On the threshold of "Pleasurable Computing".

[Dresdenboy]

As former demo coder I somehow think, that throwing faster hardware at performance problems caused by incompetence is a way to solve it, but which feels wrong.

Last year I optimized two internal tools, who were developed by contractors, because it hurt watching them do their conversions on a fast Xeon. Adding <100 LOC (some prefetching and caching) sped them up by 31x and 51x respectively. No new CPU could do that.

But back to the topic: As I already said, measuring the perceived responsiveness/snappiness might be interesting.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

But back to the topic: As I already said, measuring the perceived responsiveness/snappiness might be interesting.

Yeah, that.

I see Larry talking about subjective measure like how it feels, and occasionally throwing out a synthetic benchmark (usually pcmark cpu scores) but don't see a lot of application benchmarks, which seems to me to be the "proof in the pudding." Javascript, automated browsing tests... heck, even gaming benchmarks.

 

[cbn]

I think finding the demarcation line for "good enough" computing is a noble goal.

I do too.

And sometimes have something just a bit faster makes all the difference in the world while at other times it makes almost no difference. So sorting out the various bottlenecks can help the average person make the right decision ( a properly balanced system based on the tasks they like to do most).

 

[VirtualLarry]

I do too.

And sometimes have something just a bit faster makes all the difference in the world while at other times it makes almost no difference. So sorting out the various bottlenecks can help the average person make the right decision ( a properly balanced system based on the tasks they like to do most).

I wonder, now, testing the i3-6100, and finding it not much faster than my G1820... both use the Intel iGPU, and both use SATA6G SSDs.

The G4400 @ 4.455Ghz is using a PCI-E 3.0 x4 AHCI M.2 SSD.

I'm wondering if the page load times that I'm seeing, are not down to my internet connection speed, but rather, my SSD's ability to read/write lots of small files (browser cache, on an image-heavy page like Newegg)?

Because the G4400 does seem subjectively faster.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I wonder, now, testing the i3-6100, and finding it not much faster than my G1820... both use the Intel iGPU, and both use SATA6G SSDs.

The G4400 @ 4.455Ghz is using a PCI-E 3.0 x4 AHCI M.2 SSD.

I'm wondering if the page load times that I'm seeing, are not down to my internet connection speed, but rather, my SSD's ability to read/write lots of small files (browser cache, on an image-heavy page like Newegg)?

Because the G4400 does seem subjectively faster.

That would be awesome to know. I might upgrade my own desktop sooner if that is the case.

 

[ozzy702]

I wonder, now, testing the i3-6100, and finding it not much faster than my G1820... both use the Intel iGPU, and both use SATA6G SSDs.

The G4400 @ 4.455Ghz is using a PCI-E 3.0 x4 AHCI M.2 SSD.

I'm wondering if the page load times that I'm seeing, are not down to my internet connection speed, but rather, my SSD's ability to read/write lots of small files (browser cache, on an image-heavy page like Newegg)?

Because the G4400 does seem subjectively faster.

Newegg's site is slow on every computer I've used and every internet connection I've been on.

My opinion is that the user experience in most tasks are great with a Haswell i3 or newer. Once the heavy lifting begins or multiple apps at a time it really pays to step up to a quad core. I've been running i7 boxes for the past five years and with the exception of encoding nothing really bogs them down and even then I can encode, surf the net and watch a movie all at the same time and don't really notice any decrease in speed.

 

[cbn]

I wonder, now, testing the i3-6100, and finding it not much faster than my G1820... both use the Intel iGPU, and both use SATA6G SSDs.

The G4400 @ 4.455Ghz is using a PCI-E 3.0 x4 AHCI M.2 SSD.

I'm wondering if the page load times that I'm seeing, are not down to my internet connection speed, but rather, my SSD's ability to read/write lots of small files (browser cache, on an image-heavy page like Newegg)?

Because the G4400 does seem subjectively faster.

That is really interesting.

I wonder if there are further gains with that fast SSD going from two cores @ 4.455 Ghz to four cores @ 4.455 GHz.

P.S. What M.2 PCIe x 4 SSD do you have?

 

[crashtech]

Newegg's site is slow on every computer I've used and every internet connection I've been on.

My opinion is that the user experience in most tasks are great with a Haswell i3 or newer. Once the heavy lifting begins or multiple apps at a time it really pays to step up to a quad core. I've been running i7 boxes for the past five years and with the exception of encoding nothing really bogs them down and even then I can encode, surf the net and watch a movie all at the same time and don't really notice any decrease in speed.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That is really interesting.

I wonder if there are further gains with that fast SSD going from two cores @ 4.455 Ghz to four cores @ 4.455 GHz.

P.S. What M.2 PCIe x 4 SSD do you have?

Well, possibly I can afford an i5 in Mar., if I save my spare money.

My SSD is a Samsung SM951 128GB AHCI OEM model.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Newegg's site is slow on every computer I've used and every internet connection I've been on.

NoScript helps a LOT.

My opinion is that the user experience in most tasks are great with a Haswell i3 or newer. Once the heavy lifting begins or multiple apps at a time it really pays to step up to a quad core. I've been running i7 boxes for the past five years and with the exception of encoding nothing really bogs them down and even then I can encode, surf the net and watch a movie all at the same time and don't really notice any decrease in speed.

I think that Intel's lack of mainstream 8-core (16-thread!) solutions is down to their marketing, not strictly technical. They failed to market, e.g. create demand for, CPUs with more than four cores. Which they quite possibly could have done, by giving examples of heavy multi-tasking. Of course, modern OSes multi-task fairly well, with number of cores less than number of threads / tasks, so the problem isn't bad.

 

[superstition]

NoScript helps a LOT.

I was just going to post that.

 

[cbn]

Well, possibly I can afford an i5 in Mar., if I save my spare money.

I do hope you get a good price on it in the event you want to sell it (and use some other processor instead).

 

[jlee]

Or snag an E5-2675v3 for ~$500 on eBay and have 16 cores. :awe:

 

[cbn]

I think that Intel's lack of mainstream 8-core (16-thread!) solutions is down to their marketing, not strictly technical. They failed to market, e.g. create demand for, CPUs with more than four cores. Which they quite possibly could have done, by giving examples of heavy multi-tasking. Of course, modern OSes multi-task fairly well, with number of cores less than number of threads / tasks, so the problem isn't bad.

Its been eight thread in mainstream for quite some time now (on both the Intel and AMD side). Even the Xbox One and PS4 consoles are eight thread.

Supposedly this will change with Cannonlake where we will see 8C/16T in the mainstream.

P.S. IMHO, I think it would good for certain OEMs and Intel to assist the re-use of the Surplus E5 Xeons to help pave the way for that Cannolake 8C/16T in various software ecosystems. Ideally the E5 2670 would replace the Core i3 (or even Pentium) in DIY builds assuming we were given access to new budget oriented X79 boards.

(E5 2670 8C/16T currently starts @ under $70 shipped (with very high processor quantities available) in various ebay buy it now listings)

Passmark comparison showing even the most common E5 Xeon is no slouch:

E5 2670: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E5-2670+@+2.60GHz (1621 Single thread, 12468 Multi-thread)

FX-9370: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9370+Eight-Core (1609 Single thread, 9539 Multi-thread)

And according to AtenRA, even the slower FX-8150 plays smoother than a Skylake i3-6300 in Battlefield 4 64 player when using HD7950 @ 1000 Mhz---> http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37949265&postcount=2

So I would imagine E5 2670 would be even better.

 

[Dresdenboy]

Yeah, that.

I see Larry talking about subjective measure like how it feels, and occasionally throwing out a synthetic benchmark (usually pcmark cpu scores) but don't see a lot of application benchmarks, which seems to me to be the "proof in the pudding." Javascript, automated browsing tests... heck, even gaming benchmarks.

Gaming has become easy to gauge with all the frame time statistics and charts. Office, browsing, the video editing (not encoding) I sometimes cite, etc. I don't know what the usual tests scripts are exactly doing, but hammering the PC with simulated inputs or triggered actions is not the same as true user behaviour. The iPhone perhaps wouldn't have looked that good then. I think more like
- switch tab
- 100 ms pause
- scroll down 200 ms
- 500 ms pause
...
And integrate over the measured time deltas (finished screen update - input).

 

[Dresdenboy]

Of course, modern OSes multi-task fairly well, with number of cores less than number of threads / tasks, so the problem isn't bad.

Preemtive multitasking worked well even on 8 MHz computers like the Amiga in the 80ies. Microsoft brought that to us consumers just this millenium.

HT can make a MT experience worse again with a heavy background tasks running the second thread. I've shown such results before.

 

[littleg]

NoScript helps a LOT.

I would add 'Privacy Badger' from the EFF also helps massively if you select the right things to block.

 

[XiandreX]

Everyone in my family short of myself has always gone for "Good enough" with Desktops and Laptops.
3 Years ago I upgraded my Mom to an i5 3570k, 8gig and a 250gb SSD from an AMD system so old it was scary. Her hard drive from the old system was a 250gb if I recall.
Many would think the system was an overkill but she comes back to me all the time regardless of what she does on the system and is amazed that its "ALWAYS" quick compared to the "Usual" stuff people use.
I would rather spend good money and have it just work than run dual core systems and having to upgrade at some point.
Granted, now the Haswell and newer have i3's with Hyper threading but prior to that I would not touch a dual core.
Each to his own I guess....

 

[VirtualLarry]

Everyone in my family short of myself has always gone for "Good enough" with Desktops and Laptops.
3 Years ago I upgraded my Mom to an i5 3570k, 8gig and a 250gb SSD from an AMD system so old it was scary. Her hard drive from the old system was a 250gb if I recall.
Many would think the system was an overkill but she comes back to me all the time regardless of what she does on the system and is amazed that its "ALWAYS" quick compared to the "Usual" stuff people use.
I would rather spend good money and have it just work than run dual core systems and having to upgrade at some point.
Granted, now the Haswell and newer have i3's with Hyper threading but prior to that I would not touch a dual core.
Each to his own I guess....

Well, my Mom had a Celeron 440 (C2D single-core, 2.0Ghz), 2x512GB DDR, and XP at one point. Then I built her an AMD X2 dual-core, with DDR2, again with a HDD, but she didn't want to upgrade. Then, I finally built her a G1610 rig with an SSD, and 16GB of DDR3. She was finally amazed at the performance.

I don't really feel that for what she uses it for, that she needs a quad-core, but maybe in the future.

 

[Magic Carpet]

(E5 2670 8C/16T currently starts @ under $70 shipped (with very high processor quantities available) in various ebay buy it now listings)

This is a very niche processor. I know people who sold it in a heartbeat for like half the price, because it couldn't properly load their GPU in games. And since you can't overclock it. Might as well go back to the 1366 socket

Have a matched pair of X5670s sitting here, screaming for some action. Still looking for the right board. Heh.

 

[Burpo]

Have a matched pair of X5670s sitting here, screaming for some action. Still looking for the right board. Heh.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-WORKSTAT...051070?hash=item2ca7d0f7fe:g:w7cAAOSwXshWqn1g

 

[Magic Carpet]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-WORKSTAT...051070?hash=item2ca7d0f7fe:g:w7cAAOSwXshWqn1g

Thanks, looks interesting if I can maybe arrange a local pickup.

 

[Burpo]

He has a bunch of them..

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?_odk...70.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.TRS0&_nkw=Z600+&_sacat=0

 

[cbn]

(E5 2670 8C/16T currently starts @ under $70 shipped (with very high processor quantities available) in various ebay buy it now listings)

I know people who sold it in a heartbeat for like half the price, because it couldn't properly load their GPU in games.

What GPU were they using?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Well, my Mom had a Celeron 440 (C2D single-core, 2.0Ghz), 2x512GB DDR, and XP at one point. Then I built her an AMD X2 dual-core, with DDR2, again with a HDD, but she didn't want to upgrade. Then, I finally built her a G1610 rig with an SSD, and 16GB of DDR3. She was finally amazed at the performance.

I don't really feel that for what she uses it for, that she needs a quad-core, but maybe in the future.

Rule #1. Everybody needs a quad core.

WE WON'T GO BACK! YOU CAN'T MAKE US!