Image Map Image Map
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 97

Thread: Worst x86 CPUs over the years

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaDon View Post
    I'll vote for the Cyrix and VIA cpu's.
    Which one? The Cyrix 5x86, 6x86MX, VIA C7 were prety neat CPU-s in they time.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Outer Mongolia
    Posts
    2,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geri View Post
    I dont think you could expect good results, Eudimorphodon.
    Oh, I'm not expecting it to be great, I'm mostly just curious if driving the board meaningfully from DOS works at all.

    (It looks like I *may* have the correct board for the DOS Soundblaster compatibility/emulation wedge to work. If I don't I may have an old Ensoniq PCI card that has a DOS driver, but the next question is going to be how VGA register compatible the onboard video is, etc.)
    My Retro-computing YouTube Channel (updates... eventually?): Paleozoic PCs

  3. #63

    Default

    1) Coppermine Celerons crippled by 66MHz FSB.

    2) All the Intel CPU lines with mandatory built-in graphics, which I consider to be anticompetitive behavior by Intel.

  4. #64

    Default

    Are we forgetting the 486SX-16? No co-processor, and slower than any good 386. Only made for a few OEMs who wanted to sell low-cost Intel 486 systems (including Dell).


  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Western North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,289

    Default

    I think the 486SX-16 was mentioned up-thread. I think I have one here somewhere, but it escapes me at the moment as to where. I do have a 486SX-20, a bit more common. In theory, the 486SX-16 was supposed to equal a 386DX-33 in overall speed.
    --
    Thus spake Tandy Xenix System III version 3.2: "Bughlt: Sckmud Shut her down Scotty, she's sucking mud again!"

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Ohio/USA
    Posts
    7,893
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Did you know there are SX/2's?
    What I collect: 68K/Early PPC Mac, DOS/Win 3.1 era machines, Amiga/ST, C64/128
    Nubus/ISA/VLB/MCA/EISA cards of all types
    Boxed apps and games for the above systems
    Analog video capture cards/software and complete systems

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGaBiTe View Post
    While Transmeta claimed their code morphing emulation engine was as good as a bog standard x86 CPU, it was far from it. Many applications wouldn't run at all, or have terrible performance issues. The code morphing software itself also used up a huge amount of system RAM, I think something like 64-128 MB, further impacting the useful scenarios of their CPUs.
    Was it fixed later on? One of my compatibility tests is OS/2. The Transmeta CPUs run OS/2 just fine. I have some of the HP/Compaq Transmeta-based thin clients. The code morphing software uses 32MB out of the 512MB, so no problem really. I haven't run into any software that won't run on those...

  8. #68

    Default

    I would agree that the early Pentium 4s weren’t the greatest. I have one and Windows XP runs like shit on it. It’s pretty decent for anything Windows 2000 and below though. I love the newer P4s though.

    And the P4m like what was used in the Dell Inspiron 8200 is a fantastic CPU. Doesn’t get very hot and handles Windows XP just fine.

    The 486SX-16 has always intrigued the hell out of me. Would love to tinker with one of those.
    Compaq - “It simply works better”

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unknown_K View Post
    Did you know there are SX/2's?
    I had a HP Vectra with a 486 SX2/50 in it. Haven't seen another one of those since.

    Quote Originally Posted by mcs_5 View Post
    Was it fixed later on? One of my compatibility tests is OS/2. The Transmeta CPUs run OS/2 just fine. I have some of the HP/Compaq Transmeta-based thin clients. The code morphing software uses 32MB out of the 512MB, so no problem really. I haven't run into any software that won't run on those...
    Some decompression algorithms performed extremely poorly on the Transmetas. I had to service one at my old job..... took FOREVER to install software at the "unpacking" stages.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unknown_K View Post
    Did you know there are SX/2's?
    I have seen one SX/2-66 in my lifetime and nothing since.

    Quote Originally Posted by mcs_5 View Post
    Was it fixed later on? One of my compatibility tests is OS/2. The Transmeta CPUs run OS/2 just fine. I have some of the HP/Compaq Transmeta-based thin clients. The code morphing software uses 32MB out of the 512MB, so no problem really. I haven't run into any software that won't run on those...
    OS/2 isn't really a valid compatibility test, it had long since been dead by the time Transmeta had CPUs out in the mid 2000s.

    http://www.vanshardware.com/reviews/...5_efficeon.htm

    Most specifically:

    Compatibility is suspect. Crusoe platforms have been notoriously problematic to benchmark because many benchmarks fail to execute or do not run correctly. For instance, the TM5800 1GHz Tablet PC would not run the SysMark2000 Paradox, or Photoshop tests and experienced many failures in Bryce 4, CorelDraw, and Netscape Communicator. The system also would not run Content Creation Winstone 2003, 3dMark 2000, Expendable and other tests.
    These were common complaints about Transmeta processors, not being able to run Photoshop, media applications or games without crashing or at minimum, performance issues. I remember talking with a few owners of Transmeta laptops years ago and they confirmed the issues, the only reason they bought them is because they were cheap. Even the final TM8600 core from Transmeta only had MMX, which was basically a non-starter. AMD was already on SSE3 in 2003, followed by Intel in 2004 and applications were at least targeting SSE and SSE2 by then.

    Transmeta made a series of fatal design decisions by that point which had basically doomed them to failure. They could have fixed the instruction set deficiencies in their code morphing software, but the architecture had so many glaring design flaws that it just wasn't salvageable. Like they had no AGP implementation ever and just one PCI bus, which even the south bridge had to sit on. So there was all of this bandwidth contention on the PCI bus for graphics, and everything else. Memory was another thing, the Transmeta designs had two memory controllers, one DDR and one SDR. According to them, the DDR controller was supposed to just be for the code morphing software cache and SDR was supposed to be for general purpose use, but it was never implemented that way. SDR was EOL in the mid 2000s and it would have been even more performance degradation to use it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •