Yes, web browsing IS faster with a quad-core. (Caveats inside)

[mikeymikec]

It kills battery life, is a memory hog and - something I just found out yesterday - has major issues with hardware acceleration of older systems. Just opening the Amazon Prime video player on a core 2 duo laptop freezes the whole system for seconds at a time. No such thing with Edge.

I still prefer to use Chromium based browsers, but to call it flawless is an overstatement par excellence.

Which would be a fine argument if I claimed that it was flawless. Every major browser has issues. But pcslookout claimed it was garbage, which is the argument I countered. I wouldn't even call IE garbage even though it is dead in the water now, has poor add-on support, and a very spotty security record historically. I wouldn't call Firefox garbage even though Mozilla has spent tonnes of time adding useless features and re-hashing the UI instead of making sure that Firefox remained the fastest and most secure browser and urinated away their majority share of the market. Chrome is a resource hog. I don't like its lack of UI customisability, but the fact remains that it can open a multitude of tabs I have in 15 seconds when Firefox takes 40 even with a fresh profile.

 

[mnewsham]

Chrome is a resource hog

Even then, its MOSTLY just using RAM, unless you're running a crazy array of extensions that are taking up some CPU time. The vast majority of the resources Chrome will take up is going to be RAM, which in this day isn't particularly hard, nor expensive to upgrade.

 

[Piroko]

Which would be a fine argument if I claimed that it was flawless. Every major browser has issues. But pcslookout claimed it was garbage, which is the argument I countered.

Even then, its MOSTLY just using RAM, unless you're running a crazy array of extensions that are taking up some CPU time.

I think I have to clarify: User experience on that system was so bad, if I didn't know that Chrome can run well I would have genuinely called it garbage.
Also, to this day the Chromium engine still seems to have issues with its internal tick rate, even sites like the AT forums will keep my Notebook from entering C3 and C6 CPU states in Chrome (and Vivaldi) while Edge happily lets it drop down into those power states even with the same tabs loaded. That's a difference of several % of battery life per hour.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Larry, how does that 6400 feels on stock clock? Still snappy or much less ? and then how it compares to g4400oc?

I dunno, I don't think that I've ever had it booted into Windows 10 at stock speeds.

 

[lolek86]

I dunno, I don't think that I've ever had it booted into Windows 10 at stock speeds.

I wonder if that could still add some twist to this discussion of cores (2016 cores ) vs clock in webbrowsing.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I dunno, I don't think that I've ever had it booted into Windows 10 at stock speeds.

Please actually benchmark it instead of posting about the "feel."

We want to mathematically quantify how wrong you've been about low end vs. midrange CPUs for all these years.

 

[mikeymikec]

I think I have to clarify: User experience on that system was so bad, if I didn't know that Chrome can run well I would have genuinely called it garbage.
Also, to this day the Chromium engine still seems to have issues with its internal tick rate, even sites like the AT forums will keep my Notebook from entering C3 and C6 CPU states in Chrome (and Vivaldi) while Edge happily lets it drop down into those power states even with the same tabs loaded. That's a difference of several % of battery life per hour.

Correction: Your user experience.

Unless you've got reproducible evidence (and not just reproducible on your kit) to back up your assertion, what you've got there is likely to be a user, app configuration or platform-specific issue, as it is your response is as useful as some guy on the Internet saying "I tried browser X once, it was awful!".

Even if you had the evidence I described, it does not by any stretch of the imagination apply to all PCs running Windows. Even if it applied to all portable Windows devices, it's by no means a showstopper for many portable users, and as Chrome often is close to or has first place in various browser benchmarks, many might consider the battery hit to be an acceptable compromise for better performance, or even not care about that level of unnecessary loss of battery life, and/or prefer Chrome for other reasons.

That's just aside from the fact that due to dubious website design practices and obnoxious advertising, there's always a pretty good chance that Chrome's alleged inefficiencies might not be the reason why batteries are being drained unnecessarily.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Please actually benchmark it instead of posting about the "feel."

We want to mathematically quantify how wrong you've been about low end vs. midrange CPUs for all these years.

Ok, I closed all programs, except for CPU-Z 1.78 64-bit, and Waterfox 50.0 64-bit, with multiprocess windowing showing "1/1 (enabled)" in "about:support".

I ran PeaceKeeper (the browser benchmark), full-screen, on both the i5-6400 @ 4.51Ghz, and the G4400 @ 4.52Ghz.

If quad-cores mattered for browsing, then the score of the i5 should be higher than the G4400 Pentium, right?

Well, the i5-6400 scored 7262, and the G4400 scored 7287.

The G4400 was clocked 0.01Ghz faster than the quad-core, and it scored... just a smidgen higher.

So, objectively-speaking, in PeaceKeeper, there's NO performance advantage to a quad-core, in Waterfox 50.0, even with mutliprocess windows enabled!

free image host

gifs upload

http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=DwT9&resultId=11327215

http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=DwT0&resultId=11327166

 

[crashtech]

The difference comes in when a user has Windows doing a security scan and an update behind the scenes, as well as any other installed junk. A clean system with nothing else going on is an ideal situation for a dual core to look good.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The difference comes in when a user has Windows doing a security scan and an update behind the scenes, as well as any other installed junk. A clean system with nothing else going on is an ideal situation for a dual core to look good.

Potentially true. But, conversely, if you run a "clean OS", no need to spend extra on a quad-core for Firefox / Waterfox, because you won't get more performance. (Ok, it "feels" faster, but maybe that's only because I was during DC on the G4400 at the same time, on both CPU cores and the GPU. Not during the benchmark, though.)

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Ok, I closed all programs, except for CPU-Z 1.78 64-bit, and Waterfox 50.0 64-bit, with multiprocess windowing showing "1/1 (enabled)" in "about:support".

I ran PeaceKeeper (the browser benchmark), full-screen, on both the i5-6400 @ 4.51Ghz, and the G4400 @ 4.52Ghz.

If quad-cores mattered for browsing, then the score of the i5 should be higher than the G4400 Pentium, right?

Well, the i5-6400 scored 7262, and the G4400 scored 7287.

The G4400 was clocked 0.01Ghz faster than the quad-core, and it scored... just a smidgen higher.

So, objectively-speaking, in PeaceKeeper, there's NO performance advantage to a quad-core, in Waterfox 50.0, even with mutliprocess windows enabled!

Thank you.

So that's basically acting like a single-threaded workload even with multiprocessing enabled. (Even if it's enabled, doesn't mean anybody's using it.)

I remember a very long time ago, some review sites had trouble doing a meaningful review of hyperthreading because they weren't really set up to benchmark multitasking/multiprocessing workloads. It looks like we may still be stuck there.

Trying a few different web browsers, or testing while the system is under some other typically automated load (say, a virus scan, or backing itself up) would be informative as well. Or, heheh, even run the benchmark in 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 tabs simultaneously to simulate somebody browsing with a crapton of open tabs.

It is difficult to capture, in a repeatable way, the way people actually use their computers.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Potentially true. But, conversely, if you run a "clean OS", no need to spend extra on a quad-core for Firefox / Waterfox, because you won't get more performance. (Ok, it "feels" faster, but maybe that's only because I was during DC on the G4400 at the same time, on both CPU cores and the GPU. Not during the benchmark, though.)

Holy crap, man. When I'm running F@H my computer is basically unusable.

Also, holy crap man, nobody runs with a "clean" OS. Antivirus is still a necessity. Not to mention stripper screensavers and Bonzibuddy.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Not to mention stripper screensavers and Bonzibuddy.

LOL. Can't forget BonziBuddy!

 

[Burpo]

 

[mikeymikec]

Ok, I closed all programs, except for CPU-Z 1.78 64-bit, and Waterfox 50.0 64-bit, with multiprocess windowing showing "1/1 (enabled)" in "about:support".

I ran PeaceKeeper (the browser benchmark), full-screen, on both the i5-6400 @ 4.51Ghz, and the G4400 @ 4.52Ghz.

If quad-cores mattered for browsing, then the score of the i5 should be higher than the G4400 Pentium, right?

Well, the i5-6400 scored 7262, and the G4400 scored 7287.

The G4400 was clocked 0.01Ghz faster than the quad-core, and it scored... just a smidgen higher.

So, objectively-speaking, in PeaceKeeper, there's NO performance advantage to a quad-core, in Waterfox 50.0, even with mutliprocess windows enabled!

free image host

gifs upload

http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=DwT9&resultId=11327215

http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=DwT0&resultId=11327166

From what I've seen, Firefox's multiprocess support is in its infancy. Try the same test on Chrome and Edge on both PCs?

 

[Piroko]

Correction: Your user experience.

Correct.

Unless you've got reproducible evidence (and not just reproducible on your kit) to back up your assertion, what you've got there is likely to be a user, app configuration or platform-specific issue, as it is your response is as useful as some guy on the Internet saying "I tried browser X once, it was awful!".

Even if you had the evidence I described, it does not by any stretch of the imagination apply to all PCs running Windows.

The tick rate is an ongoing issue that I was able to reproduce for a couple of years now. It's also documented in various bugtrackings on the chromium tracker. They did improve that issue multiple times (or fixed regressions) but Edge is on a different level.

Even if it applied to all portable Windows devices, it's by no means a showstopper for many portable users, and as Chrome often is close to or has first place in various browser benchmarks, many might consider the battery hit to be an acceptable compromise for better performance, or even not care about that level of unnecessary loss of battery life, and/or prefer Chrome for other reasons.

One of my biggest gripes with browser tests is that they don't record background activity (checking if windows did get into a steady idle state, which does happen to be the norm if you use your notebook for several hours each workday) and they don't log the c-state percentages of their CPUs. The latter one tells me more about battery life than their minute-counting.
And I do consider battery life a big deal. Not a show stopper, but certainly a bigger deal than benchmark scores. Less of a deal than usability though. I don't think this is an odd priority rating.

 

[Carfax83]

I consider Edge to be the best browser now, since the Redstone update, followed by Chrome, and then Firefox.. I understand why people wouldn't want to use Chrome due to privacy issues, but Firefox has been such a laggard when it comes to keeping up with Microsoft and Google from a technical perspective when it comes to security, stability and performance..

 

[Leyawiin]

Opera. Chrome without the privacy issues plus a number of other features.

 

[Torn Mind]

Use Chromium or the other derivatives if you don't want to be google spyed. Iron, Comodo, Malestrom, etc.

Opera is a Chromium derivative now anyway, but it is garbage, or at least was garbage once the tab counts got high. Not as refined as Chrome itself.

 

[ninaholic37]

In general, the more expensive a CPU is, the faster it performs.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that a i5 is faster than a same generation Pentium in every single task out there, in fact it should be blatantly obvious.

Next we'll be making threads confirming that a 1TB SSD can indeed fit more data than a 128GB one

Where's the Dislike button