That has nothing to do with connection speed. It's all running on your local system. I'd assume Javascript, but the web inspector says there's php elements.There's a solution to that: Don't install Flash Player.
Edit: More seriously, I'm sorry that Core2's not cutting it for you for web browsing. I do find that having Flash Player installed, though, when sites play videos for ads and stuff, it REALLY bogs things down. I've found that since I've not installed it, ads aren't nearly as draining on the system resources, when they are rendered by Waterfox's HTML5 media support.
YMMV, if you can get along without it. But if it's just the Flash ads dragging your experience down, try un-installing it.
I'm "suffering" through browsing with a Celeron J1900, a quad-core Bay Trail Atom, at around 2.4Ghz turbo ("burst") speed. It's not horrible, but it's noticeably slower than a "big-core", and for whatever reason, this forum software is SO bloated, that I have to wait, pause, wait for my text to appear when I'm typing. Which makes fixing typos a PITA. I don't remember this being a problem since getting modems faster than 2400baud.
Actually for fun earlier this year I kinda made a Core2 gaming machine for a friend out of junk I had laying around.
I took a Q9550 and OCed it to its max (3.8ghz). I added in 8GB of ram (4 slot mobo), gave it a Sata 2 SSD, and my 1GB 7850.
Overall it does an ok job gaming, as it can play most 2011-2013 games with lower settings. The real limit is on some games it has problems getting to 60fps, but if you play 30 fps console-style it works fine.
Actually overall it plays Rocket League better than my G3258 rig ever did.
The slower mobile C2D's are still usable but are getting long in the tooth by now. Even with an ssd, browsing isn't snappy.
How about the mobile chips? My wife has an old Celeron 900 in her laptop from college that she'd like to use for lesson plans and such. Is throwing a 45nm C2D (or maybe a mobile Quad if the chipset supports it) into it for ~$40 worth the trouble?
Just for fun, I stuck a C2D T9300 (2,5GHz 6MB L2, 35W) into my girlfriend's old (no longer used) eMachines laptop that originally housed a Celeron T3300 (2GHz dual core 1MB L2, 35W). Runs hotter than before, but performance increased dramatically.P8700 (2.53 Ghz 2C with 3MB cache) is $4 shipped on ebay.
P8800 (2.67 Ghz 2C with 3MB cache) is $10 shipped on ebay.
P9600 (2.67 Ghz 2C with 6MB cache) is $17 shipped on ebay.
P9700 (2.8 Ghz 2C with 6MB cache) is $24 shipped on ebay
So.....those are all good upgrades relative to the existing Celeron 900 (which is 35W 2.2 Ghz 1C with 1MB cache).
true but not by much, and FX clocks considerably higher which more than makes up the difference if you were comparing them realistically.C2Q IPC is ~= Phenom II, which is still perfectly serviceable provided the clocks are high enough.
Heck, FX IPC is worse!
For that price this system with an added cost of an SSD, is more than fine even today for a lot of people. And it comes in a USFF case with official Win 7 /Win 10 and also 2 Years guaranty to make it even more appealing. Also i believe the mobo can support Core 2 Quads, ill check it out and tell you later.
The only problem is the lack of dGPU support, i dont believe i can install even a Low Profile card in this chassis.
cbn said:For example, In the past I noticed my Q6700 scrolls webpages smoother than my E6550 when both are using the GMA 3100 iGPU. Not sure if it is because of the extra single thread of the Q6700 or more likely because the Q6700 also has two more CPU cores for handing video happening on the extra webpages that I have open while I am simultaneously browsing (scrolling) another page? (GMA 3100 does not have any video decode on it).
I took the video card out of my Q6700 4GB desktop and running Windows 10 on just the GMA 3100 iGPU the following you tube video @ 1080p did pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v2L2UGZJAM
(Some parts were not perfectly smooth, but certainly very watchable)
Also, I notice when scrolling webages with firefox in Windows 10 I am getting fairly even activity spread across all four CPU cores (measured by MSI Afterburner).
So, I was originally going to simply ask, "Is the Core2 (represented by an E8400, a $6 chip on ebay), still a viable CPU even today?".
I gotta tell you, that lack of dGPU expandability is a real deal-killer, for me personally, if I were to invest in Core2-era rigs.
The chipset IGPs of that era were SO bad, that I consider a dGPU a necessity.
Even for Sandy Bridge-era rigs, I put in a dGPU. The iGPU is still not good enough for me.
Ivy Bridge, it's kind of a toss-up, and with Haswell, finally, the iGPU is good enough for desktop and some media-playback work. Skylake is a dream as far as the iGPU goes. With the i3-6100, you can even play Skyrim at 1080P low!
Heh, we have a couple old boxes here that are still running Win 95 and barring power outages have been on pretty much 24/7 for the better part of 15-20 years. Failures will continue to happen obviously, but a lot of old computers will continue to happily chug along for decades if you let them. When we moved labs this last year we ended up sending some old AT-style, 5 1/4 floppy towers that were hiding on a shelf to the recycle heap that still powered on.
Actually it does support a dGPU but only Low Profile Single Slot. Currently im searching for used LP SL cards, i have found 2-3 and waiting for the owners to respond
Cheapest i could find that also be able to play some older games at 720-900p are the GT 440, GT730 and GT740. I will update when/if have the card installed.
I HEAR ya, Bonzai!I have too many computers at the moment, and the assurance of a friend's enthusiasm to buy one of the them "lock-stock-and-barrel" seems to have fallen through temporarily because his wife complains about his own computer room. Inquiring of my dentist if he wanted it, he tells me he has some 12 OEM Dell systems in his garage: he replaces the units in his office, and the accumulation has built up over the years. Ultimately, as time passes, something useful moves in the direction of mere cyber-junk.
My mom's system -- she's 91 -- is the oldest in the house. It is a C2D Wolfdale reissued in 2010 under the model code once associated with Conroe: E6700. The motherboard was an $85 mATX Gigabyte board which now has a total of 4GB of RAM. I put it into a 1998 Gateway case. It has a $95 MX200 Crucial SSD of ~512GB. Dual-boot with the Win 10, but nobody here is all that eager to leave Win 7 -- including me.
I could reallocate the unit up for sale to moms and discard these old C2D parts. But what she has is totally adequate to her needs and use. I suppose, if my friend confirms the reversal in February, I can take my damn time. She's happy. Everybody's happy. Nobody complains. Except me --
I have too many computers.
I don't actually know if this is a concern, but the Celeron 900 (like my T3300) runs on an 800Mz FSB. The P series listed above are all 1066MHz FSB parts. I guess it depends on the laptop/motherboard/BIOS whether different FSB speeds are supported. I wouldn't take it for granted in a laptop, at least. I ended up going for the fastest 800MHz FSB part I could find, as I didn't want to spend $20 on a dud.
P8700 (2.53 Ghz 2C with 3MB cache) is $4 shipped on ebay.
P8800 (2.67 Ghz 2C with 3MB cache) is $10 shipped on ebay.
P9600 (2.67 Ghz 2C with 6MB cache) is $17 shipped on ebay.
P9700 (2.8 Ghz 2C with 6MB cache) is $24 shipped on ebay
So.....those are all good upgrades relative to the existing Celeron 900 (which is 35W 2.2 Ghz 1C with 1MB cache).