I wonder what type of Javascripts are those? Have you personally faced performance issue with Javascript? Well, you could try adblockers if that is the case. Regardless, modern browsers are well multi threaded now. MOAR cores will helps you keep 100s of tabs open.Mainstream consumers buy laptops.
Laptops need infinite amount of more 1T perf to make day to day javascript piles run faster.
Yes I use MS Teams.Have you personally faced performance issue with Javascript?
I also heavy use MS Teams for work related stuff including video conferences, that is in my work laptop which is much slower than my PC. Still I don't feel that I am being slowed down by Javascript.Yes I use MS Teams.
Thank you.
That's very subjective.Still I don't feel that I am being slowed down by Javascript.
Nobody, the 7950X is all the CPU everyone will ever need.If you want to go into that kinda reasoning, how many mainstream consumers need more performance than 7950X provides, regardless of whether it's ST or MT performance?
Nobody I "work with" in the DC forum here thinks this is true, but mainstream, yes. Workstation people that want a cheaper CPU ? they also may want more.Nobody, the 7950X is all the CPU everyone will ever need.
What's the attraction to the <redacted> cores?We're already at 170W TDP. Have you not noticed how consumers are complaining about that?
You want to bump it to how much now, 300W? And for what reason, when you can achieve the same MT performance at lower power consumption by using b.L instead?
It's not either or. You can do b.L while still getting better IPC. Look at Apple for example.
So why do you think Apple is using b.L on DT? They are certainly not cost constrained.
Apple have b.L in their desktop/workstation CPUs too. The Mac Pro (do not mix up with Mac Book Pro which is a laptop!) as I mentioned uses Apple M2 Ultra chip which has 16P/8E cores.
I want whatever CPU fits my needs at the lowest possible cost. Same as everyone else.
I don't care if it's Intel, AMD, or something else. If AMD does not increase MT performance sufficiently (which most likely requires core count increase), I might have to go with Intel instead in the future to get better MT performance. And if none of them provides it at a reasonable cost, I won't upgrade. Either way, not sure how that is a win for AMD.
My Teams is always active in my work Laptop and never closed, yet I never felt like what you described. If you are talking about Teams bugs, then of course there are plenty of bugs. But it won't get resolved by increased 1T performance.MST gets you bogged down over a session. All these dynamic services will slow your experience down the longer you are in session with an active window or tab in the foreground or background.
With my experience it will bog down. It can be minimised if you run a script blocker or ad blocker that kills anything the site tries to send during an active session. After around 8 active hours my ad blocker will show me it's blocked close to 800-1000 items. If you use the desktop app idk how the performance is. we use the web app at work. That may have changed but I couldn't tell you until early mid 2024.My Teams is always active in my work Laptop and never closed, yet I never felt like what you described. If you are talking about Teams bugs, then of course there are plenty of bugs. But it won't get resolved by increased 1T performance.
Besides, 30% increase won't make tangible improvement in user experience.
I am using desktop app, so I can't speak about web app which I never used. Anyways, browser is not suitable for continuously running of complex applications. Is there any corporate policy blocking the use of desktop Teams app?With my experience it will bog down. It can be minimised if you run a script blocker or ad blocker that kills anything the site tries to send during an active session. After around 8 active hours my ad blocker will show me it's blocked close to 800-1000 items. If you use the desktop app idk how the performance is. we use the web app at work. That may have changed but I couldn't tell you until early mid 2024.
Beats me. If there's a web app the web app is used for anything. I suspect it's a time same for the it dept not to deal with software updates vs a security issue.I am using desktop app, so I can't speak about web app which I never used. Anyways, browser is not suitable for continuously running of complex applications. Is there any corporate policy blocking the use of desktop Teams app?
Yes it would.Besides, 30% increase won't make tangible improvement in user experience.
I don't know about others, but any app that doesn't launch just about instantly, given the processing power, fast memory and fast SSDs I have, annoys the heck out of me. Games and VMs excepted.I used to joke about this but it's become reality. JavaScript performance in V8 is now the number one most useful trait a CPU can have. Because Electron bloat ate everything.
Yes it would.
I don't know about other people's preferences. but I always run Outlook in the browser, but Excel and Word as full desktop apps.You should both explain this to M$ and their new Outlook version :/
I do the same.I don't know about other people's preferences. but I always run Outlook in the browser, but Excel and Word as full desktop apps.
Hmm, pretty snappy for me. Some weird stuff. I mark a message as read, and then the next time I bring Outlook back up - it's unreadI do the same.
Desktop Outlook is pure hell.
I always chuckle when I see desktop Outlook users fuming. Learned long ago never to touch it.Hmm, pretty snappy for me. Some weird stuff. I mark a message as read, and then the next time I bring Outlook back up - it's unread
Don't know where your email comes from but just last week, a user's Outlook stopped receiving email from Microsoft 365. Tried everything. Nothing worked. The IT guy was almost ready to nuke the PC from orbit and re-install from scratch. I suggested that he repair it. Miraculously, a restart later, it started working.Outlook is one of the office products I have the least troubles with.
That’s odd since GamersNexus showed slightly better performance with e-cores active on the 13900K.Starfield is probably not representative for most future games, but DF found that on Intel both HT and E-cores caused performance degradation (12900K). On AMD however (3600) it scaled as its supposed to with more threads (SMT on). I think I'll be just fine with avoiding the whole b.L/heterogenous thing for the next generation too...