Which was worse? Pentium 4 Prescott or AMD Bulldozer? Were there

>>59981118
Nothing is worse than Intel.

the difference is and prolonged the joke for almost 10 years
while intel quickly realised its mistake

>>59981118
Oh shut the fuck up

>>59981131
>the difference is and prolonged the joke for almost 10 years
Both Bulldozer and Pentium 4 lasted about 6 years

>>59981345
piledriver and bulldozer are same arch

pentium 4 and core are not
neither are p4 and p3

>>59981118
What was wrong with the Prescott?

>>59981389
>pentium 4 and core are not
I wasn't talking about Core.

Pentium 4 was released in 2000. It was discontinued (well replaced, rather) in 2006. That's 6 years.

Bulldozer family was released in 2011. It's being replaced this year. That's also 6 years.

>>59981118
>Were there any processors even worse than these?
Intel Itanium?

Bulldozer-derived processors near the end of their life and when clocked to housefire levels, were fairly useful and cost competitive in some very specific circumstances. Can you say the same for Pentium 4?

>>59981699
>Can you say the same for Pentium 4?
It's a pretty similar situation. When you did extreme P4 overclocking it could match Athlon 64s. P4s became pretty cheap around ~2005.

>>59981414
Hilariously long pipeline and double pumped ALUs allowed high clock speeds at the expense of actual throughput. As they were so far beyond the efficiency band on those processes they used hilarious amounts of power for very little actual performance.

There was going to be another revision but it got cancelled after it started pulling 150 watts at 2.8ghz. As in they went from planning to layout to engineering to tapeout before they knifed it.

>>59981699
My 8320 is only just showing its age in games. In professional applications or it's still useful.

>>59981759
Except in this case Piledriver could match Intel at stock clocks if the application was threaded. Pentium 4's couldn't say the same even with HT.

File: tmp_1018114917418039131017779387.png (511KB, 836x964px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 836x964px

>>59981118
Bulldozer was competitive in threaded applications. P4 wasn't competitive whatsoever.

>>59981118
Im running Pentium 4 Prescott right now even ordered some RAM to max it out and few sata drives.

>>59981826
>Pentium 4's couldn't say the same even with HT.
>>59981848
>P4 wasn't competitive whatsoever.

That's not quite true...P4 with HT actually had very good multithreaded performance for a single core (even though Pentium D's multithreaded performance was worse than Athlon X2).

Also the P4 had very good SIMD performance, so certain media processing applications ran quite competitively. It's hard to deny that, the benchmarks show it.

P4 was quite similar to Bulldozer in the sense that in certain programs P4 could match A64 although in general it got obliterated. I find it hard to distinguish the two, but maybe there's something I'm not catching here that you guys know?

>>59981699
>>59981848
Bulldozer wasn't competitive in every threaded application...
Only when it heavily used integers.
It was good in GIS, for example.
For anything that used more than 64bit floats, it was god awful in multithreaded as well. What were games even doing using 128bit floats so heavily, anyway? Just seems like shit coding.

So yeah, I'd say Pentium4 was the worse chip by far. But Bulldozer sure hurt AMD more. Intel was able to hang in there with dirty Jew tricks.

>>59981897
yes, there is something, you being an intel fanboy and shill

>>59981956
This is not a strong argument

>>59981942
>But Bulldozer sure hurt AMD more. Intel was able to hang in there with dirty Jew tricks.


That's how it always goes. When amd/ati has a better product, intel/nvida still sells great. when intel/nvidia has the upper hand, amd sells even more terribly.

>>59981415
prescott itself didn't last that long, the cores before it weren't really bad, they just took a different and ultimately unsustainable approach to things (pursuing clocks)

>>59981897
netburst HT was shit though, you'd be better off disabling it in some cases

>>59981956
>shilling for ancient worthless shit you can't buy outside of second-hand retailers that don't pay intel dick
>acknowledging things as they truly were instead of mindlessly white knighting for a different wealthy corporation because they're different and hip is being a fanboy
try not to breed

>>59982082
>the cores before it weren't really bad,
Willamette was almost Prescott-bad.

Only Northwood was decent. Even so, Bulldozer's iterations have also presented some level of improvement.

Bulldozer is the worst
I had a P4 on a PC my father bought and was jelly of all the AMD owners so I became an AMD guy
That was ages ago and AMD has been trash for yeeeeeeaaaaaaaaars
Quite sad really, but no amount of rooting for the little guy will make me buy inferior products from a company that can't get its shit together all these fucking years

>>59981118
Prescott was so fucking hot all of the time no matter what.

>>59982125
willamette was just disappointing in its earlier iterations since the inherently more efficient coppermine chips generally matched or outdid them on most things that mattered, but within the year they clocked high enough that it didn't matter anymore, the most legitimate criticisms were the expenses, which also included decent but absolutely jewish RDRAM on top of it

>>59981118
>pentium 4
>worse

nigga you ain't old enough to see two pentiums glued together named Pentium D.

>>59981759
not him but which pentium are you talking about ? the HT or the non-HT which is head on the burning hot Athlon XP.

>>59982158
lol.
I remember playing games online back then and the P4 owners always being so jealous and full of regret.

At least Bulldozer was cheap as shit. Sure it was bad compared to a 4670k or 2600k, but you got those for i3 prices. Compared to i3s, they were okay.

I feel bad for AMD, history will remember ryzen as an even worse architecture than bulldozer.

>>59982215
>within the year they clocked high enough that it didn't matter anymore
The faster P3 Tualatins can still beat the fastest Willamette (2.0ghz) at anything not bottlenecked on SIMD performance or memory (Tualatin's memory performance was artificially gimped by FSB).

>>59982248
Pentium D IS a Pentium 4.

The one good thing I can say about Pentium D is that Intel realized it was shit, so they had Bulldozer-tier prices (compared to the Athlon X2 anyway) from day 1.

File: shelok.png (177KB, 436x361px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 436x361px

>>59982355
>Ryzen
>Architecture

Leave this board.

>>59982355
How when it's better in every single way? It's even better than Intel's products. Six core R5 is 2/3rds the price of the 7700K but has near the same performance in general and considerably better performance at multithreading and multitasking.