Yeah, FX CPUs are really great for multithreaded workloads that are properly built for bulldozers design.
My laptop's AMD E2-1800. That thing can't even outperform an iPhone 5S. The laptop was terrible when I got it, and it's terrible now.
All Pentium processors are torture. I have a Dell with a Pentium processor and it has a habit of turning into a freaking heater. BeamNG runs at roughly 10-15 fps with Gridmap and the stock truck, on the lowest graphics settings.
I'm gonna nominate the AMD E1. That CPU Is truly ****. Seriously terrible CPU. Can be found in budget Asus laptops from Tesco Direct in the UK what horrid laptops
The processor inside of your moms old windows 95 laptop If you even DOWNLOADED BeamNG, your PC would become your home toaster.
Since you've already mentioned Pentium 4 and Pentium D I will go with Pentium P5 - not much of an improvement over 486DX while bearing a ridiculous price tag. Itanium series takes close second.
Nothing could touch a Bulldozer CPU for OS virtualization under Linux when it was released. That was one of the very few workloads that would actually use the Bulldozer architecture correctly. It was a server architecture first, desktop second. And, for it's time, it was actually quite competitive in both performance and price. Was it slower than Ivy Bridge? Yea, but maybe by 10-15%. That's why I ended up with an FX-6100. Why would I buy an Ivy-Bridge i3, when for the same price, I could get a 6-core CPU? (About a year later, I bought a Devil's Canyon i5... shows the mistake I made) ((Granted, I blame ASRock for my horrible FX experience. Those fuckers can't build a motherboard to save their lives. They make ECS look reliable)) I love how this thread is just jabbing at the Pentium 4 and AMD FX CPUs, while actually leaving the truly awful ones alone. Like the 1.13GHz Pentium 3 that literally couldn't do certain calculations because it was so unstable due to power consumption, for example. Or the majority of Cyrix and WinChip CPUs in the mid-90's which were Pentium-class CPUs with 486 performance. Or IBM's PowerPC G5 which was so power inefficient that it REQUIRED liquid cooling in a PowerMac G5 implementation. Or how about those C-series Intel Atom chips that literally disintegrate over time?
IBM 1620. It had no addition instruction, so it just used a table in memory. It earned the name "CADET," which stood for "Can't Add, Doesn't Even Try."
Original, 1st generation Celeron 300. Had next to NO cache but could be overclocked well on an Asus P3? or similar motherboards, especially later Celerons. AM486 66mhz CPU that refused to run dos DOOM smoothly, as it had worse FPU performance than it's intel counterpart. Cyrix 6x86 CPU, great for Windows 32-bit like the Pentium Pro, but rubbish at 16-bit apps and also had an FPU equivalent of the 486 intel cpus.
your all forgetting the intel atom. complete and utter rubbish. it makes my dell optiplex look high end
The 800 Mhz atom in two of my pocket PCs sucked. (They run full windows, not windows mobile.) Edit: It had a TDP of 0.65 watts, so I have to give credit where credit is due. That is a damn efficient chip. The hard drive probably used more power.
Actually, have an AsRock Athlon II motherboard in one of the PC's in the house and it's still going after I built it just shy of *TEN* years ago... it doesn't even have all-solid caps but it's not a gaming machine. 4gb DDR2 RAM (it's not even matched 100%!), Athlon II x2 2.9ghz (240?), AsRock 760G or something mobo, SSD, boots Win 10 in like 4~5 seconds from BIOS to login screen, it's insane. Still does email, may be alive for many more years! IDT WinChip wasn't so good, will agree. The amount of them that infested the shelves at office stores would suprise you. However, back then, computers weren't cheap. In fact, my first PC was a used one. You would try to upgrade and upgrade as much as you could for a year or two or more, to keep it going. If you could spend 60~100$ to upgrade it to make it 60% as good as a brand new 800~1200$ tower, that IS what you did. Now PC's are more a throw-away commodity these days, even though often times parts ARE cheaper. Cyrix 5x86 was basically a 486-class CPU at a higher clockspeed, IIRC you could put them on 486 motherboards to get a little more out of the system but even with their 6x86 they never worked on the FPU much since the Cyrix 4x86 processor line, so they stank at Quake-engine games almost as bad as a genuine 80486. There's been a few problems with ATOM chips - will agree - the Atom is merely a Pentium III architecture, simplified version of what they re-booted for Core2 series (they threw out the Pentium 4 basically, at that point, after Pentium D). Clock speed doesn't tell all, it actually depends on the number of HOPS a process must do inside the CPU. A Pentium 4 had 40~50% more than a comparable Pentium III or Core 2 (because Core 2 again was based much closer to Pentium III lineage). The extra hops gave Pentium 4 higher clock speed, but with higher clock speed came inefficiency. This is why the Athlon FX and then Athlon II series walked the Pentium 4 so well, the AMD series was just such a better chip internally. The reason so many folks bash the snot out of AMD FX here (myself included), is, especially if you had one, and tried to run any AI-heavy game on it, or physics heavy software, etc, like this simulator BeamNG, it really was a turd. It was a good TURDledove for it's time but now it's just a turd. Everything was fine until you gave it MATH. UGH. I had my AMD FX 6300 processor for approximately 3 weeks after upgrading from my Athlon II x4 2.8ghz 25$ cpu, I hated it so badly I wanted to throw it out of the house. I absolutely, positively, could not STAND that processor. The i7 machine I built that '3 weeks later after buying the Fx6300' I still have and use to this day...
The Intel 4004. The Intel 4004 is a 4-bit central processing unit released by Intel Corporation in 1971. It was the first microprocessor of all time.
whatever crap is in my computer. pretty sure it’s an intel celery, you can check out my “specs” on my profile page.
