What are the best CPU's of all time? For me it's the FX ones

Cell

Still using a 2500k, so this one

based

Attached: GEKKO.jpg (880x782, 299K)

Based as shit. had my 4350 for 5 years and i don't regret a thing.

And when was the first?

Based

3570k. Damn this thing is still going

>amd
>best anything
lol

>not haswell so no tsx
-_-;

I still have a bunch of old Cyrix cpus lying around that I refuse to throw away.

I agree!

Attached: finewine.png (824x555, 47K)

2600, the true heir to 2500k legacy

Kek

I fucking wish these were made on 14nm

Ryzen 1700 for making 8 cores cheap for the consumer market

original 2006 core 2 duo

motorola 68000

The snapdragon 801

Attached: qualcomm.jpg (970x647, 104K)

Based dolphin.

It never happened.

The Pentium M was a fantastic chip. It absolutely destroyed the Pentium 4, even at significantly lower clocks, and was quite efficient for its time.

A local shop sells a 8350 with the wraith cooler for just 60$. Is it worth it?

Probably the Tualatin Pentium 3's
That was the peak of x86

Attached: 1024px-KL_Intel_Pentium_III_Tualatin.jpg (1024x1037, 102K)

yes if you already have a mobo around otherwise no

>FX GOOD

Attached: f.png (1024x1024, 74K)

>Please can we have a nostalgia thread about the time when we could laugh at AMD owners?
Uhh what else is a thread where OP calls FX best CPU

if you want a spaceheater then yes

>tfw can't find one of those for one ancient via board

>Sandy bridge
Definitely.
>Phenom II
Too little, too late. Have they not fucked up 1st gen Phenom things would've been much different
>ZEN+ (too early to decide on ZEN2)
I think Zen 2 deserves it though. They may have not delivered on the clocks part, but just the fact it once again doubled the cores on mainstream platform makes it really good. As usual some issues at launch but they're gonna get ironed out with bios and driver updates.

I'm on FX-6350 and given that I don't game (much at least) I'm actually considering upgrading to an FX-8350 instead of splurging out on a full new platform. Think there's significant enough difference between those?

Look at 200GE.

Fine wine.

my childhood (:

Attached: 313017716[1].jpg (211x220, 30K)

Attached: Intel-Core-i5-2500K.jpg (400x400, 29K)

This thing is hot as hell and throttles like shit. I threw my ZUK Z1 in a river because of this.

They were unironically so good that people kept them as a memento

2300X
Shit is a hidden gem

>>no backdoor
You wish

core 2 quad q6600

Attached: intel-core-2-quad-processor-q6600-8m-cache-2-40-ghz-1066-mhz-fsb-hiffny-1807-23-Hiffny@10.jpg (300x300, 15K)

Based eternal Sandy

Attached: This thing just won't quit.jpg (900x900, 196K)

>haswell
>no tsx
Indeed.
anandtech.com/show/8376/intel-disables-tsx-instructions-erratum-found-in-haswell-haswelleep-broadwelly

AMD likes to pretend they brought PCI 4 to consumers but the reality is IBM did it first.

Attached: file.png (2937x1997, 3.92M)

Yeah the FX line was the last line of CPUs to be delivered without the PSP or IME.
Still going strong with my 8350. I can play games like the Resident evil 2 remake with no problem. It probably will be outdated in a few years, but I'm surprised it managed to hold on this long.

>IBM
>POWER
>consumers
Yeah, about that...

>PowerPC supercomputers
>consumers

Now all POWER is for servers and supercomputers. You can get a POWER9 workstation for $2000 which is what some of you kiddos pay for AMD/Intel these days.

anyone here remember core 2 duo?
*sips*
those were the good times

It still not a consumer product, it's originally industry standard boards that are released in (very) small quantities to autist hobbyists who can't accept the fact that POWER is no longer a thing on consumer machines.

Yeah well whatever kid. It's not like AIX or Linux on Power is hard to setup. There's no real difference than not having Windows like some tech pleb. If that's your requirement that don't @ me.

Ah so you're one of those autists, should've said so.

Yeah, but I only had it in a laptop sadly.

Attached: A639_130731863592557986ubMPl2AQ3p.jpg (640x480, 22K)

Yeah... actually I'm browsing on a T7400 right now

80386
Origianl Cor 2 Duo
Sandy Bridge

Phew how's that working out for ya? I retired mine in 2011 when the soldered graphics chip gave out.

CPU is doing just fine but it's a laptop with intel graphics... GMA 950, it can't even handle youtube properly anymore(even with the plugin that forces old codecs it's still struggling) and the browser in general has to run in full software rendering.

8300 and 8350 are still decent today

ok they arent the top dogs but they wont let you down either

athlon-xp
ran everything well.
overclocked well
still have it
think it was the 1st chip series to go 1ghz and above

>think it was the 1st chip series to go 1ghz and above
Athlon XP? Lol nope

PIII
Athlon X2
Q6600
2nd Gen i7
Ryzen 2 & 3

FX was pretty slept on, mine still does everything I need, though I would like a 65w RYZEN eight core.

Attached: CPU-z bench.png (844x416, 100K)

K3 was my favorite CPU

zdnet.com/article/its-official-amd-hits-1000mhz-first-5000096067/

k6-2?

Athlon X2 wasn't that great in my opinion, it was still two CPUs taped together in a lot of ways and merely better than Pentium D, but not great in its own right. Core 2 was the first properly well designed consumer dualcore. I'd put Athlon 64 in its place instead because it pioneered the architecture we use today.

>it was still two CPUs taped together in a lot of ways
It's literally a single die processor though, user, and Intel may actually have to glue two 9900Ks together if they even want to take just the performance crown.

We are living in the year 2004 again, it's exciting.

Attached: AMD_Athlon_64_X2_6000+_(ADA6000IAA6CZ),_heat_spreader_removed.jpg (1600x912, 525K)

i upgraded to it this week, god damn, what a fucking difference from that shite amd e1-7010 mobile apu, that potato could barely give me a 50 in cinebench r15, but yeah, 4 cores, not regretting it, kinda gay that intel didnt give acess to hyperthreading to the 2500k tho.

>e1-7010 APU

oh god, the nightmares.

Attached: thedownfall.jpg (400x404, 154K)

>by using an already multi-CPU enabled Athlon 64, joining it with another functional core on one die, and connecting both via a shared dual-channel memory controller/north bridge and additional control logic
If you already have a CPU and decide to join two of them together, even if it's in a single die, to me that's two CPUs taped together, not a purpose designed dualcore. Intel did much worse of a botch job taping two Pentiums together, but that doesn't make the Athlon 64 X2 not taped together architecturally.

Well pretty much all modern CPUs are glued together then.