Teehee, put a 5930K into my office box

[escrow4]

Ah, sweet bliss!

I used to run two boxes, one being gaming, the other being whatever I wanted as my default porn box. Was a 4770, then a 4170, then a G1850 plus some bits and pieces over the years. I've now scrapped it as its BSODing and being too lazy to fiddle with it I've moved on to sweet sweet power. Don't really game anymore so sold the 780 Ti (DEATH TO KEPLER) and added in a GTX 950.

I'll now never run anything lower than an i5 as an absolute minimum for my everyday boxes. There is a substantial difference between low end and top shelf. Same thing I experienced with the i7. If you are still running a dual core in a desktop you are missing out. I have never seen Chrome move so fast as when 6 Haswell cores at 3.7GHz (with MCE) are hammering it along combined with a modern GPU accelerating the GPU side.

VirtualLarry, you really should upgrade. SERIOUSLY.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Why dont you have a third party disable 2 or 4 cores, use the machine blind, and prove your theory. (i.e. see if you can tell how many cores are in use.)

I am still skeptical for light use that one can tell the difference.

 

[Burpo]

Oh you can definitely tell the difference with a hex-core.. Even hex-core Windmere EP with it's lower IPC is way peppier than a quad..

 

[SlowSpyder]

Moar cores. :thumbsup:

 

[Zstream]

Oh you can definitely tell the difference with a hex-core.. Even hex-core Windmere EP with it's lower IPC is way peppier than a quad..

uhhh... ok

 

[escrow4]

Why dont you have a third party disable 2 or 4 cores, use the machine blind, and prove your theory. (i.e. see if you can tell how many cores are in use.)

I am still skeptical for light use that one can tell the difference.

Its the fluidity. You gut cores and you can feel the difference. Or if you have new tabs "hitching" in when they load.

 

[moonbogg]

Sandy Bridge-E HELL YEAH!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Its the fluidity. You gut cores and you can feel the difference. Or if you have new tabs "hitching" in when they load.

I don't know about that. Maybe that's the case with multi-threaded Chrome, but with Firefox, I much prefer my two faster cores on my overclocked G4400, than my four cores on my Q9300 at stock.

 

[escrow4]

Sandy Bridge-E HELL YEAH!

Haswell-E but the gist is there. :sneaky:

 

[escrow4]

Up and running. It seems like Chrome is on crack. Ended up cheaping out and getting a GT 730. Has enough CUDA cores (384) to put the boot into accelerating 10 and Youtube. Never again dual cores. No. Just no.

 

[eton975]

Its the fluidity. You gut cores and you can feel the difference. Or if you have new tabs "hitching" in when they load.

Curious as how the AMD FX 8-cores would perform then.

 

[escrow4]

I don't know about that. Maybe that's the case with multi-threaded Chrome, but with Firefox, I much prefer my two faster cores on my overclocked G4400, than my four cores on my Q9300 at stock.

Thing is the Core 2 Quad is ancient. A Skylake i3 would murder it. A G4400 on the other would fall flat if you start heavy multitasking. No matter how high that Pentium is clocked its still a dual core.

 

[escrow4]

Curious as how the AMD FX 8-cores would perform then.

Wouldn't know.

Another thing, if you have a dual core load up a 1080p60 video in Youtube then a few tabs then switch back - is playback still ticking along? Any hesitation flipping between multiple tabs? Win 10 may have the same requirements as 7 but the web has moved on since 2009 . . . .

 

[VirtualLarry]

Wouldn't know.

Another thing, if you have a dual core load up a 1080p60 video in Youtube then a few tabs then switch back - is playback still ticking along? Any hesitation flipping between multiple tabs? Win 10 may have the same requirements as 7 but the web has moved on since 2009 . . . .

I find that switching tabs and whatnot, is more dependent on how much RAM you have in the box, and what level of GPU, than anything else. Then again, it's been a long time since I've fired-up and actually used my Thuban 1045T rig. (My only personal experience with hex-cores.)

 

[moonbogg]

Haswell-E but the gist is there. :sneaky:

Yeah I know I just felt like screaming that out loud. Its totally worth screaming. Scream it!

 

[escrow4]

15min Window install then added some porn HDDs and the system refused to boot and the OS got lost. How fun. Had to clear the CMOS. 10 couldn't take it!

This 730 is interesting. All passive, no fan, no PCI-E connector. The level of difference between this and a G1850 is astonishing.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Its the fluidity. You gut cores and you can feel the difference. Or if you have new tabs "hitching" in when they load.

Between the quad i5-4590 in my desktop and the hyperthreaded dual i5-560M in my laptop, I honestly can't tell much of a difference while web browsing unless some rogue process gets hungry decides to eat a core (looks at Windows Update). In the latter case, then the difference between dual and quad becomes night and day.

Under normal use (without rogue processes), the 3.2 GHz i5-560M keeps pace remarkably well. It's only when I lock it down to 1.2 GHz where it becomes noticeably sluggish compared to my desktop, but still plenty usable, and miles above any Atom quad. 1080P Youtube playback via IE (for gpu assisted h.264) while surfing on Firefox is also flawless. The VC9 codec gets things quite sketchy though, as well as murders battery life.

That being said, I'd recommend a quad to the average Joe under virtue that the quad can tolerate a rogue process or two before said Joe starts cursing at the pc (as he is unlikely to know how to even launch task manager).

 

[VirtualLarry]

That being said, I'd recommend a quad to the average Joe under virtue that the quad can tolerate a rogue process or two before said Joe starts cursing at the pc (as he is unlikely to know how to even launch task manager).

Is that why there are so many J1900-based PCs sold at Walmart? "It's a quad! Intel!"

Edit: I'd probably prefer a Haswell Celeron (dual-core), to a J1900. But I'm not sure whether I would prefer an A8-6410 Beema 2.0Ghz quad-core (cat core), to a Haswell Celeron G1820 rig. (I have a Beema A6-6310 1.8Ghz APU laptop running Win7, and a G1820 desktop running Linux.) I think I might actually prefer the Beema. (AMD GCN APU video drivers on Win7 64-bit may be a bit "snappier" than the open-source Intel Haswell IGP video drivers on Linux Mint.)

 

[escrow4]

Is that why there are so many J1900-based PCs sold at Walmart? "It's a quad! Intel!"

Edit: I'd probably prefer a Haswell Celeron (dual-core), to a J1900. But I'm not sure whether I would prefer an A8-6410 Beema 2.0Ghz quad-core (cat core), to a Haswell Celeron G1820 rig. (I have a Beema A6-6310 1.8Ghz APU laptop running Win7, and a G1820 desktop running Linux.) I think I might actually prefer the Beema. (AMD GCN APU video drivers on Win7 64-bit may be a bit "snappier" than the open-source Intel Haswell IGP video drivers on Linux Mint.)

Those PCs are an abomination. Average joe would buy one then either return it once he discovers how horrifyingly slow they are - if he doesn't toss it out the window first. All of those low end CPUs are a waste of time. For an everyday system you want snap.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Is that why there are so many J1900-based PCs sold at Walmart? "It's a quad! Intel!"

Edit: I'd probably prefer a Haswell Celeron (dual-core), to a J1900. But I'm not sure whether I would prefer an A8-6410 Beema 2.0Ghz quad-core (cat core), to a Haswell Celeron G1820 rig. (I have a Beema A6-6310 1.8Ghz APU laptop running Win7, and a G1820 desktop running Linux.) I think I might actually prefer the Beema. (AMD GCN APU video drivers on Win7 64-bit may be a bit "snappier" than the open-source Intel Haswell IGP video drivers on Linux Mint.)

Suppose I should have specified big core quads then, huh?

 

[VirtualLarry]

This thread made me dig out one of my Q9300 rigs, and refurb it a bit. (Throw in 50GB SATA2 SSD - good old "Vertex 2"), and install a fresh copy of Win7 64-bit. (Well, I needed to do those things anyways, if I was going to resell / donate this old rig.)

Anyways, when it's done installing, I'll give Firefox a whirl.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

I really didn't notice the difference between pentium G3258 and the 4670K.

Maybe my internet isn't fast enough.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, with the Q9300 at 50% CPU (from WU), scrolling in Firefox using the middle-button smooth auto-scroll isn't really smooth. Kind of like "chunky".

Then again, I have ads on these forum pages on that box, because I haven't loaded noscript.

Edit: Now that I've enabled NoScript, the pages on this forum are loading quickly and scrolling smooth as butter.

So, once again, it's really a software issue more than hardware.

Edit: OTOH, I'm using up to 50% CPU usage due to WU (fresh Win7 64-bit install), and still, browsing is smooth (with NoScript) with Firefox.

 

[Yuriman]

I really didn't notice the difference between pentium G3258 and the 4670K.

Maybe my internet isn't fast enough.

In a blind test, I couldn't tell a difference between my overclocked i5 and my wife's stock Haswell i3.

 

[XavierMace]

Well, with the Q9300 at 50% CPU (from WU), scrolling in Firefox using the middle-button smooth auto-scroll isn't really smooth. Kind of like "chunky".

Then again, I have ads on these forum pages on that box, because I haven't loaded noscript.

Edit: Now that I've enabled NoScript, the pages on this forum are loading quickly and scrolling smooth as butter.

So, once again, it's really a software issue more than hardware.

There's a huge difference between the quad core you are using and what everybody else is talking about and you're using Firefox.