No Intel 4004 on Number 1 not a good ListJust in time for holidays nostalgia... This is the kind of list one could analyze and debate extensively:
www.club386.comThe top 10 PC CPUs of all time | Club386
From Intel 386 chips in the 1980s to AMD Ryzen processors today, our CPU top 10 charts the chips that have really stood out on the PC.www.club386.com www.club386.com
I specifically remember reading an Anandtech article review on Pentium M and it showed how it was actually faster than Intel's desktop processors at much better efficiency.
To say that a CPU that wasn't the best at the time and was blown away just over a year later with Conroe belongs on the "best CPU's" list is ill-advised.
Yea that’s probably what was it. But even before then, you could see that Intel had something else really good going on even though their Pentium was getting beat.But it was the Yonah your talking about.
They do address that in the article:And even Apple M1 isn't there and caused more noise than some of the list.
Personally I'd say that they should have included the 68000, that powered a bunch of legendary hardware like the Amiga, the Mega Drive, Macintosh, etc. Definitely a landmark CPU.For simplicity’s sake, we’re sticking to x86 CPUs for this feature. There’s certainly a case for several other non-x86 CPUs being in a top ten, from the first Acorn Archimedes Arm chips to the Apple M1, as well as the widespread Motorola 68000, just to name a few. And yes, we’re also well aware that the term ‘PC’ doesn’t just apply to x86 machines running Windows. However, as we’re mainly PC enthusiasts here, and there are rich pickings in the x86 legacy, we’re only going to focus on core PC hardware.
That's a great pick. Good for basically the rest of the 2010s with how stagnant things were. Especially with an upgrade along the way to a good budget GPU like a 970, 1060 6GB, or Polaris.Also, my 2600k which could OC to 5ghz,
You could turn Athlon XPs into MPs with a pencil. Did it multiple times.For me it was the AMD (Duran or Athlon, ca’t remember) chip you could unlock with a pencil. Also, my 2600k which could OC to 5ghz, the Q6600 which also had a great OC, and my Threadripper 1950X, which was a decent gaming chip oddly enough, among other things. IIRC It outperformed the 1800X thanks to lower latency cache and quad channel memory. It overclocked as well.
Yea that’s probably what was it. But even before then, you could see that Intel had something else really good going on even though their Pentium was getting beat.
I just remember Intel laptop CPUs beating both AMD and Intel desktop CPUs in many tasks.
It’s similar to the M1 when it was released and people just couldn’t believe that it could own the fastest ST in the world in a fanless laptop.
I think that list is only for "PC" which I take it as non-Macs.Which goes back to why aren't any of the ARM cpu's on that list.
That thing u have your fingers mashing text into, doesn't deserve a hall of fame?
no?I think that list is only for "PC" which I take it as non-Macs.
I do think the M1 would be #1 on that list if it qualifies.
Amen. 4004 is the beggining of everything. M1 is more on the Conroe tier.no?
it would be 4004 period cause it's the thing that made everything possible
This is a really well thought out list. I am having a hard time having any major objections actually.
I've owned most of these cpu's and they were all kind of groundbreaking in one way or another.
The upgrade from my 486 SX25 to a Pentium 90 was monumental. Much of my software went from unusable to quite usable. Namely Coreldraw and Software Audio Workshop (SAW).
My upgrade path to the 2500K was from an Core2Duo E6400 and that was also a huge upgrade.
The only CPU I'd include in this list would be one of the first dual core Core2Duo parts. I'd move out that G3258, which honestly was less of an overclocking deal than the Celeron 300A.
Should be the transistor tbh /sAmen. 4004 is the beggining of everything. M1 is more on the Conroe tier.
It's overclocking potential was the equivalent of polishing a turd. Iceberg did a revisit of it a few years ago, and it's comedy gold.Anand had an article about the G3258 and basically said it was better to spend a few bucks more on a locked i3 because it had HT. Surely it aged better for that reason too. And if I recall correctly with the G3258 you still need a Z series chipset to OC making it a worse value than you would otherwise think.
Both the Athlon and Athlon 64 were huge steps forward. AMD’s missteps afterward were baffling to me. Had they focused on strong IPC increases rather than new architectures, I do wonder if they would’ve been better off.The ones that stick out for me would have been:
486
Pentium MMX 166
Celeron 300A
Athlon or Duron
Athlon64 - incredible step forward
Core 2 Duo
Q6600
Ryzen 1800x/1700x/1700
Threadripper 2990WX
Ryzen 5800X3D
The Celeron 300A was a beast. It cost like 125ドル vs. 600ドル for the PII 450 and while it had less cache than the 512KB of the Katmai chip, at 128KB, unlike the PII it as on the die an ran at full speed. The PII was off-die an running half speed. This made the 5x cheaper Celeron more performance in some use cases.
Oh yeah, I don't remember hearing of anyone who had a Celeron 300A that couldn't do 450MHz. It was pretty much a set it and forget it guarantee. 504MHz was more luck of the draw and tweaking.
It just so happens that was the first computer I built from parts. Finally got my nerve up!
The ones that stick out for me would have been:
486
It's overclocking potential was the equivalent of polishing a turd. Iceberg did a revisit of it a few years ago, and it's comedy gold.
[フレーム]