Daily use cpu: How much is enough?

[perdomot]

With all the talk of new cpus from Intel and AMD, I began to wonder at what point a person ceases to notice a difference in daily stuff like web surfing, emails, Youtube, etc. Clearly for things like encoding or large image editing you get an advantage but does anyone see a difference on daily stuff going from a C2D to a Core i cpu or going from an AMD quad to the X6? The only times I've been able to see a performance gain in my PCs has been when I switched from a standard HDD to a Velociraptor and this year to SSDs. Just changed out the 5400rpm HDD in my EEE netbook with an SSD and the performance increase is unreal. Any opinions?

 

[ljtatej]

I think that it is all really what an individual does with thier computer. I do video encoding and a lot of gaming, so I see use in my quad. Will I buy a new processor anytime soon? Probably not. My wife could be just fine with a single core because all she does is facebook. If I see programs that I would use making better use of multiple cores, then I might consider getting a new processor.

 

[KingstonU]

There are a lot of examples lately where parents/grant parents/basic users ask their tech knowledgeable friend: "My computer is 2 years old, so it's about time for me to upgrade again as usual right?" Tech friend: "Hmmm you have a Core 2 Duo and you just browse the web and go on facebook. This is the first time I have ever spoken these words, but Nope, you are good for a while yet!"

Thank you C2D for reaching a major milestone in computing history.

 

[KingstonU]

Double post.

 

[Habeed]

If the CPU is at least a C2D, then the next most useful upgrade you can possibly get is an SSD.

My 3.5 year old e6400 system became lighting fast once I put in an X-25M SSD. For any kind of desktop use except for a couple of specific games, it was blazing fast.

I later spent $1200 upgrading anyway, and most of the time the difference is barely noticable. I upgraded to a 4.1 ghz overclocked i7 system with 12 gigs of ram (previous system had 4 gigs) and that same SSD.

C2D + SSD + 4 gigs RAM = good for another couple years.

 

[Scali]

Thank you C2D for reaching a major milestone in computing history.

Exactly.
My main PC at home has a Core2 Duo E6600, which I bought shortly after launch... so it's over 4 years old now. Still I have no need for a faster CPU (the machine is on its fourth videocard now though).
My PC at work is a slightly newer Core2 Duo, but I barely notice the difference with some of the new Core i7 machines that some of my co-workers have.
I also have a 1.5 GHz Core2 Duo laptop that is now about 3 years old, and that one suffices as well, for most things.
I do a lot of software development/compiling/debugging on it... it seems that the amount of memory and the speed of your HDD are far more important than the CPU at this point.

 

[Habeed]

As a software developer, you know the real reason for this.

The real reason i7s aren't noticeably faster than C2Ds in most usage cases is because the clock speeds are very similar (i7s come clocked only a hair higher at stock) and the PER core IPC is also very similar. Within 10% on most benchmarks.

Since most apps are limited by the speed of a single core, (even if the app is multithreaded) they don't run much faster on an i7 because the i7 really isn't faster per core.

Making an app not be bottlenecked by the main thread can be done, but it's a PITA and takes lots of extra development time.

 

[ZipSpeed]

A whole bunch of machines here at work are sporting single core Athlon 64s and Athlon XPs, and for the most part, they are plenty for what we need them to do (basic productivity).

 

[Habeed]

A whole bunch of machines here at work are sporting single core Athlon 64s and Athlon XPs, and for the most part, they are plenty for what we need them to do (basic productivity).

Uggh. The problem with machines like that is invariably they have too little ram, slow as a snail hard drives, and of course no ssd. They might run office or ie 6 ok...but only after you wait 5 minutes for a freaking app to load.

 

[f4phantom2500]

A whole bunch of machines here at work are sporting single core Athlon 64s and Athlon XPs, and for the most part, they are plenty for what we need them to do (basic productivity).

I was gonna say...everyone's talking about how the C2D is where improvements become hardly noticeable for simple daily tasks, but this has to at *least* include A64X2 IMO, if not also Pentium D and, dare I say, P4/AXP. My parents are running a 2GHz P4 machine, 1GB RAM, Windows XP, and honestly unless you're running maintenance/virus scans etc while trying to surf the web, I don't really find it to be much of a hindrance to use compared to my computer, which has an Athlon II X3 435, 4GB RAM, Windows 7.

I'm pretty sure that an Athlon XP/Pentium 4 (probably ~2GHz or faster) or faster would suffice for basic, daily tasks, and that an upgrade to a more modern CPU would not be worthwhile unless there's a specific task you're trying to do that's hitting a bottleneck.

Honestly probably the most notable improvements come are seen when going multi-core, rather than from more efficient architectures (although improvements are clear there, as well).

Uggh. The problem with machines like that is invariably they have too little ram, slow as a snail hard drives, and of course no ssd. They might run office or ie 6 ok...but only after you wait 5 minutes for a freaking app to load.

I'm pretty sure most of that is just due to poor maintenance.

 

[velis]

Thank you C2D for reaching a major milestone in computing history.

My uncle has an Athlon XP 1800+ I sold him some 6 years back. A simple SSD upgrade made that computer more than fast enough for anything he does with that PC.

Thank you AMD for reaching a major milestone in computing history!




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My current main comp has an Intel inside!

 

[Seero]

As a software developer, you know the real reason for this.

The real reason i7s aren't noticeably faster than C2Ds in most usage cases is because the clock speeds are very similar (i7s come clocked only a hair higher at stock) and the PER core IPC is also very similar. Within 10% on most benchmarks.

Since most apps are limited by the speed of a single core, (even if the app is multithreaded) they don't run much faster on an i7 because the i7 really isn't faster per core.

Making an app not be bottlenecked by the main thread can be done, but it's a PITA and takes lots of extra development time.

Clock speed is one thing, overall speed is another. QPI > FSB. Boot up a game with your C2D and try it again with an I5 to see if there is a difference.

 

[Concillian]

I'd say any basic dual core is adequate for a "normal" user like my wife does... Facebook, email, Farmville, organizing pictures, YouTube, etc...

She is using an underclocked e7200.

And really with a moderate video card in it, it's good enough for when my nephew comes over and plays games on it too. Sure, it doesn't run all options high and 4xMSAA or anything, but unlike most of the people on forums, he cares more about playing the games than sitting back and looking at them.

I think reading stuff on the forums leads people to upgrading for the sake of upgrading. My main machine is still a dual core (4GHz i3) and it plays any game I want to play well enough that I enjoy the game just fine.

It's like when people try to show me their Blu-ray collection to convince me that I need Blu-ray for 1080p instead of my "crappy" DVD collection. Yes, it's better quality visuals, but DVD is high enough quality that any movie that actually has a decent plot will have your attention focused on things other than the image quality.

 

[Zap]

I began to wonder at what point a person ceases to notice a difference in daily stuff like web surfing, emails, Youtube, etc.

Probably any current model dual core, excluding Atoms, would suffice for all daily stuff.

 

[Eeqmcsq]

I think we're already at the point where CPUs are fast enough for everyday tasks. I think the point started with the 65nm Intel's Core 2s, and was completed at the 45nm generation with AMD's cheapo Athlon IIs in the < $100 range. The next step is to get this "good enough" performance in a power efficient package. Perhaps AMD's Bobcat will be the first to achieve this, or at least be on the right track.

 

[maniac5999]

I'm going to re-nominate the K8 for the title of "enough for daily use" I have an OLD laptop with a 2.2ghz single core Athlon (an old 89w Newcastle chip in a lappy :\), and I do break it out once and a while. It still runs regular youtube videos just fine, email, surfing the web, etc. Compared to my desktop it doesn't even feel that bad. I'd say that for normal use today, anybody with a 2ghz K8 X2 or anything from the normal Core 2 Duo line shouldn't be thinking about upgrading.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I was gonna say...everyone's talking about how the C2D is where improvements become hardly noticeable for simple daily tasks, but this has to at *least* include A64X2 IMO, if not also Pentium D and, dare I say, P4/AXP. My parents are running a 2GHz P4 machine, 1GB RAM, Windows XP, and honestly unless you're running maintenance/virus scans etc while trying to surf the web, I don't really find it to be much of a hindrance to use compared to my computer, which has an Athlon II X3 435, 4GB RAM, Windows 7.

I'm pretty sure that an Athlon XP/Pentium 4 (probably ~2GHz or faster) or faster would suffice for basic, daily tasks, and that an upgrade to a more modern CPU would not be worthwhile unless there's a specific task you're trying to do that's hitting a bottleneck.

Honestly probably the most notable improvements come are seen when going multi-core, rather than from more efficient architectures (although improvements are clear there, as well).




I'm pretty sure most of that is just due to poor maintenance.

We scraped our P4 machines. They were terribly slow and sucked to use.
We have 4 year old laptops with C2D's in them and they are getting a little long in the tooth with 1GB RAm. Slap a 2nd GB in them and they are as good as new.

 

[Scali]

My uncle has an Athlon XP 1800+ I sold him some 6 years back. A simple SSD upgrade made that computer more than fast enough for anything he does with that PC.

Thank you AMD for reaching a major milestone in computing history!

Yea, I still have my old XP1800+ box around, which I use to test DX9 code on every now and then.
It's still useable, but I must say, dualcores (or even P4HT) do make a difference in how responsive the system feels.
It's also having trouble with certain flash/javascript-heavy websites... and don't try playing the YouTube movies in 720p or higher quality

 

[Zorander]

I recently set-up an Ubuntu box with A64 3000+ (single-core) and 1GB RAM for the same basic usage. Works like a charm with no one complaining about it being slow.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Agreed. One issue i was having was playing HD video on youtube and hulu on my old machine.. it was just too choppy for that.
Certain websites were also a bit slow...

Yea, I still have my old XP1800+ box around, which I use to test DX9 code on every now and then.
It's still useable, but I must say, dualcores (or even P4HT) do make a difference in how responsive the system feels.
It's also having trouble with certain flash/javascript-heavy websites... and don't try playing the YouTube movies in 720p or higher quality

 

[Ben90]

I'm going to re-nominate the K8 for the title of "enough for daily use" I have an OLD laptop with a 2.2ghz single core Athlon (an old 89w Newcastle chip in a lappy :\), and I do break it out once and a while. It still runs regular youtube videos just fine, email, surfing the web, etc. Compared to my desktop it doesn't even feel that bad. I'd say that for normal use today, anybody with a 2ghz K8 X2 or anything from the normal Core 2 Duo line shouldn't be thinking about upgrading.

It really depends on how clean a person can keep a system. I have a Lenovo T41 laptop from 2003 sporting the 1.7ghz original Pentium M and 512MB of ram that runs everything absolutely perfectly. My mothers laptop gets bogged down despite having a C2D running at 2.4ghz and 2GB of RAM.

 

[LoneNinja]

My Phenom X4 9850 is currently running 1.8Ghz with 1.05Vcore, fast enough for everything I do honestly. I only turn it up when working with 3ds max for quicker render times or for a few newer games I play.

 

[iGas]

My Athlon II X2 245 @ 2.9 Ghz was more than quick enough for most tasks that I throw at it, except for Civilisation 5. Day to day tasks my Phenom II X4 940 (OC to 3.6 Ghz) seems to be a bit faster (could be placebo affect, fresh install of Windows/Linux, and upgraded to GTX 460 1GB graphic), and perform much better in Civ 5 than the old 245 CPU.

 

[Rezist]

I had a P4 2.4C with 512mb of ram and it was too slow for most things.
I have a pentium M laptop for work with I think 256mb of ram and it's also too slow.

The AthlonII 240 is my only other PC and aside from a few video games it handles everything great.

 

[cbn]

There are a lot of examples lately where parents/grant parents/basic users ask their tech knowledgeable friend: "My computer is 2 years old, so it's about time for me to upgrade again as usual right?" Tech friend: "Hmmm you have a Core 2 Duo and you just browse the web and go on facebook. This is the first time I have ever spoken these words, but Nope, you are good for a while yet!"

Thank you C2D for reaching a major milestone in computing history.

I see your point (my Core 2 duo seems plenty strong for basic web browsing), What are your or anyone else's recommendations for mobile?

In the Anandtech iPad review several processors were tested using web page loading times.

For example, Apple iPad averaged 4.7 seconds for Anand's web page load test, but ASUS Eee PC 1001P atom netbook only took 2.5 seconds on average.

That definitely seems like a noticeable difference to me, but at what point does someone usually stop noticing web page loading time reductions?

How much quicker than atom?

Also....At what point does having extra GPU actually help to reduce web page times? (Are smartphone users the only ones who benefit? Or will products like AMD Ontario also show a benefit from extra GPU?)