wikipedia... said:"
Processor: 8-bit Intel 80C85, CMOS, 2.4 MHz
Memory: 32 kB ROM, 8, 16, 24, or 32kB static RAM. Machines with less than 32 kB could be expanded in 8 kB increments of plug-in static RAM modules.
Display: 8 lines, 40 characters LCD with 240 by 64 pixel addressable graphics. The screen was not backlit.
Simple, Any AMD unless you like to cook your eggs on your PC..
They're still not there yet...Meh.. AMD hasn't always been bad. Back in the XP and X2 days, AMD was a stellar choice that offered a fair bit of performance over Intels P4. It really wasn't until the C2D that AMD started to fumble and stutter. It has taken them several generations just to catch up with Intel's C2D performance.
WHAT! How very dare you sir.What about the Pentium Overdrive?
I voted Itanium for obvious reasons but the 486 drop in upgrade to Pentium performance was the worst thing I ever tried to use myself.
In the 20 hours I tried to use the thing it crashed after booting within 20 seconds and the manual was nothing more than a list of reasons it wont work with your system in particular. (It was a long time ago and my memory is fuzy.. plus I was relatively young at the time.)