Intel's Worst Products Ever
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2024
- Join us in War Thunder for FREE at playwt.link/ltttq and get an exclusive bonus using our link - thanks for supporting the channel!
Intel might be a giant of the processor industry, but they've had some massive flops over the years - including something that isn't even a CPU!
Leave a reply with your requests for future episodes.
► GET MERCH: lttstore.com
► COME TO LTX 2023: lmg.gg/ltx23
► GET EXCLUSIVE CONTENT ON FLOATPLANE: lmg.gg/lttfloatplane
► AFFILIATES, SPONSORS & REFERRALS: lmg.gg/masponsors
► OUR WAN PODCAST GEAR: lmg.gg/podcastgear
FOLLOW US ELSEWHERE
---------------------------------------------------
Twitter: / linustech
Facebook: / linustech
Instagram: / linustech
TikTok: / linustech
Twitch: / linustech - Věda a technologie
For those asking about the Itanium - we have a dedicated video on it right here, because it was just THAT bad. czcams.com/video/YQTSxLURyyE/video.html
Thanks for watching!
PCI-E was not "invented"! It was DEVELOPED!
Speaking about GPU - you forgot GMA3600, quite ok graphics blob for which they never managed to make proper driver with 3D support.
@@NickShl Invented means to "design a new process or mechanism" whereas developed means to "change with a specific direction" PCIe was invented, since even though PCI existed, PCIe was something new, not just the old but different
Lol
Came here exactly for Itanium :-P
Before watching, I'm calling Intel Itanium
Hard to believe they didnt call that one out.
same
@Daniel Leone cringe bot
Same
Willamette
I also remember the IA-64, which is the ISA for the Itanium architecture for Intel's Itanium family. Itt was supposed to replace x86, but then x86-64 was released.
Although IA-64 never made it to desktop, it had a run of over 18 years in a certain niche of the server market. I don't know if we should really consider that a failure.
@Daniel Leone rip bozo
Ah yes, the Itanic. Then AMD did a Slick Willie and published x64.
Nowadays IA-64 would be a good idea since it would cut down the instruction set quite a bit
I was shocked that this didn't make the list for the video...
Branch prediction in the P4 wasn’t necessarily worse than other architectures, but the long pipeline made wrong predictions very expensive.
It wasn't just the pipeline. P4 couldn't abort speculated instructions until retirement, which made it even worse, culminating in mispredictions that could end in 100 cycles of latency. Between that, the slow L2 cache, and the unorthodox L1 trace cache that replaced the i-cache, the P4 was blazingly fast right until you did anything it didn't expect, at which point performance dropped like a rock.
The other issue I remember with Netburst was that, to make branch prediction better, they dedicated a bunch of silicon to it, which put a ceiling on the speed the CPU could run. I remember people using Pentium Ms in desktop machines using socket adapters, then overclocking the bejebus out of them to get better performance than "faster" P4 chips that couldn't clock as high.
@@jbmcb Well yes.
Which is why the Pentium M formed the basis for Core...
I remember having a 1.2 Ghz K7 Athlon back then, the very reason P4 existed the way it did. AMD just had such ridiculous performance AND clockspeed that Intel was back to the wall with the P3 performing well, but not that well, so they tried discrediting clockspeed as an important factor (despite being an important factor at the time) and made the P4 with its huge pipeline and branch prediction to get a higher IPC and try to prove their marketing right.
But like car-junkies say: There is no replacement for displacement!
@@builder396 That's not true: P4 was very much designed to clock up high. Intel's marketing at the time was claiming that their CPUs would be clocked at 10GHz by 2005.
No mention of the Itanium? You know, their biggest blunder of all time?
Only slightly less well-known than "never get involved in a land war in Asia"?
Existing???
It was the first thing mentioned. iAPX 432 was itanium.
@@MasterGeekMX No, that has nothing to do with Itanium... that was the alternative to AMD x64
@@acubleywhich is even slightly less well-known than never go in against a a Sicilian when death is on the line
The branch prediction of the P4 was extremely good. The problem with the P4 was the long pipelines that took a long time to empty when a branch prediction failed.
Other problems of the P4 was the high price for the Rambus memory in the beginning. Intel wanted to get around that and created the MTH, which made SDR ram compatible with the Rambus interface. The MTH was very slow and bugged that it eventually had to be recalled.
They had to do everything, EVERYTHING, to make sure the branch prediction failed the least possible. And even then, it couldn't win against Prescott's 31-staged pipeline.
This is actually really sad.
Like a car that’s good on the straights, not so good on the corners. Maybe OK if computing loads are like USA roads.
i remember the P4 fetch stage took 20 cycles. AMD athlon XP at the time took 11 cycles. considering that on average there is a branch every 5 instructions, its a huge difference, and that is just the fetch.
@@tonyv82 I find very bizarre how we are using 15 or 20-staged pipelines in modern processors. Considering how much better did branch prediction, execution units, memory bandwidth and general architecture efficiency have all gotten better throughout the years, it appears that this is the sweet spot, and pipeline cleaning and fetching new instructions shouldn't hurt performance as much as it did in the past.
Guess the first 20-staged P4s tried to implement this "sweet spot" in a very rudimentary technology and design.
As for the 31-staged P4s, no. They don't get any excuse.
Even the later Pentium 4s had a bad reputation. Especially the Prescott ones, which were so power-hungry and overheated so much, that they were sometimes called "PressHot".
I'm amazed it never mentioned the Pentium 1 floating point bug.
Didn't the Pentium 1 60 and/or 66 Mhz models overheat to the point of melting or catching on fire?
@@ki5aok None of the processors in that generation had any thermal protection what so ever. So if you powered up the computer without a heatsink attached to the CPU they would cook themselves within seconds. Same with if the fan on the CPU heatsink died. Unless you had installed a software that could monitor the CPU temp it was very possible the processor would destruct before you knew anything was wrong. Though usually the processor would crash whatever program it was running and that would cut down on the heat enough it wouldn't kill itself. But if the he heatsink fel off, and yes it could happen if it wasn't installed properly, then the temp would spike and the CPU often would toast itself immediately.
Up to the 386 this was not really a problem as they were so low powered that they didn't need a even a passive heatsink. The slowest 386 processors were also able to run without a heatsink, but they were getting toasty. 486 and onward the heatsink was mandatory for proper operation. The Pentium 3 was when the instatoast feature really took off. Up to and including the Pentium the processor was enclosed in a ceramic material. The Pentium 2 was a cartridge design with a metal plate acting a heat spreader that the heatsink was attached to. With the Pentium 3 they went back to a PGA socket but mounted the CPU core to a organic substrate much like a PCB and they had no protection for the core, but the heatsink was making direct contact to it. This also meant that the thermal mass of the CPU was minimal. That in turn meant that without a heatsink of some kind attached the CPU would self destruct in seconds.
With the Tualatin revision Intel introduced the IHS. That was an attempt at cutting down on the RMA returns. The exposed die on the Coppermine was great for cooling performance, but you could crack the die when installing the CPU heatsink. It also increased the thermal mass significantly.
Its not that big of a Dud, compared with some later duds...
i915/925 is a good one too...
@@ki5aokno, it wasn't that bad. they certainly ran hot, but the bigger problem with that platform was the incredibly buggy 430LX chipset.
@@lifesman1234 I heard it was, but could never confirm it, so I couldn't tell if someone was exaggerating or not. Thanks for setting the record straight.
I had an i740 paired with 2 Voodoo2s in SLI. If memory serves, I bought it solely for the on-board mpeg decoder which a lot of cards didn't have at the time.
now AV1? history repeats itself
interesting, I have some beige computers i could make some voodoo SLI systems out of but Ive actually collected 3dfx literally when they were considered useless way before they got bought out.I have 3 or 4 boxes of 3dfx cards,some voodo 5's,4's,3's all the way down voodoo rushes etc....I got like 150 or so cards I got for like dollars each and I kept them cause the voodoo 2 1000 was my "first" graphics card. I had bought a sis 6326(which I still own) cause Im old AF and I just wanted to play motocross madness then got a voodoo 2 later at gamestop for 30 bucks then was blown away by its performance and started collecting 3dfx cards since then way later when they were considered shit.I have a lot of really rare cards not even from 3dfx.I have a few ATI Fury MAXX cards(the dual gpu ones) a few non working voodoo 5 6000 cards(wish I knew the problem) and a quantum 3d aalchemy system.I forget which model but it has 32 vsa-100 chips in it which is like the voodoo 5 6000 that has 4 compared to the quantum 3d's system with 32. but performance is literally no different from a voodoo 5 5500 cause games barely even scaled back then after 2 gpu's with glide
@@richieqs7789 let’s hope history doesn’t repeat the part where intel leaves the gpu market and drops GPU manufacturing :(
I had an 8mb version for a while to play cs1.6. Man it hated fog effects lol. My current p3 retro system has the igp version, the 810 with 8mb of buffer memory on the motherboard. I plan to swap it out with a version of the motherboard that has a TNT2 16mb on board. Also, yes, the video support was great with the 810 and playing DVDs.
That's why I had a matrix mystique with rainbow runner
From a purely "bad product" point of view, Itanium is sorely missing (as pointed by everyone). Maybe the use of Rambus memory could get a honorable mention.
But there were also several noteworthy bugs:
-FDiv Bug on early original Pentiums.
-SDRAM i820 motherboard recall.
-Pentium !!! 1.13GHz recall.
-6 Series chipset (for Sandy Bridge) recall.
-Self-bricking Atom C2000...
I had forgotten the degrading performance of the SATA ports ... Bad luck for a friend of mine that got a recommendation for his new PC from me. Never asked me again for advice :D
Nut Bust would be a hit among gamers no matter what product gets that nomenclature.
It must have RGB though.
Even if its going to be a racing pedal with haptic feedback
and realistic car crash feedback (with a build-in rebar shooter)?
So be fair to the P4. It was a dam good way to heat your entire house just by opening a few web pages!
You missed one. What about the Itanium - the first Intel 64 bit processor? And Intel was heavily invested in Rambus Memory, even designing the P-4 to use it to its fullest. The combination of the two was deadly for certain workflows. And the platforms were expensive.
czcams.com/video/YQTSxLURyyE/video.html
and the iapx432
Rambus, haha. I remember almost getting sucked into that. Ended up getting an Athlon 64 instead.
On a side note, I recently discovered that both Nintendo and Sony used Rambus memory.
Rambus was a massive mistake. It only had a 16-bit data path, too. Intel never saw DDR coming.
I was wondering what happened to “Timna”, and it turns out that was a casualty of the Rambus fiasco, too.
I mean, at the time, Rambus did seem to be something interesting, albeit stupidly expensive. If memory serves (pun intended), they were using it in both N64 & PS2, and generally a P4 with RDRAM would be just a notch ahead of the DDR P4 in the benchmarks. It was just 3x more expensive for the RAM, and the i850 RDR chipset was like 20-30% more expensive than the i845 DDR one that eventually appeared after Intel realised how they had failed themselves. The greedy Rambus patent trolls must've been so happy back then.
IA-64 should be it’s own video because Itanium has such an interesting history.
Ask and ye shall receive: czcams.com/video/YQTSxLURyyE/video.html
Itanium. Yes. We bought a ton of HPs with it.
Mystery gang: "Let's see who this Core 2 really is. [de-lids] PENTIUM 3!!!"
Pentium III: "That's right, and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those toasty P4s."
BTX is another one of Intel's failed products. Largely meant to deal with the heat output of the P4. All they basically did was rotate the socket so a duct could cool the CPU directly with outside air.
P4 wasnt bad...alone
It was combined with win ME, so it was laggy, but also freezing at totally random times
ctrl+alt+del*2
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket I haven't done any research, because my first PC was a pentium 4 on ME 😄 the second was a core 2 with 2 cores and everybody was losing their minds
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket Lol, China certainly has smaller nodes.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket Intel released the Pentium 4 too early and half-baked when their infamous 1.13GHz Pentium III had to be recalled in 2000. In the end the architecture was utter crap even in its later years and ultimately Intel went right back to their PIII architecture with the super successful Core 2. Up until that point, it was all AMD or nothing for almost all usage scenarios between 2000-2006.
@@AlDim000 I wouldn't say it was all amd or nothing, the pentium Ds were self melting power hogs, but they were OK for the most part.
@@endless2239 The Pentium D was the first somewhat acceptable Pentium 4 CPUs they released way late in the game and they were completely obsolete the second Core 2 was released. AMD was king until the Core 2 launched. Pentium 4 was just inferior technology, but Intel had no choice but to use if for over half a decade.
Pentium 4s getting hot really became a meme.
The i9 11900K would be a good (dis)honorable mention. It had the same core count as the 11700k, used a metric ton of power, and after all of that was still barely competitive with the Zen 3 Ryzen 7 CPUs that predated it.
i7-9700K is WAY worse than a 11900K (at least it did an IPC increase).
i7-9700K nowadays is a stuttering fest chip on games because Intel tought it was a brillant idea to remove hyperthreading, has the same core count as a 9900K but *you lose a significant amount of cache AND HALF the threads* .
@@saricubra2867 Oh boy, yeah I didn't think of that one. I know someone using a 9700f (close enough I guess) with a 1660 Ti and he still sometimes reaches CPU bottlenecks despite the lower-midrange GPU.
@@XxGorillaGodxX The worst part, the i7-9700K CAN lose against an 8700K which is the 6 core 12 thread predecessor and Ryzen 7s with 8 cores and 16 threads at the time.
Now THAT is truly a Bulldozer moment. Chips with more cores losing against chips with less cores from previous gen.
i9-11900K despite having 2 less cores than a 10900K and 10850K, has higher 1% lows and fps on the extremely CPU intensive Battlefield 2042 on the 128 player mode. It's a bad flagship, but not a bad gaming CPU which was the marketing intel pushed at the time for it.
@@saricubra2867 9th gen in general really wasn't very forward thinking. The i5s only had a measly 6 threads compared to Ryzen 5's 12 while barely giving more gaming performance (and being an absolute mess in newer titles), and the i3s were just pitiful. As you said, at least 11th gen had an uplift in single thread performance, but 9th was not only a side-grade from 8th gen at best if we look at i3 and i5, but it was flat out worse if we compare the i7s. With AMD in the equation, things only got worse for 9th gen. It *was* probably the worst gen in hindsight, especially with the massive improvement 10th gen was straight afterward, doubling threads on every sku aside from the i9s.
@@saricubra2867 idk what you're on about, I've never had any stuttering in any game with my 9700k. Sure it ain't great, but it's going on 4 years old now and still keeps up with new gens.
Wasn't there a processor that couldn't do floating point calcs correctly and had to be recalled?
Yes. Back in 1994.
Impressively, you managed to omit the Atom (esp the early 45 and 32 nm series).
I worked at a system builders at the time the i740 came out, and we discovered an issue with it, the system would freeze when playing solitaire . . . This required an updated driver from intel to fix meaning we the had to add a driver disk to all packages for when a customer needed to reinstall or install windows. An added expense for a small company. We also had to play solitaire on every system we built to ensure it didn`t freeze, The boss was not happy!
I love Anthony's knowledge but layman terminology and explanation
A VERY good video guys, make more like this please
How about the FDIV bug that ended up costing 500 million dollars in recalls and such? Pretty high on the failometer i'd say...
The partnership with RamBus also comes to mind.
x86 was actually a stopgap because the 432 was late.
The other problem with the 432 was that it was just badly designed. Like, it's a laundry list of bad ideas. It needed caches it didn't have space on die for, and extra die space was consumed by an instruction set that was variable length *bit aligned*, making it hard to fetch and decode. Additionally, the compiler for the 432 was hot garbage, making bad performance even worse as it used unnecessarily expensive instructions (intel always wants magical compilers to exist. see: Itanium). It also didn't have registers, and the only immediates were one bit wide.
I didn't know x86 was that old, that's impressive.
And then there is the infamous “Pentium bug” from 1994
Yes. The problem with the floating point division.
They keep trying to replace their x86 instruction set, only to have users say hell no
iAPX 432 is bookended by the BLS 6500 and the i960, which are the two most elegant ISAs ever created 👌
>talks about the pentagon
>sponsored by Warthunder
🤔
Lol
I had a P4 with a huge tower, it was really powerfull and could heat the whole room, a great bargain
My first computer had a pentium 4 running at 3ghz with hyper threading.
I should still have it somewhere
the Pentium (FDIV/F00F) bug's ring any bells
Lol, my first real PC build that i went out and bought all the parts for was a P4 3.06ghz HT Socket 478 on a gigabyte board with AGP, it always ran on Win XP. I upgraded that PC so many times, water cooled it, ran dual 500gb seagates in Raid 0, went through multiple water pumps and PSU's, GPU's Ram upgrades, etc. It served me well for about 12 years before i finally caved and upgraded (now a few times currently on a 13600k and 3080). I still have it sitting in the storage room, it needs new caps on the Mobo but other than that it still runs! Honestly it was a fine computer for how long i managed to get out of it
I bought a prescott P4 back in the day because I never heard of AMD and I thought Intel was the best brand.
I came to regret that decision. Still have the CPU though, turned it into a keychain :P
Surprised the 11900K didn't end up on here and in many benchmarks it was a performance regression from the previous generations 10900k
ahh yes, the infamous "waste of sand"
I agree. Compared to the Ryzen 9 5900X/5950X, the Intel Core i9-11900K was an embarrassment at worst that was uncompetitive at best before returning to proper competition with Intel 12th gen.
No mention of the Quark SoC that suffered from an occasional random perma-lockup problem when running unmodified x86 code and some really underwhelming peripherals for a product that was supposed to kill ARM. Also, if we're talking about Intel products in general, not individual chips, I'd throw in the Galileo devboards in there, that was a multilayer disaster any way you look at it.
You missed one critical point on the P4......one word: Rambus. Specifically when they came out with the P4 you only could use Rambus RDRAM, which was hella expensive. They eventually supported DDR but that initial launch was.....interesting.
iAPX 432 idea was brilliant - hardware support for memory and type safety.
If this branch of computing won, we'd have much more secure and stable systems now.
I don't know why, but I always get excited to see AGP's brought up. I still have my old Riva TNT packed away in a closet and wish I had an old system to test it in and see if it still works.
I had a Riva TNT 2. Good old Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone PC worked fairly well. Then Harry Potter 2 stuttered like hell. Good card nonetheless.
Dell Dimension 4600. Those have an AGP slot.
Perhaps also worth mentioning the Atom chip family. That was Intel’s attempt to compete with ARM in mobile/embedded devices. I remember when they were first announced in about 2008, and Intel kept going on about the “full Internet experience”. This was secret code for “plays Adobe Flash animations”, which didn’t work well on ARM chips. This wasn’t the fillip to the chip’s popularity that Intel had hoped, and of course we all know that, eventually, Adobe Flash just went away.
Pentium 4 was still a very exciting era with all the different variants and fab process. Skylake (gen 6 - 10) is the worst. Imagine the single core performance from a Xeon "Platinum 82x0 gets beat by Cortex A77 for phones of the same time.
The Pentium D being two Pentium 4 in one CPU was was a pretty bad move for intel XD
What about the Intel i5 7640X on X299 platform? A 4 core 4 thread product on a HEDT platform in late 2017 made no sense
My p4 must have been binned, that thing never gave me a problem and ran everything i threw at it, like Postal 2 and Jedi Academy
crazy that you didn't cover the floating point bug....
6:24 I miss the boxes these video and sound cards come in. Those Creative Sound Blaster boxes!
I remember studying the netbusrt architecture, it did have a lot of cool new optimizations.
Most notably, it could be *two times* as fast clock-for-clock (so in practice more than 2.5x due to the higher clock speed) as a P3/Athlon with purely integer calculations (which admittedly was a situation that didn't happen often).
@@Olivyay I think it's due to the dual-issue ALU (which might have been used later for HyperThreading). However the first generation of P4s (Willamette) was bad enough that it was slower for gaming than the last generation of P3s (Tualatin). Pentium 4s really began pulling ahead steadily only after the Northwood-based models were release, especially those above 2 GHz.
Man, I have such a love/hate relationship with the P4 HT edition. That processor was a nightmare of high temperatures and throttling. That being said, once I solved that, man, it was raw power for the time. It lasted in my setup longer than it should have because of that. The HT edition could keep up to the first successors for a little while, and was amazing to notice that.
Ahh, the High Temp edition
Heh. Back in the day I had a celeron 300a clocked to 450 MHz, dual voodoo 2 (12 meg version, thank you very much) running in SLI , with a Matrox G200 for 2d and the occasional 32 bit game like Descent (Voodoo cards only rendered in slightly more than 16 bit-- 3DFX claimed it did 18 bit rendering). It absolutely curb stomped the i740 .
I remember we had a computer with a pentium d cpu which is two pentium 4s in one running at 3 ghz and the heat sink in that computer was massive
I saw this and thought "Oh boy", they are going to talk about the chip that couldn't add. They released an x86 chip that if you ran a specific math thing, not too complicated, the chip gave the wrong answer. Huge firestorm in the media. I think it got fixed with a firmware update, but a computer that couldn't add was a real black eye.
The original Pentium 60. Floating point bug. Great times when you could only afford the AMD K5 or worse, the Cyrix M1
It was the early Pentium, and it was not that it "couldn't add" (such a bug would have been spotted immediately in development) but that it *sometimes* gave incorrect results with high-precision numbers in floating point division, which really only was an issue with scientific computations.
It had zero impact on typical consumer use (it took more than one year for the effect to be discovered by an academic).
@@Olivyay Wasnt there also a specific thing you could do in Excel to trigger the same bug?
@@builder396 There was probably a way to reproduce it but at least nobody spotted the problem before some researcher checked his calculations.
I love AMD FX as a platform, it's so silly but I love playing around with the painfully bad single core
How can you miss the Pentium FDIV bug? A 475 million dollar loss as Intel had to recall the CPUs for doing math wrong.
There was also the i9 11900k to be honest lmao
I really thought he was going to bring that one up before he said P4
That and the 11700k were just sad, but the i9 is worse for having the exact same amount of cores, sucking up a ton of power, and only being competition for the Zen 3 Ryzen 7s in practice.
The joke goes that the Pentium 4 ran so hot, it burned a hole in the side of your case.
I always used to laugh at reviews where the Pentium 4e was often out performed by the older Premium 4c at the same frequency.
I'd forgotten all about Larabee.
Pentium 60/66 with bug, ITANIUM, Atom, Larrabee, Socket 423 with RAMBUS, Rocket Lake, Ice Lake Xeons.
No mention of the Pentium 3 1133mhz, when Intel was so desperate to claw back the title of fastest clock speed from the 1ghz Athlon that they released a faulty processor?
I learned some Ada programing in my youth. It was a Programing language similar to cobalt, natural language code. Which was adopted by the military. It ran on DEC small mainframes; it might still be used to this day on larger systems for proprietary reasons.
I find it extremely odd that you didn't mention Intel's biggest failure of all time and the reason they decided to switch to their half-baked Pentium 4 in the first place, namely the infamous Coppermine 1.13GHz CPU that got recalled. It also marked the beginning of AMD's early 2000s dominance.
Also, the Intel 740 was a stellar budget graphics card at the time. I had one with the full 8MB RAM and I got very good performance out of it in its time.
Because it's not about Intel's worst failures, but Intel's worst products.
The first release 1.13 GHz P3 was still a P3 and therefore a good product, just pushed too far too soon.
Admittedly, the Northwood P4 was not a bad product either, as it had a better balance of performance and power consumption than either the previous Willamette and the subsequent Prescott, and was also competitive with the Athlon XP.
@@Olivyay The 1.13Ghz was unstable and unreliable to the point of Intel pulling all of them for a year and urgently pivoting towards an entirely different and unproven architecture to be able to have processors to sell. How can you describe that as a "good product" lol?
@@AlDim000 socket 423 P4s with 800Mhz RIMMs, early Athlons were a lot faster with cheap 128-pin DIMMs, even Durons and some late P3s (Tualatin) surpassed those early P4s
How was itanium not mentioned, that was a mistake that Intel was still paying for decades later
The very first computer I had all to myself in my bedroom (not shared with the family) was a Pentium 4. That thing definitely helped keep my bedroom warm in the winter. 🤣
3:25 Love the Robert Frost reference.
I remember having a Intel pentium 4 lga 775 3ghz. That cpu ran really hot.
Watching this as I’m doing my work, at Intel.
I had a HT version of the Pentium 4, 1 super hot core and 2 threads.
Kept me warm in the winter that thing.
wait, u didnt mention intel bribing shops like amazon
they also worked on a cmos based digital camera sensor back in early 2000's that by the time it was ready for production it was behind Cannon and they scrapped the project.
"This is detached backup battle unit ADA. Do you request control instrucions?"
Ada may not live on in consumer electronics, but it does live on in our Nuclear Silos. Hope that makes it past the censors.
Idea for a Techquickie: Explaining all the different File Transfer Protocols
YOO I didnt know this about the Pentium 4!
A computer recently came into the electronic recycling workshop place I volunteer at, I take out the CPUs so that they dont get damaged incase they're good, so that the participants can pull apart the computer without worry (We do workshops with special needs kids and schools so they can get work experience), anyway I found a old Pentium 4 in one of the donated PCs, asked if I could take it home just cause I was wanting to collect old intel CPUs.
The fact that its actually one of the worst intel cpus just made it all the much cooler to me.
I understand Anthony now as i am taking IT in College, at first i just listened to him only understand a couple of things, but now i do almost what he talks about, god i love technology and education
3:00 I have one of these babies in storage. Minus the speakers. 3:20 With one of these babies installed.
A voodoo2 card was my first GPU! It was amazing compared to the on board graphics. Textures went from blocky to smooth as butter.
Was really looking forward to Anthony explaining itanium.
@TechQuickie; This video is missing the division bug in the Pentium 1 chip of 60 to 100 MHz models. That was the first time the general public learned that CPUs could have errors.
I once tried an i740 a friend gave me. I installed the final driver version and it actually completely disabled the 3D capabilities, turning it into a 2D only card.
i740, the GPU I used to play first Half-Life.
Surprised you didn't talk about how they introduced the celeron d which due to the D in pentium D standing for dual people thought that the celeron D was a dual core but it wasn't
How dare you forget about Celeron 0k (Covington, Slot-1)?! That thing were so slow a 486 could beat it.
2 Products that should not be missed when making these Videos:
i810 (no, the i820 wasn't that bad, just weird)
i940GML (2GB Only, Single Core Only, variant of the i945G)
I went to see blue man group once, was a fun experience! didn't know they had an ad for the p4 haha
You don't know about the Blue man ads? The Intel Pentium marketing campaign in the late 90's early 00's was the most successful CPU marketing campaign of all time. A lot of people just think Intel gained such large market share due to their OEM shenanigans alone. But those Pentium ads made sure almost every single person in the US and Europe knew the name Pentium. Even your Great Grandma (born in 1910) who had never touched a computer before knew what a Pentium was and those ads cemented Intel in the publics minds for decades to come. For most people Intel was the only CPU that existed.
@@McShave ah mate I was born in 97, so it was a bit early for me to really notice those things haha, the most I remember were ads with the Intel jingle that I liked bc the sound was cool to me
You can really feel each and every pause as Anthony clicks the button for the next slide on the teleprompter
Intel - "I hosted several 5000$ tech upgrade for LTT and they still mock us. How ungrateful bunch. 😣"
Actually the Pentium 4 had great branch prediction, even compared to modern cpus. The problem is that when it did eventually mispredict it would cost 31 clock cycles compared to 10 for the Pentium 3.
What about the Intel Create and Share webcam that launched around 1998? When everyone was still using dialup…
One of my parents just retired after 25 years at intel… we had some oddball gadgets over the years. Or the Intel Home PC Program that every employee should have a PC at home so they got one for free and it was the biggest heap of junk and to-date is the only hard drive I’ve ever had to do disaster recovery on to get critical documents off of.
I absolutely love Anthony's videos
It doesnt matter how long or short a video is as long as Anthony is hosting it i will always watch to the end. My fav host by far!
Possible video suggestion: Pixels Per Inch, viewing distances, and the "correct" monitor size for common resolutions. idk, spitballin here
Also: Intel Play, a short-lived line of USB accessories, like a microscope and webcam designed to make movies. Phi dedicated PCIe processors intended to compete with nVidia Tesla. The Intel i860 RISC CPU which only found use in some obscure UNIX workstations, a couple of supercomputers, and graphics cards (the i960 was much more successful.)
The Pentium 4 and PowerPC G5 continue to terrorise my energy bill to this day.
2:49 As I recall, someone did the calculations for power consumption, and came to the conclusion that those 10GHz chips would have a heat dissipation density similar to that of a jet engine. Not really practical for a home computer.
their real failure is not continuing the extreme home upgrade series
Regarding eggs on Intel’s face allegedly the Pentium 4 ran so hot that you could fry an egg on it. Can’t confirm this as I never tried it out.😂
Haswell E couldn't use XMP and AVX512 without frying the memory controller IC and would kill your cpu.
Intel Optane probably caused more damage by corrupting windows 10 than any cyber attack could have ever hope to match. And did literally nothing compared to spending 5$ more and buying a SSD.
While I was temping at Intel Santa Clara, they sold a brunch of pc desktops with a flawed CPU which had a floating point error. I bought one for my dad and he used it for many years. They were open about the flaw but I don't recall the details.
Wasnt the I740 just meant as a display adapter?
So nobody is gonna mention the 1st gen core series, which were fantastically expensive and slow?
Some missed ones.
Recalled defective 1/1.13Ghz P3 Socket 370 in the initial runs.
Recalled 2.05v Pentium 3 600 Mhz Slot 1.
Xeon Phi. Arguably effective enough for its design, but fell short of market adoption or continuance of the series.
There are some more, that are a bit arguable. Titanium/iA64 with HP actually was more successful than conventionally understood, particularly in value of research and IP, but of course didn't expand to wider market relevance. With proper code it was extremely impressive, but if you didn't code to its strengths it really struggled. X86-64 blew it away in practical terms, and Opteron and Socket 940 quickly locked the door from the architecture being more than a fascinating footnote.
P4 I'd argue is best cut into pieces.
Willamette/s423 was an expensive failure, with clock speeds too low to compensate. RDRAM made this a huge L. Later s478 Willy's still sucked.
Northwood/s478. Doubled the cache, and once hitting 3+Ghz they were fast, reasonably cool, and things like the legendary 2.4B could be OC to 3.2 and beyond and combined with DDR 333/400 on improved chipsets (845/865, replacing the finicky 850). These flat out beat or kept up with the best Socket A options of the day, such as excellent 1700+/2500+ models that could hit 3200+ speeds with the right effort.
Prescott, the .13 micron P4 gen was an abject failure. Failed to move performance up, barely offered higher clocks, vastly increased heat, and poor value. With Socket 940/939/754 hitting at a similar timeframe with vastly better core for core performance, this was a massive dud.
And finally the P4 dual core AKA Pentium D. A mixed bag. The higher end models were truly bad buys. Better off with 3800 X2, yet st $300+ for the 3800 X2 alone, the humble Pentium D 805 at ~$110 could easily OC to 3.2Ghz end was the bargain dual core sleeper king for quite some time for those in the know.
Netburst was a weird journey.