I won an i5-2500 system from an Intel contest many years ago. It was installed into an Intel branded mainboard with an "Extreme Skull" lit-up on it.
I had one of my grandkids visiting once and he loved the skull on the board. I gave it to him and he still uses it to this day.
He took it to school for homework and left his gaming PC at home.

Haswell-E was the height of its greatness.

I remember back when the Pentium D 805 was ~$90 at the same time AMD FX-60 was king @ ~$1k.
Bought one off NewEgg early '06 for giggles, because I knew it was a couple of "Press-hots" pretty much glued together with HT disabled. I thought worst-case, it could at least double as a game server and room heater. Well, it matched and/or beat stock FX-60 in most benchmarks at 4GHz. It was winter too, bonus. From 2001-2005 I had 5 AXPs, 3 A64s, 2 P4s with HT, and that PD. I still say, it was Conroe that put Netburst in the worst light. Yet, Netburst clocked high can still surf the web just fine and play many awesome older games. Single-core Netburst with HT has aged a lot better than single-core A64 has.

@las Bulldozers aren't anywhere near as bad as folks here make them out to be, IMHO, but I agree that the FX9000s were a disaster. Those CPUs beat the holy hell out of mobos. I choose to remember the FX-51 to FX-60 as AMD FX greatness - otherwise FX died harder than Bruce Willis.

@Chloe Price: I never said Netburst was the first 4GHz, I was actually thinking it was the 4790K. Looking it up, turns out it was AMD's 4170. Minun mokani! :D

@[XC] Oj101: Yes it is true. Netburst's instruction pipeline was lengthened intentionally to be able to clock higher. Between Northwood and Prescott it was lengthened yet again. OFFC the IPC was going to be worse, that was to be expected, hurrrr. Clockspeed trumps latency if it's high enough, old pun intended.

@ZeDestructor: I was being semi-facetious, but thanks for the info in the second part of your post. I must have missed that part when SB came out. The first half of the first part was plain untrue, tho. Nothing that runs and does the job is hopeless, dude! Although....If by "hopeless" you mean they weren't going to get 10GHz, let alone 5 out of it, maybe you're right heh heh

BluesFanUKHaswell-E was the height of its greatness.

Kickin' with 5820K @ 4.5GHz. Funny tho one core is defective, but 5 cores is fine. :D

zenlaserman@ZeDestructor: I was being semi-facetious, but thanks for the info in the second part of your post. I must have missed that part when SB came out. The first half of the first part was plain untrue, tho. Nothing that runs and does the job is hopeless, dude! Although....If by "hopeless" you mean they weren't going to get 10GHz, let alone 5 out of it, maybe you're right heh heh

Fair enough. But while I was being a bit hyperbolic on the NetBurst being crap front (my Prescott ran things just fine), it did rankle a bit when the desktop Pentium M boards started showing up mere months after I bought a Prescott P4 to replace the aging Northwood one. More so than any other just-after-I-bought-it launch has ever since, in fact.

zenlasermanI remember back when the Pentium D 805 was ~$90 at the same time AMD FX-60 was king @ ~$1k.
Bought one off NewEgg early '06 for giggles, because I knew it was a couple of "Press-hots" pretty much glued together with HT disabled. I thought worst-case, it could at least double as a game server and room heater. Well, it matched and/or beat stock FX-60 in most benchmarks at 4GHz. It was winter too, bonus. From 2001-2005 I had 5 AXPs, 3 A64s, 2 P4s with HT, and that PD. I still say, it was Conroe that put Netburst in the worst light. Yet, Netburst clocked high can still surf the web just fine and play many awesome older games. Single-core Netburst with HT has aged a lot better than single-core A64 has.

@las Bulldozers aren't anywhere near as bad as folks here make them out to be, IMHO, but I agree that the FX9000s were a disaster. Those CPUs beat the holy hell out of mobos. I choose to remember the FX-51 to FX-60 as AMD FX greatness - otherwise FX died harder than Bruce Willis.

@Chloe Price: I never said Netburst was the first 4GHz, I was actually thinking it was the 4790K. Looking it up, turns out it was AMD's 4170. Minun mokani! :D

@[XC] Oj101: Yes it is true. Netburst's instruction pipeline was lengthened intentionally to be able to clock higher. Between Northwood and Prescott it was lengthened yet again. OFFC the IPC was going to be worse, that was to be expected, hurrrr. Clockspeed trumps latency if it's high enough, old pun intended.

@ZeDestructor: I was being semi-facetious, but thanks for the info in the second part of your post. I must have missed that part when SB came out. The first half of the first part was plain untrue, tho. Nothing that runs and does the job is hopeless, dude! Although....If by "hopeless" you mean they weren't going to get 10GHz, let alone 5 out of it, maybe you're right heh heh

Lol, great post!

I recall having a P4 660. the 670s were in short supply in my part of the world then & being able to clock the FSB to get 4GHz out of that baby.. Heck, I think I still have it among my CPU collection of 100+
Problem was mobo vendors did not do a great job of VRM tech back then so it was a bit of a "silicon lottery" if one was to get a good chip & stable mobo to do that.

Agree with the commentary about AMD FX line, there were reports several yrs back about how devs used Intel compilers to make code & obviously it did not favor FX performance.. the silicon wars can get VERY nasty & sneaky! :( but shhhhh, don't tell the Intel fanbois that! :laugh:

My current gaming rig is lucky in so much that I can run daily almost touching 5Ghz from FX-8350 with high end air cooling, glad Asus mobo & Titanium range of PSU available help it be consistent. :)