what was the greatest cpu to ever be created? and why was

>>60540355
thats not the Pentium 4 with Intel Celeron™ processing

Because it didn't need an idiot-friendly heat spreader

>>60540375
nigger, please. serious discussion only

The i7 920.

>>60540355
Athlon 64

Wrong. You mean the Opteron 165.

>>60540355
You spelled Ryzen wrong

>>60540759
Underage

Obviously any newer CPU is greater and better,

but when it was released the AMD Athlon 64 was amazing. I actually used mine for years and years until one day I turned my computer on and then it turned off again and smoke was emanating from the case. I immediately opened it and a close-up inspection of the motherboard revealed that a capacitor had blown. That was after 5-6 years of daily usage and it was time to upgrade anyway.. but I don't think I would have for a few more years just because the Athlon was a totally nice CPU at the time.

>>60540759
nigger, thunderbird was best bird.

>>60540790
>Athlon 64
Check the copyright date babby.

Crusoe and Efficeon had potential. They were interesting because they had 128 and 256 bit wide instruction words and went for extreme parallelism at the instruction level. They were x86 compatible thanks to the firmware they ran which translated x86 to their own instruction set and could be set up to translate from other instruction sets instead. The one the company had going as a demo was the JVM. There was potential for this to have pretty good energy savings thanks to doing more work at the software level and therefore needing fewer transistors to accomplish similar tasks as other architectures.

Too bad this is consumer technolo/g/y.

>>60540656
> not 950

close enough

Cell

File: k71ghz.png (777KB, 677x453px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 677x453px

>>60540355
the originals were okay but /g/ jerks them off way too hard
slotted models like pic rel were pure PR trash that won le epic megahurts war through cache gimping in their later revisions
Thunderbirds were great for consumers but not really useful for anything actually high-end since they didn't even support SMP and still ran slow as shit SDRAM among other things

in the end there's really no "best CPU ever made" because every architecture and design paradigm was good at something and shit at something else, it varies by task like anything else

>>60540355
>Had Athlon 1.333Ghz in 2000
>Lasted until ~2009 as the main PC for the home.
Flash and browsers got too CPU intense...

>>60540355
Athlon Thunderbird
the Pentium M was also pretty good

Anyone still using an i5-2500k?...

>>60541302
>2500k
>good
pick one buckaroo. it was normie trash. normies only jizzed all over it because of pseudo overclock potential. it only overclocked well because intel choice not to clock them higher even though they clearly could have shipped them at 4ghz default.

>>60541103
>Too bad this is consumer technolo/g/y.
...he says while talking about low-end shitbox chips that mostly found their way into dreadful consumer portables

>>60541559
A moron. You sound like a complete moron.

>>60540355
>and why was it the athlon?

former athlon xp user here and why are you so fucking full of shit?

>no sse3 when every intel had it
>no multicore or hyper threading
>no 64bit

File: L_Zilog-Z84C0006PEC.jpg (37KB, 566x351px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 566x351px

Zilog Z80

>>60540355
Athlon wasn't great. Intel was just being shit at the time with NetBurst.

File: ps3_disassem_4.jpg (47KB, 400x334px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x334px

Cell was pretty much ahead of its time.

>>60540355
Pentium 3 blocks your path.

>>60542143
>complaining about things that came out after the athlon xp
You're talking about just before Athlon64, just before dual core really became affordable and just before 64bit really came to the desktop market.
From Venice the 64s had SSE3 too, the year after Intel introduced it in Prescott.

So I think basically you're full of shit.

>>60542080
>dreadful consumer portables
the design of the TC1000 still hasn't been matched by modern devices

File: MOS_6502.jpg (22KB, 344x293px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 344x293px

Mos-6502 > Zilog z80

>>60542906
>the design of the TC1000 still hasn't been matched by modern devices
whatever the fuck that even means, it's hard to see how it in any way changes the reality that it was a shitty netbook-tier chip that rarely saw any use outside of a few select low-end devices and specialty ultraportables

>>60543508
It means you don't actually know what kinds of devices the Transmeta CPUs were used in.

>>60543584
>It means you don't actually know what kinds of devices the Transmeta CPUs were used in.
I'll bite.Toys? Washing machines? Printers?

>>60542143
Lmao look at this guy, he's retarded

>>60540355
had the first athlon 64 dualcore cpu and 1,5GB DDR ram in my system since its launch with a GeForce4 Ti 4200
Lasted me till 2012 without issues as my main computer.

>4004
>Conroe
>Sandy Bridge
>Ryzen
Everything else a shit

>>60540355
cpus on slots
they looked way more robust

File: KL_Motorola_MC6809.jpg (166KB, 1476x747px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1476x747px

>>60542205
>>60543428

Step aside plebs, m6809 coming through

nehalem was probably one of the best in the near past because it is still in general use and it still performs

File: IntelA80486DX2-66-SX911.jpg (44KB, 589x604px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 589x604px

>>60540355
>athlon
That's a pretty weird nickname for the DX2.

The PentiumPro. Utter BTFO of the big RISC vendors. It did what everybody thought was impossible, and made x86 (32 bit only) work gooood.

Or some early IBM mainframe cpu, ?the 360?.

File: nigg.png (419KB, 1265x720px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1265x720px

>>60540355
>be kid
>buy my first CPU, athlon
>don't put the heatsink
>CPU is literally fried in 2seconds (no thermal protection lol)
>go to store
>demand a new one
>get new one
>go home
>figure out I have to put the heatsink now, feel bad but about it, oh well
>it werks

File: images (50).jpg (15KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 384x384px

>>60544599
Pleb

>>60544862
this
easy 50% OC

the SW26010

>>60540355
You misspelled Tualatin

>>60542485
not really. while it was cheap for certain applications for a while gpus did a better job soon after.

2500k and nothing comes remotely close. Still stands up to Intel's i5s today.

>>60546712
not really, and thats not saying much. r5 btfos it

The intel 4004, of course.

File: 12917942_138796393184476_198519101_n.jpg (57KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x640px

>>60546956
>intel
>good
top kek

File: 1493726768513.jpg (14KB, 236x355px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x355px

>>60547053
>amd pre-ryzen
toppest keks

>>60547053
You literally can't name a better contemporary CPU.

>>60542205
99% on this board dont know wath this

>>60542205
shit, you're right. It's probably the only processor of that era that's still in use commercially today.

>>60542485
cell was an interesting concept that somebody let go way too far into development, since it was so fucking retarded to develop for, and didn't end up giving any performance improvements once people started doing compute on GPUs.

Athlon 64 was one of the best CPUs ever made. First 64 bit desktop processor and first integrated memory controller on consumer x86 architecture.
The other processor I consider pretty revolutionary and a template for all subsequent processors is the short lived Lynnfield core, first integrated PCI-E controller and full integration of Northbridge into CPU die. Pretty cool.

>>60540355
i5 2500k for longevity, but maybe that's just because CPU progress has basically crawled to a stop

That Athlon was the opposite though if you bought it towards the end, I bought a 2600+ in 2003 and two years later it was basically ancient technology as it lacked 64 bit and was single core without hyperthreading.

>>60540355
i5 2500k, prove me wrongo

>>60540355
>amd
kek

>>60540355
Probably the Z80, don't think anything has outsold it yet.

File: 021022-2.gif (49KB, 350x256px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 350x256px

>>60549416
On glass now

File: 1398999654932.jpg (65KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 350x233px

>>60548462
Even an ancient i7 960 is still fine these days

cpus are dog slow and any real application offloads everything to the gpu

Maybe its nostalgia but the p4 really got me interested in fucking around with computers and settings. Kind of a let down stock, but those little fuckers could be overclocked to hell and back. I think people had them running at 7 or 8ghz back then

File: 1391206104033.jpg (191KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1280x960px

>>60540790
5-6 years is nothing for a computer man, that's some real planned obsolescence.

The laptop I'm typing this shitpost on right now has been on 24/7 for the past 6 years and I don't plan on upgrading for at least another year or so because it's fine and nothing new was made anyway

>>60540355
Using AMD Athlon x64 5000+ since 2007.

File: 1396490157562.jpg (331KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1920x1080px

>>60542205
my calculator uses one of those and does 3d vector calculations

it runs thousands of hours on 4 double A batteries. Try beating that with any 'modern' processors.

>>60547077
>>60548557
>my little newfags can't possibly be this new

File: qx9650-1.jpg (107KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x480px

>>60540355
EXCUSE ME?


DO YOU EVEN CPU?

tags: q9650, quad core, quad extreme

>>60540790
Same thing happened to me. Blown cap on my athlon 64 system. Also the last time I bought a biostar mobo. Mine lasted like 5 years too though.

You spelled i5-2500 wrong

>>60550139
five years isnt a lomg time honestly. biostar have always been shit though, it surprises me theyre around today

File: where.jpg (39KB, 498x441px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 498x441px

>>60540614
>nigger, please. serious discussion only

>>60540355
Athlon because it was wildly powerful and at least I cooled it passively.
Could probably use it today.

File: Orion-deskside_office-2-lorez.jpg (265KB, 1000x836px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1000x836px

>>60543584
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta_Crusoe#Products
a bunch of shitty notebooks, thin clients, tablets and network appliances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta_Efficeon
another handful of shitty portables and thin clients, but I'll give you pic related it sounds pretty fucking cool and I want one

in referring to those I realized by "TC1000" you were referring to a shitty Compaq tablet and not some supposedly advanced Crusoe variant I never heard of before, have you ever considered that the reason it hasn't been "matched" by modern devices is because nobody actually cared for any of those gimmicks? tablet PCs were novel but total dog shit and they failed outside of niche applications for a reason

File: calR4000.jpg (61KB, 490x290px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 490x290px

>>60547564
Why does every nostalgic post about the Athlon 64 always read like fanboy circlejerking? It was certainly a great chip and a landmark design that finally ensured x86's dominance in almost every market of computing, but it wasn't really a revolutionary design in that to the average consumer the only thing that changed was a larger memory address space without PAE shit and a little more power efficiency from more shit being integrated on the die, big whoop. It wasn't the first 64-bit chip either, that distinction belongs to the MIPS R4000 chips shipping in actually high-end systems while AMD was scraping the bottom of the barrel with licensed 286/386 chips and Intel was still the weapon of choice for spreadsheet boxes and other fleet toys.

The only real "revolution" in x86 was the 386 that made far more things possible on PCs than just having larger general-purpose registers, even when it came to the death of classical proprietary workstations, all AMD64 did was put the last few nails in the coffin that the Pentium Pro, Pentium II and later Xeons had already built.

>>60540790
My A64 3200+ is still working. It was a daily driver from 2005 to 2013

>>60542661
Poor Pentium III. Actually it was good, had SSE for future use and better power consumption, but K7, Athlon was just stronger.

>>60542143
Idiot, Athlon Xp came to market in 2001. How the hell would it have 64bit (2003) or multiple cores (2005)? Both those things were brought first by AMD, BTW.

You clearly don't remember how long it took Intel to at least give 64bit support to *some LGA 775 Prescotts Pentium 4s. Which were nowhere as long-living as K8.

>>60545185
Only think that sucks about Pro is lack of SIMD. It was a great CPU.

>>60550306
Lack of SSE2 often bites you in modern software, today.

>>60541226
I remember playing TF2 on my Athlon 2600. Barely ran but it did. And now even the Q6600 struggles.

>>60550932
>but K7, Athlon was just stronger.
nah, they were shit after the initial release at 500-650 MHz since to clock higher they had to lower the clocks on the already slow off-die caches, so you ended up with a 1 GHz chip running 300 MHz cache that was easily blown the fuck out by its equivalently-clocked Coppermine counterpart

the problem was that you couldn't actually buy any of those Coppermine chips because Intel had a case of the limp dick, and by the time they were actually out in numbers you already had Thunderbird that leveled the playing field much better