My father still uses a ~2ghz Core2 and has no problems with web browsing. I can't tell the difference between my wife's i3 and my i5.
A Core 2 is useless in 2016. Web browsing is so bloated I wouldn't even bother with an i3. A new i5 with at least of 8GB RAM if not 16GB would be a huge difference along with a way more modern chipset.
A Core 2 is useless in 2016. Web browsing is so bloated I wouldn't even bother with an i3. A new i5 with at least of 8GB RAM if not 16GB would be a huge difference along with a way more modern chipset.
Been testing a C2D E4400 2.0 GHz equipped Dell Inspiron 530, paired with a 1 GB GDDR5 Radeon 7750 and 2.5 GB of DDR2 for shits and giggles. It isn't pretty when tested with anything remotely new like Tomb Raider, Metro Last Light or CS:GO. Even at 2.0 GHz, I expected better! Wife's 3.2 GHz Sandy Bridge i3 just walks all over it (which is what the 7750 is normally paired with).
my E5420 (2.5GHz C2Q) with 3GB on win10 is fine for web browsing,
16GB; wtf? even most games are good with 8GB; I think 4GB of ram is safe for a good experience for basic use/web browsing.
If I recall, Core 2 Quads worked the same way Pentium Ds did - they're two dies on one package. They're effectively two dual core CPUs taped together. I believe this can theoretically make communication between the CPUs slower.
A Core 2 is useless in 2016. Web browsing is so bloated I wouldn't even bother with an i3. A new i5 with at least of 8GB RAM if not 16GB would be a huge difference along with a way more modern chipset.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but you certainly don't need an i5 with 8-16GB for web browsing
the fun with e4400 was OC; 3GHz was pretty easy
even on the anandtech review from over 10 years ago they had 4GHz C2Ds
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2045/18
:biggrin:
I was actually still using a dual core lga 775 setup for gaming around 5-6 years ago, with OC to 3.6GHz or so, it was OK on most games.
I would think the e4300 with some OC would be fine with CSGO
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but you certainly don't need an i5 with 8-16GB for web browsing
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but you certainly don't need an i5 with 8-16GB for web browsing
And as mentioned Core 2 is perfectly fine for that.
BTW, this was posted from a 2.9 GHz Athlon II X3 435 from 2010. Performance is fine. 8 GB + Samsung 850 EVO SSD installed.
I'd say the biggest bottleneck for browsing here today is the Anandtech webservers. It's been slow for me regardless of the machine I used and regardless of the location (workplace and home).
That kind of workload would melt a modern i5 and would make a Sandy i7 struggle. Jeez.You open up a dozen tabs, start a 60p video somewhere, run word and an email client, then I usually have an FTP client open, files are going to different HDDs, might crack an encoder open a Core 2 will just melt. If you just to want to browse Xvideos then sure use a Core 2. If you actually use a PC for work then nope. I've hit 4-5GB base usage on my 16GB 5930K box.
I don't cheap out on desktops. They are the centrepiece I work on. Everything else is tablet or phone. Core 2 is useless for me at least. And if I used a box near every day I wouldn't use an i3 either.
My friend's Athlon II X4 rig died recently in a thunderstorm. Was debating on whether it was worth it to revive it. Your post makes me think that it is. It has 16GB of DDR2 in it and an SSD for the OS drive.
Problem is, my friend doesn't want to spend anything on parts to fix it.
If you look at the OS forum, you'll see how I and other speculated about Microsoft's "Windows Update" problem to suggest they were covertly doing more to encourage migration to Win 10 than simply "advertising." This, of course, is speculation, but you can add to that the possibility that MS might want to encourage folks to unload really "dated" hardware.
Also, merely a suspicion of mine . . . .
You open up a dozen tabs, start a 60p video somewhere, run word and an email client, then I usually have an FTP client open, files are going to different HDDs, might crack an encoder open a Core 2 will just melt. If you just to want to browse Xvideos then sure use a Core 2. If you actually use a PC for work then nope. I've hit 4-5GB base usage on my 16GB 5930K box.
I don't cheap out on desktops. They are the centrepiece I work on. Everything else is tablet or phone. Core 2 is useless for me at least. And if I used a box near every day I wouldn't use an i3 either.
When your grandmother's yugo die, you won't buy her a ferrari to achieve same kind of transportation. i3 is completely fine for everything including casual content creation, gaming and scientific calculations. I don't know why on this forum is i3 so underrated CPU.You open up a dozen tabs, start a 60p video somewhere, run word and an email client, then I usually have an FTP client open, files are going to different HDDs, might crack an encoder open a Core 2 will just melt. If you just to want to browse Xvideos then sure use a Core 2. If you actually use a PC for work then nope. I've hit 4-5GB base usage on my 16GB 5930K box.
I don't cheap out on desktops. They are the centrepiece I work on. Everything else is tablet or phone. Core 2 is useless for me at least. And if I used a box near every day I wouldn't use an i3 either.
That kind of workload would melt a modern i5 and would make a Sandy i7 struggle. Jeez.
i3 is completely fine
I don't know why on this forum is i3 so underrated CPU.
You open up a dozen tabs, start a 60p video somewhere, run word and an email client, then I usually have an FTP client open, files are going to different HDDs, might crack an encoder open a Core 2 will just melt. If you just to want to browse Xvideos then sure use a Core 2. If you actually use a PC for work then nope. I've hit 4-5GB base usage on my 16GB 5930K box.
I don't cheap out on desktops. They are the centrepiece I work on. Everything else is tablet or phone. Core 2 is useless for me at least. And if I used a box near every day I wouldn't use an i3 either.
My fastest computer is 6 years old. I'm not some hardcore gamer, but I'd say I'm a computer enthusiast.This. People say "it's fine" and i visualize them with one web browser open full screen. Yeah, it's fine for that, but this isn't what we're talking about.
This isn't 1999 anymore when CPUs struggled to do even basic stuff. In 2016, the top end consumer CPUs are far, far, far faster than what 98% of the population needs, so much so that geeks like me that don't game on PCs are fine using 6 year-old computers, as long as they have sufficient RAM and SSDs.
Anyhow, browsing isn't mainly about raw compute speed. Browsing is more about memory. Running half dozen browser tabs with MS Office in the background and with even vlc playing 1080p h.264 in the corner streamed over the network is perfectly fine as long as you have at least 8 GB. In fact, I do this on a 6 year-old Core i7 with 12 GB RAM.
BTW, MS Office in the background takes very little CPU resources, and the same goes for vlc playing 1080p h.264, since the latter is GPU accelerated. So you're mainly just spending that CPU power on those browser tabs, most of which are just idle in the background anyway.