Intel's 15 Most Unforgettable x86 CPUs

Status
Not open for further replies.

Arkz

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2008
5
0
18,510
0
great article with only a few slight errors (like saying the core2duo has 1-4 cores... i don't think there's a 1 cored version lol)

Looking forward to the AMD article.
 

aleluja

Distinguished
May 5, 2008
24
0
18,510
0
To correct you. Core 2 Duo has ONLY 2 cores, not more, not less.
Core 2 Quad, has 4 cores and Core Solo has 1 core.
 
I might be wrong, but i resemble that the Pentium 166 (32bits adress bus and all) had support for 4Gb of memory. I remember IBM sold it's top line (at that time) with 64Mb support (even with SDR PC100/66 support). Correct me if i'm wrong please.
 

neiroatopelcc

Distinguished
Oct 3, 2006
3,079
0
20,810
9
The core 2 does supply 1-4 cores - 2 cores per die, where one might be disabled, and one or two dies on a socket. It's no less right to call a core2duo a cpu with 1-4 cores, than it is to put the pentium d on the same page as a single core prescot, as it's the very same principle.
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
4
[citation][nom]Arkz[/nom]great article with only a few slight errors (like saying the core2duo has 1-4 cores http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coree ... i don't think there's a 1 cored version lol)Looking forward to the AMD article.[/citation]

Thanks for the heads-up! I tweaked that passage to better represent the Core 2 architecture's available configurations!
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]vosester[/nom]Ok it is not under the same branding but it is part of the same microarchitecture [/citation]
Exactly. The article says:

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]There are many versions of the architecture, resulting in configurations with a different number of cores[/citation]

There is no mention of the branding, so there is no actual error there, just misinterpretation.
 

ImSpartacus

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2008
7
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]Arkz[/nom]great article with only a few slight errors (like saying the core2duo has 1-4 cores... i don't think there's a 1 cored version lol)Looking forward to the AMD article.[/citation]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116039

Yes, it isn't called a "Core 2 Duo," but it uses the Core architecture and only has a single core enabled.

But I will have to say, there aren't any 3 core models...
 

magicandy

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2008
295
0
18,780
0
Good to hear you're not only doing an AMD article, but an ATI one as well (in response to the Nvidia article you did earlier, assuming). A sign of class from the new Tom's is a welcome one.
 

harrycat88

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2008
98
0
18,630
0
I wish they would get rid of those stupid SNAP Linkbubless and Inteltex misguiding links. Who ever invented those stupid annoying double lined text popups should have been burned at the stake
 

JonathanDeane

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2006
1,469
0
19,310
6
What Intelitext do you speak of ? lol (I use a good Hosts file from MVP) blocks most of that crud.

Anyway great article was like a trip down memory lane for me, first Intel CPU I got to use was a 8086 and wow it was slow (I was a kid with ADD give me a break lol) well maybe it was not slow and it was the floppy drive that killed me... Either way best game on it was Qbasic uugghh I think I remember it having CGA with a mighty 4 colors !! I had some paint program for it too.
 
G

Guest

Guest
My AMD machine (K6 233MHz) smoked all my college buddies Pentium 233s. MatLab, Visio, Quattro Pro, PSPICE, Duke Nukem - everything ran faster on my machine. And it cost me $400 less than the comparable Intel setup.
 

jimmysmitty

Polypheme
Moderator
[citation][nom]johnlove[/nom]Compared to Athlon, Pentium 4 is a big loser. So why is the Pentium 4 "unforgettable"?[/citation]

Because it was a huge part of CPU history? IDK. Considering that it was not that bad until Prescott, which I am sad they didn't mention.

But the Pentium 4 will always be remembered in my eyes thanks to the Blue Man Group. Them and their crazy stuff.

[citation][nom]theDagda[/nom]My AMD machine (K6 233MHz) smoked all my college buddies Pentium 233s. MatLab, Visio, Quattro Pro, PSPICE, Duke Nukem - everything ran faster on my machine. And it cost me $400 less than the comparable Intel setup.[/citation]

Thats nice. Because this is obviously a competition.

No wait its not. Its just a nice walk down memory lane and they are going to do AMD next so no need for that.

I for one am suprised that they didn't include the Pentium 805. I remember reading how well that one OCed and when OCed it smoked the highest end available and it only cost $150 bucks.

Seriously why bring AMD into this? Its just nice memories not a comparison.
 

snarfies1

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
226
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Considering that it was not that bad until Prescott, which I am sad they didn't mention.[/citation]

If the best you can say about it is "that it was not that bad," that would seem to indicate it wasn't particularly worth remembering.
 
G

Guest

Guest
You forgot the 486DX5 133. Allowed me to up a 486/50 to Pentium 75 performance with just a chip. Worked well till programs started to check for a true Pentium chip before running/installing.
 

theLaminator

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2008
127
0
18,680
0
I've got a working luch box with a 386 in it complete with network cards, Working pentium box, a PIII box, the laptop I still use is a P4 3.0Ghz (an hour and half battery life lol), and my new rig has A core 2 duo E8400 OC'd to 4.0Ghz. Good times for me with Intel
 

jiggafoo

Distinguished
May 14, 2008
4
0
18,510
0
With regard to the Pentium III Hits 1 GHz section, this quote caught my eye: "It was released in three versions: server (Xeon), entry-level (Celeron), and mobile (with the first version of SpeedStep)."

Wasn't there just a standard (non-Xeon, non-Celeron, non-mobile) Pentium III too?
 

SkeptiCoder

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2008
5
0
18,510
0
I think this article is a bit inappropriate, since no chip maker with the exception of maybe IBM or SUN 1) Has been around long enough, or 2) made enough variety of chips for you to make a "15 most unforgettable..." article on. I mean you mentioned practically every generation that Intel has come out with so far. An article listing 5 would have been more fitting, it wouldn't have seemed like a veiled advertisement for Intel.

Or the title could be reworked. /shrug
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS