Is the Phenom II X6 series the most underrated series of CPU ever?

As someone who owned and used one for 6 years, no.

It was called thuban.
Decent CPU for the time.

>>61005939

No. It's to be forgotten. There is literally nothing positive worth mentioning about it.

Nah, it wasnt faildozer levels of bad but it wasnt particulaly good either.

>>61005939
It was desperate attempt to fight nehalem and failed bad.

>>61006155
> it wasnt particulaly good either
On par with FX-8350 at multicore, better at single core performance. It's a Core2Hex from AMD, basically, and it's not bad.

No, the Phenom II was okay. Not quite bad enough to be mediocre, not good enough to actually be good.

Now the Athlon 64, that was both great and HEAVILY underrated.

The Athalon XP with shitty VIA chipset mobo I had back in 2003 gave me such a bad impression of AMD that I never tried any of their offerings again until two weeks ago when I bought a 1600 (with much hesitation). So far so good; I don't regret my purchase yet anyway.

>>61006320

>CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+ (2812.82-MHz K8-class CPU)

Still running here, still runs nice after eight+ years.

>>61005939
It wasn't horrible if you could of it high enough. Better than fx until you overclock an fx to levels that the phenom II can't reach.

i had a 1090t. it was good for x264 shit, but absolute shit as a gaming cpu

Where was the bottleneck on Phenom II anyway?

For example, on a high-power Core2 era system, the bottleneck was usually in the FSB design. You could manage to saturate neither the core nor the GPU or memory, just because the FSB could only pump but so much data through.

>>61007916
Phenom II had shit cache. Intel always had better cache until i9 apparently. Phenom II was also literally 4 Athlon64 cores slapped together.

>>61007995
Huh, didn't know that. I admit that I pretty much glossed over the Phenom II line back then, because I was able to get an amazing deal on a Nehalem CPU + X58. Which I'm still using, with a Westmere-EP.

IIRC, the other hamstring on C2Q was die-switching. They really take a performance hit when threads constantly jump from C0/1 to C2/3. When you say 4 Athlon64 cores slapped together, I assume you mean on a unified die, rather than linked like a Harpertown 2-die setup.

it was worse than nehalem in pretty much every way except that it wasn't a jewchip.

>>61006444
you obviously do nothing but use your computer as a facebook machine

>>61006359

The Athlon XP was fucking great.

I miss my XP-m 2400@3200 so fucking much.
Good times.

>>61005939

still using a 1090t x6 in a DAW.

built the computer in 2012, and upgraded CPU throughout the years.

works fine for that purpose.

why would you say it's underrated though OP?

P6 is the most underrated. So underrated, Intel had to go back to P6 after NetBurst failed miserably. P6 lasted well through Penrynn (and began in the 90's with Pentium Pro)

>>61009235
Hence the i7 name (Intel's 7th generation, P6 was well, 6th)

>>61009248
No.

I still have my 1090t. I'm keeping it if I ever have to throw together a cheap pc. I swapped it out for an 8370 I got from a friend for $40

>>61009557
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures

Hurr-Dee-durr