What is your minimum processor for basic (non-gaming) desktop?

[Madpacket]

I have an old macbook pro with a 2.7Ghz Core 2 Duo, 8GB of RAM and and a 128gB Samsung Pro SSD and it feels every bit as quick as my fastest computer (Core i7-4790 w 16GB RAM).

I really don't see the differences when browsing or opening files, youtube playback, netflix, basic coding, etc. It's only when running VM's, encoding, compressing large files or obviously playing games where things make a difference.

Computers have been fast enough (for non gaming) for well over 5 years now for most tasks.

---

I should add if buying new go grab a Pentium G3258, 8GB of RAM, MSI H81 board + 128GB SSD. It'll be about the cheapest and fastest computer you can buy. At 4Ghz the G3258 feels extremely quick especially paired with a good SSD.

 

[escrow4]

Let's see, I know Celeron G460 is a little too fast to be considered as bare-minimum processor.

My absolute bare-minimum processor of all time is Pentium III 750MHz. Can still operate Windows XP (32-bit) barely with same performance feel as Atom N435 1.33GHz, but that's about it. Don't go anything below 750MHz, including all Pentium IIs, as they tend to take 1/2 hour to load-up one Newegg website page.

2014 phones are faster. That isn't bare minimum. That is a museum piece. I will not use anything lower than an i3 desktop or i3 mobile SNB or above with 8GB RAM. You are just wasting time with anything slower. That is an absolute minimum too. I use a 4770 in my main day to day box with 16GB RAM.

 

[waltchan]

2014 phones are faster. That isn't bare minimum. That is a museum piece. I will not use anything lower than an i3 desktop or i3 mobile SNB or above with 8GB RAM. You are just wasting time with anything slower. That is an absolute minimum too. I use a 4770 in my main day to day box with 16GB RAM.

My absolute barest-of-the-barest minimum processor (Pentium III 750MHZ) is the slowest and oldest processor you can find that can at least open one website page in less than 1 minute. Plus, Microsoft Office works fine. I've seen Pentium IIs 350MHZ take 5 minutes to load one website page (because it lacks SSE instruction), which I call it totally unusable for any human being today. Microsoft Office struggles a tiny bit too.

 

[DeathReborn]

For basic office work a simple AMD A4-7300 or Intel Celeron G1610 (no Atom/Kabini) coupled with 2GB of RAM & a SSD.

For work involving image/video editing obviously that would move up to i5/i7 & 16GB+ RAM, large SSD and a discrete GPU to go with it.

All of that is obviously based on new parts.

 

[Yuriman]

For basic office work a simple AMD A4-7300 or Intel Celeron G1610 (no Atom/Kabini) coupled with 2GB of RAM & a SSD.

For work involving image/video editing obviously that would move up to i5/i7 & 16GB+ RAM, large SSD and a discrete GPU to go with it.

All of that is obviously based on new parts.

Pretty much this. I picked up a Chromebook with a 2955U (Haswell 1.4) + 2GB + SSD for ~$100 and for basic web use, it's perfect.

 

[crashtech]

Obtainability is an important consideration. Among the commonly available new low-end CPUs, I'd say the Celeron G1840 for around $46 street price is about the best entry-level desktop CPU going. I've built a few of these, and also G3220-G3240 systems for clients, and to tell the truth there is no discernible difference between the Celerons and Pentiums outside of benchmarks.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i have a feeling with the next generation of chips they will do away with true desktop celerons and pentiums

 

[escrow4]

My absolute barest-of-the-barest minimum processor (Pentium III 750MHZ) is the slowest and oldest processor you can find that can at least open one website page in less than 1 minute. Plus, Microsoft Office works fine. I've seen Pentium IIs 350MHZ take 5 minutes to load one website page (because it lacks SSE instruction), which I call it totally unusable for any human being today. Microsoft Office struggles a tiny bit too.

Did you actually write that . . . . D:

Web pages should instant or a second or two. Anymore and either junk the PC or your internet connection is really really bad.

 

[ninaholic37]

Did you actually write that . . . . D:

Web pages should instant or a second or two. Anymore and either junk the PC or your internet connection is really really bad.

Yup. Even on dial-up in 1998 I don't think it took 1 minute to load heavy sites with Javascript, maybe 10-20 seconds was the norm on my 486/100MHz laptop with Windows 95. Back then, ads didn't take up 80% of the bandwidth though.

edit: I was running my Pentium M locked at 600MHz full time recently for a few months and it's not bad at all. Maybe 5-10 seconds to load most pages fully. A Pentium III at 750MHz would probably perform about the same I'm guessing.

Pretty much this. I picked up a Chromebook with a 2955U (Haswell 1.4) + 2GB + SSD for ~$100 and for basic web use, it's perfect.

Good deal. I would probably buy that for that price as well.

 

[soccerballtux]

I just need RAM. I don't need much CPU. 32GB RAM and a dual core AMD and I'd be fine.

 

[Leyawiin]

My mom had an old Athlon 64 3700+ system I'd given her up until last summer (when she got an X4 980 BE one from me). I was surprised it couldn't still browse the Internet fine.

 

[waltchan]

Did you actually write that . . . . D:

Web pages should instant or a second or two. Anymore and either junk the PC or your internet connection is really really bad.

Yep, the problem with today's website page is that they have become so graphical and more advanced with tons of JavaScript added than before, plus flash player is needed to view the pictures, that it slows down the load time by a lot

Back then, they were all simple lines with Courier fonts, and used to open up instantly 15 years ago with the Pentium IIs. Now they take between 3-5 minutes to download and load one page fully (I'm not kidding).

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Yep, the problem with today's website page is that they have become so graphical and more advanced with tons of JavaScript added than before, plus flash player is needed to view the pictures, that it slows down the load time by a lot

Back then, they were all simple lines with Courier fonts, and used to open up instantly 15 years ago with the Pentium IIs. Now they take between 3-5 minutes to download and load one page fully (I'm not kidding).

man, thats why i dont get it when they come out with these crap celeron chromebooks and everyone says "man, wif a chromebook dat all you need". no, cuz web pages these days require faster than 1.4 ghz cpus

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I waffle sometimes, but for general use I really think you need a quad-big-core something. (So, an i5.)

Dualies seemed to get too gummed up with background processes to be sufficiently snappy. Although SSDs eliminate most of the chug.

I've actually never spent enough time using an i3 (2c/4t) to know if it really solves the problem. (Multitasking benchmarks with the original Pentium 4-HT showed big improvements, but I've always skipped straight from Celeron/Pentium to i5s, depending on the use case and budget.)

 

[ArisVer]

For me it would be a C2D E6xxx series with 2GB RAM.
Improvements for this are 2GB more RAM (or more), an SSD and a C2Q.
You don't need anything more for a non gaming rig.

As far as the loading of the webpages, I don't mind if they take more than a few seconds to load since I need a few minutes to read them at least. That also depends on your internet line and not the CPU.

I believe a single core is just not good enough for today's standards and also they hardly support more than 2GB of RAM which is needed if you are going to have a few tabs open in your browser.

 

[VirtualLarry]

For me it would be a C2D E6xxx series with 2GB RAM.
Improvements for this are 2GB more RAM (or more), an SSD and a C2Q.
You don't need anything more for a non gaming rig.

I recently upgraded someone's E2160 (1.8Ghz) rig, with 2GB DDR2, to 8GB DDR2 and an SSD, along with a re-install of (gak) Vista.

Edit: After putting the SSD in, and boosting the RAM, it was almost snappy. I say "almost" because Windows Update bogs down on a 1.8Ghz C2D. It was only using around 2GB of RAM total, and I highly doubt it was disk bottle-necked due to the SSD, but one core of the CPU was always pinned at max, it seemed.

 

[coolpurplefan]

Since I got a quad-core Intel i5-4570 and 8GB RAM (details in signature), I wouldn't want to go lower. With Windows 7 Professional 64-bit, I can have Avira anti-virus running in the background while with WinXP 32-bit with a single or dual-core and 2GB RAM, I can tell even web browsing is slower if I have Avira running in the background.

I can also run the new pre-alpha demo of Unreal Tournament at medium settings at 1080p (with my GT 640 which isn't much).

EDIT (in case I change in the future): Current machine is: Asrock Fatal1ty H87 Performance motherboard (with Realtek ALC1150 audio), Intel i5-4570 CPU, 8 GB Kingston RAM KHX18C10K2/8 (on XMP profile #2), MSI GeForce GT 640 (replaced fan with 80mm Scythe Kama Flex), Windows 7 Professional 64-bit OEM

 

[escrow4]

Yep, the problem with today's website page is that they have become so graphical and more advanced with tons of JavaScript added than before, plus flash player is needed to view the pictures, that it slows down the load time by a lot

Back then, they were all simple lines with Courier fonts, and used to open up instantly 15 years ago with the Pentium IIs. Now they take between 3-5 minutes to download and load one page fully (I'm not kidding).

It isn't a problem. The problem is using rubbish hardware that is slower than a mid range 2014 Snapdragon to browse. An i3 is the absolute minimum, i5 if you can push it (and a higher clocked i5 than a poky 3.2GHz 44xx one). The only exceptions are slow tired cheapo tablets.

 

[crashtech]

It's interesting that this group of enthusiasts that is on the whole fairly well versed in PC hardware has such a wide range of answers on this question. A poll might be an more illustrative way to follow up on the subject.

 

[Smoblikat]

E5200 with 4gb RAM minimum. OC that puppy to 3.6 and call it a DAY. On this setup, an SSD is a requirement though, and a 9800GTX is a minimum too.

 

[lord_emperor]

Athlon X2 3600+

 

[Zodiark1593]

It's interesting that this group of enthusiasts that is on the whole fairly well versed in PC hardware has such a wide range of answers on this question. A poll might be an more illustrative way to follow up on the subject.

I think it's down to individual interpretation. One person may not mind waiting a half minute to a minute (Pentium 4). Another may be less tolerant at around 5-10 seconds (Core 2 Duo). Another wants things loaded yesterday (quad i5).

Of course, thrashing will cause everyone above to start ripping out their hair, so RAM should at least be 1GB for an XP system, preferably 2GB, closer to 4GB for anything later. And for graphics, basic use doesn't cover 3d games, but videos are common, probably the old GMA X4500 or later will cover most video decoding needs.

 

[crashtech]

I think it's down to individual interpretation. One person may not mind waiting a half minute to a minute (Pentium 4). Another may be less tolerant at around 5-10 seconds (Core 2 Duo). Another wants things loaded yesterday (quad i5).

Of course, thrashing will cause everyone above to start ripping out their hair, so RAM should at least be 1GB for an XP system, preferably 2GB, closer to 4GB for anything later. And for graphics, basic use doesn't cover 3d games, but videos are common, probably the old GMA X4500 or later will cover most video decoding needs.

I had been presuming that decisions might also be based on what one is considering to be basic tasks. For the majority of machines I build, web browsing and word processing make up the bulk of the use. You don't need a quad core for that (yet) but a Pentium 4 is clearly not up to the task anymore with current software iterations.

 

[Ramses]

My absolute oh crap everything else is broke or busy comp is a five or six year old tk-57 amd laptop with 2gb and a cheap ssd. The lack of ram is the greatest holdup.
I had a 3ghz p4 in the shop for netflix and such but it's basically replaced with an older acer chromebook now. The chromebook is comically faster than the old p4.

 

[krumme]

Guys an office machine is not for surfing or watching youtube videos. There is something about work you have misunderstood. Its not about a fluent facebook page.

An slow ssd is a must then and as a min core duo and 2 gig so it can run win7. Can handle google and facebook ad backend