Live data from Hacker News

The Worst CPUs Ever Made (2021)

extremetech.com

111–120 of 155 posts

Re: The Worst CPUs Ever Made (2021)

#111
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the Cell processor in the PS3 was not terrible in the PS3 and I doubt you ever worked on it. So talk about 'not the best-researched'. You can find many people singing it's praises, including me.

> You can find many people singing it's praises, including me. Until today, I’ve never once seen someone “singing it’s praises” that’s actually written code for one. At best, they’d curse it under their breath while saying it had its benefits. Usually however it was a full throated rant about how bad the experience was.

It was surprisingly useful for some high performance computing niches. It was in a weird time. FPGAs were available but weren’t as performant as they are today. GPUs were around but not nearly as powerful or flexible given some workloads.

Re: The Worst CPUs Ever Made (2021)

#113
"Note: Plenty of people will bring up the Pentium FDIV bug here, but the reason we didn’t include it is simple: Despite being an enormous marketing failure for Intel and a huge expense, the actual bug was tiny."

The fact that the fault was tiny and that few people were affected is definatly NOT the point.

The so-called Pentium 'bug' was the result of fundamentally terrible engineering on Intel's part in that the underlying design wasn't fit for purpose - it wasn't just a bug.

It seems to me the authors of this story do not understand the implications of what Intel did was fundamentally wrong in that its math processing was flawed by design from the outset or otherwise they would have included the Pentium in their list.

In order to achieve increased math processing speed, Intel broke mathematics algorithms down into part algorithm and part lookup tables - that is instead of having mathematics algorithms complete the whole task (which is the logical way of doing things). If the mathematics algorithm were wrong then every calculation would also be wrong and thus the problem obvious from the outset. Adding a lookup table makes calculations faster but one would then have had to test every combination in the lookup table - and Intel didn't.

Look at the problem like this - think of a set of log or trig tables, now think of the implications if one of those table entries is incorrect. What Intel did was deliberate cheating and it failed to get away with it. Intel would have known this from the outset and thus the problem was an integral design fault rather than a bug.

Intel knowingly implemented a design that had flawed data integrity at its most fundamental level. What Intel did was so nasty that it's hard to think of how it could have made matters worse than if it had deliberately tried to introduce a fault.

In my opinion, any company that would stoop to such low ethical tactics as Intel did with the Pentium's design would have demonstrated that it cannot be trusted - and I've never trusted Intel from that point onward.

If anyone ever needs a reason for why processors should have open design architectures that are subject to third-party scrutiny then this is the quintessential example.

Re: The Worst CPUs Ever Made (2021)

#114

As a system builder for a "custom computer shop" back in 1997/98, I came here just to make sure Cyrix was on the list.

No IDT WinChip though, that's mildly surprising

I don't think the Winchip was that well known. But it never pretended to be a high performing design.

Re: The Worst CPUs Ever Made (2021)

#115
post #9

This doesn't seem to be the best-researched article out there. If they thought Itanium was bad, they should have looked into the i860. Itanium was an attempt to fix a bunch of the i860 ideas. i860 quickly went from a supercomputer chip to a cheap DSP alternative (where it had at least the hope of hitting more than 10% of its theoretical performance). Intel iAPX 432 was preached as the second coming back in the 80s, b…

At least the 960 was somewhat usable. Many variants were created, and several were widely used in embedded products for quite a few years. The 860, however, was Just Crap. Full stop. End of story. IIRC it had weird double-instruction modes that compilers just couldn't handle, and if you used them anyway (for very necessary performance) then handling exceptions properly was all but impossible. Definitely gets my vote…

[deleted]

Re: The Worst CPUs Ever Made (2021)

#116
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember evaluating the 960 for an embedded router project and it was quite a nice ISA. Plus the 66 Mhz CA part was fast for the price at the time.

The i960CA was the one of the first superscalar microprocessors. (I wrote a third-party commercial instruction scheduler for it, that operated on assembly code.) It was pretty nice, certainly in line with the other 32-bit RISCy ISAs of the time. My impression is that its relative lack of success was due to Intel internal politics.

Yes within Intel it was thought that management would not push the 960 since if did so it would be picked up by the press as validated RISC is better. But for embedded applications it was very successful, I was shipping hundreds of thousands of them per month at one point

Re: The Worst CPUs Ever Made (2021)

#117
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha! I've spent months tuning code to run on the Cell, and I despise that thing. Sony gave you 6 of the 8 SPE cores to use (I think they reserved two, but it's been ages). They are indeed very fast, however, they have no cache coherent access to main RAM and only 256k of memory for each element. So, you have to meticulously write DMA scheduling code to keep them fed. If you're a simpleton like me, you double buffer…

In the early years, the SPUs were not all functional due to the fabbing process. The ones that had all 8 functional ended up in servers, and the ones with about 6 ended up in PS3s. This still happens all the time with clock speeds, and core counts on modern processors today. I’m sure the fabrication process improved over time, but they disabled the 2 cores to maintain backwards compatibility. Unrelated: Every time I’…

Same for me. I was very angry that Sony got away with that.

Re: The Worst CPUs Ever Made (2021)

#118
post #9

This doesn't seem to be the best-researched article out there. If they thought Itanium was bad, they should have looked into the i860. Itanium was an attempt to fix a bunch of the i860 ideas. i860 quickly went from a supercomputer chip to a cheap DSP alternative (where it had at least the hope of hitting more than 10% of its theoretical performance). Intel iAPX 432 was preached as the second coming back in the 80s, b…

What games were able to make full use of the Cell?

Re: The Worst CPUs Ever Made (2021)

#119
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I think Itanium gets a lot of unnecessary slack. It really tried some exciting new ideas and clean concepts. Not all of those concepts were much of a win, but with the first chip arriving years late then there’s no wonder it was perceived as underwhelming from the get go (that would happen to any chip that’s late)

Funnily, I feel like SIMD instructions are slowly reinventing what the itanium did out of the box. I think a modern compiler could likely do a good job with itanium now-a-days. However, when it first came out, there simply wasn't the ability to keep those instruction batches full. Compiler tech was too far behind to work well with the hardware.

The problem is, compile-time instruction scheduling for VLIW vs an out-of-order, superscalar processor is inherently unequal because there is an information gap. At compile time you cannot see the actual dependences, and have to statically schedule for the worst case. You can do great on regular, array-based code. But VLIW can never beat OOO superscalar processors on irregular or pointer-chasing code, because there is unequal information. On those codes, the information gap can't ever be overcome, no matter what compiler technology you have. If you don't have access to the at-runtime data values (and you never will have that), there is no static schedule that can compete.

Re: The Worst CPUs Ever Made (2021)

#120

"Note: Plenty of people will bring up the Pentium FDIV bug here, but the reason we didn’t include it is simple: Despite being an enormous marketing failure for Intel and a huge expense, the actual bug was tiny." The fact that the fault was tiny and that few people were affected is definatly NOT the point. The so-called Pentium 'bug' was the result of fundamentally terrible engineering on Intel's part in that the unde…

> In order to achieve increased math processing speed, Intel broke mathematics algorithms down into part algorithm and part lookup tables - that is instead of having mathematics algorithms complete the whole task (which is the logical way of doing things).

Can you expand on this? I thought all FPUs used lookup tables? Even the 8087 had them.

Post reply on HN