On the threshold of "Pleasurable Computing".

[cbn]

Well, if you look carefully... each new generation of Core CPU has somewhere between roughly 5-10% IPC bump. (Closer to 5% than 10%, for most software.)

But also for "marketing" reasons, I suspect, the rated clock speed of each successive generation of Celeron CPU has received a 1-multiplier / 100-Mhz clock-speed bump.

So the IVB Celeron G1610 was 2.6Ghz, HSW Celeron G1820 was 2.7Ghz, and SKL Celeron G3900 is 2.8Ghz.

At least, from memory, that's how I think that they stack up.

And the price of each of those has hovered between $40-45 at most retailers.

That's quite a bit of value at the low-end. Sure, it's not a powerhouse for gaming (much), or video-editing, but it's perfectly adequate for most desktop tasks.

Value has no doubt improved, but I don't think it has been improving as quickly as we have seen with cheap laptops. (eg, Pentium 3825U and 4405U that received hyperthreading)

Maybe this is why we have seen features like VT-d and AES-NI make a move to the low end with Skylake Celeron. This, in contrast, with Haswell where VT-d was only available on the Haswell Core i3.

 

[2is]

TBH, I expected more responses from other people with higher-end rigs, that would say, "Yeah, my rig is fast and smooth and pleasurable to use."

Well, this isn't exactly a revelation to most people, it's the expected norm.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Should be interesting to see how well my wifes rig now runs when she goes from a single 4gb stick to 8gb dual channel with her G1820.

CSGO and WOT on both her rig and my i5 2500 with a single 4gb stick of ram have odd fps dips but smooth enough performance.Dips aren't there with my i5 with 8gb.

Kind of excited to see if any extra performance opens up.

 

[XavierMace]

I have to say that I agree with VirtualLarry, many mid to low end processors today provide 'good enough' performance for the average user.

The point that most of have tried to make repeatedly in the past is that there's a big difference between "good enough" and good performance. Even then there's a big gap between what most would call mid-low end and some of the system's Larry has purchased.

But, in regards to that statement, my uncle recently replaced his ancient Athlon 64 system at my suggestion when he mentioned how long Blurays were taking to rip and encode. It wasn't even said as a complaint really, we were just discussing the topic in general. Other than that, he was happy with the performance. I sold him my old HTPC with a Xeon L5640 with 12Gb of RAM and he couldn't believe the overall difference, especially with the encoding.

Another example of this I can give is TV's/DVD Player's with built in apps like Netflix. Do they work? Yes, and if that's all you've ever used you'll probably be happy with it. But the first time you use the app on something like a PS3/PS4 or XBone, it's like night and day the difference.

 

[Torn Mind]

TBH, I expected more responses from other people with higher-end rigs, that would say, "Yeah, my rig is fast and smooth and pleasurable to use." I didn't want this thread to be only about me. Only that I finally had the epiphany of experiencing a PC that I wanted to use, over all my other functional equivalents. Not that I was using it just because I wanted a little variety to break up the monotony of using a single PC. (One reason I have multiple PCs to use. I guess it's kind of like having a Harem.)

Of course, I've also been forcing myself to use my i3-6100 rig, to see how I like that (non-OCed, with a SATA6G SSD). I think I prefer the G4400 w/PCI-E SSD.

I have used i7s before. They do make a difference, even with an SSD and 16 GBs of RAM. I ran an i7-3770S temporarily in my rig(i7 now sold) that now runs the G550 it started with. There is a difference in feel. Even with cores deliberately disabled, the Turbo Boost really helps out.

But for browsing, i5s are the most one needs. i7 is totally overkill. Target RAM capacity and SSD for web browsing after CPU clocks are high enough.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

The point that most of have tried to make repeatedly in the past is that there's a big difference between "good enough" and good performance. Even then there's a big gap between what most would call mid-low end and some of the system's Larry has purchased.

But, in regards to that statement, my uncle recently replaced his ancient Athlon 64 system at my suggestion when he mentioned how long Blurays were taking to rip and encode. It wasn't even said as a complaint really, we were just discussing the topic in general. Other than that, he was happy with the performance. I sold him my old HTPC with a Xeon L5640 with 12Gb of RAM and he couldn't believe the overall difference, especially with the encoding.

Another example of this I can give is TV's/DVD Player's with built in apps like Netflix. Do they work? Yes, and if that's all you've ever used you'll probably be happy with it. But the first time you use the app on something like a PS3/PS4 or XBone, it's like night and day the difference.

I'm very much inclined to agree with you there. Another factor is most "ordinary" computer users simply have never tried using what we on this forum term an "enthusiast rig". When you don't have that experience to compare to, you just do not know what you're missing. That's a big reason most people are happy with crappy performance.

Of course, I've also been forcing myself to use my i3-6100 rig, to see how I like that (non-OCed, with a SATA6G SSD). I think I prefer the G4400 w/PCI-E SSD.

i3 6100 + PCIe SSD = happy Larry... :biggrin:

 

[fourdegrees11]

You should try the i3 in the OC rig, with an OC of course.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Well, I haven't quite decided. I think I need to add an AMD dGPU to the i3-6100. I think that's the part that's missing. My G4400 OCed rigs each have a 7950 3GB, and I think that has a lot to do with how snappy they are, besides the ST speed.

Yeah do that. dGPU does speed up 2D/Desktop related things considerably. Even if you are not gaming, there are situations where it's smart to have dGPU for desktop acceleration. Hell, I even notice the difference on my OC'ed i7 iGPU versus GK208.

I'm still having issues with the Intel video drivers. I've got 2x4GB GSkill DDR4-2800 @ 21333 in my H110M-A board, with the i3-6100, and I had been running the 4300 drivers. I tried the 4352 drivers, and unlike with my other configs, they didn't BSOD immediately or when installing, but ... they won't re-sync with the monitor after monitor sleep mode. So I have to shut down the PC, and start it up again to get the screen back. No good.

(Did I mention Intel's video drivers generally suck anyways?)

I know what you are saying. The monitor sleep bug, is a confirmed issue. They are working on it. They will get better with time. don't you worry.

Anyways, how is it in gaming, any display issues and/or artifacts ?

TBH, I expected more responses from other people with higher-end rigs, that would say, "Yeah, my rig is fast and smooth and pleasurable to use."

Yeah well, when you have something that is fast, you get used to it rather quick. I suspect, I take a lot of things for granted, compared to the old days.

These days as a minimum for performance web-browsing: I'd take a modern overclocked quad-core K processor (4.2 - 4.6 range) w/ 16 gigs of tweaked RAM and some recent SSD (I can definitely notice the difference between older SSDs like Intel 320 Series and Samsung 850 Pro Series). That feels smooth enough to me even w/ iGPU. Mainstream 115x socket is fine. ~25w-120w power consumption, runs reasonably cool w/ 500RPM fan. What's not to like?

Anyway, I am glad that you got that i3. Once overclocked, it should offer you similar smoothness and give you satisfaction from using it on a day to day basis. No laptop/tablet/phone can give you that. Satisfaction.

 

[Essence_of_War]

TBH, I expected more responses from other people with higher-end rigs, that would say, "Yeah, my rig is fast and smooth and pleasurable to use." I didn't want this thread to be only about me. Only that I finally had the epiphany of experiencing a PC that I wanted to use, over all my other functional equivalents. Not that I was using it just because I wanted a little variety to break up the monotony of using a single PC. (One reason I have multiple PCs to use. I guess it's kind of like having a Harem.)

Of course, I've also been forcing myself to use my i3-6100 rig, to see how I like that (non-OCed, with a SATA6G SSD). I think I prefer the G4400 w/PCI-E SSD.

My home rig is fast and smooth and a pleasure to use. My laptop (an x201 w/ M500 SSD, 8 GB of RAM and GMA graphics) is also a pleasure to use.

I hate my work desktop by comparison to both. E8400, even with 16 GB of RAM and a 250 GB BX200 SSD. It has an awful GT 9500 video card that seems to run out of VRAM on hi-res figure rendering, and the CPU is pokey.

 

[tential]

TBH, I expected more responses from other people with higher-end rigs, that would say, "Yeah, my rig is fast and smooth and pleasurable to use." I didn't want this thread to be only about me. Only that I finally had the epiphany of experiencing a PC that I wanted to use, over all my other functional equivalents. Not that I was using it just because I wanted a little variety to break up the monotony of using a single PC. (One reason I have multiple PCs to use. I guess it's kind of like having a Harem.)

Of course, I've also been forcing myself to use my i3-6100 rig, to see how I like that (non-OCed, with a SATA6G SSD). I think I prefer the G4400 w/PCI-E SSD.

Uh because most people can afford an i3 processor +ssd so most of us are happy and have been happy for years.....

 

[dave_the_nerd]

TBH, I expected more responses from other people with higher-end rigs, that would say, "Yeah, my rig is fast and smooth and pleasurable to use."

It's not so much that the good computers are pleasurable to use, but that the lower end machines are painful to use.

I didn't want this thread to be only about me. Only that I finally had the epiphany of experiencing a PC that I wanted to use, over all my other functional equivalents.

This is how my Saturday morning goes. Wake up, find cell phone, check email, grab iPad, reply to email, drag self out of bed to computer, surf internet. It's not that I can't do all that on my phone, just that it's a lot easier/faster on the larger screens/keyboards/etc.

IOW, the faster PCs are not the "functional equivalent" of the slower PC, they are functionally superior, because they let you get more done is less time.

Not that I was using it just because I wanted a little variety to break up the monotony of using a single PC. (One reason I have multiple PCs to use. I guess it's kind of like having a Harem.)

That is both enlightening and disturbing.

Of course, I've also been forcing myself to use my i3-6100 rig, to see how I like that (non-OCed, with a SATA6G SSD). I think I prefer the G4400 w/PCI-E SSD.

They'd be pretty equivalent most of the time. I'd be surprised if the average person could tell the different in a double blind test.

 

[jihe]

I am still on a laptop with core2duo L9400 1.86G. With an intel x25-m ssd it's fast, smooth, and a pleasure to use. In fact it's my main pc.

 

[2is]

I am still on a laptop with core2duo L9400 1.86G. With an intel x25-m ssd it's fast, smooth, and a pleasure to use. In fact it's my main pc.

I've got a MacBook with very similar specs, except the SSD is Toshiba IIRC. While it's still serviceable, it's very notably slower and less pleasurable to use then newer machines (with ssd) even loading web pages, there's a noticeable difference. It's not my pain PC so whenever I go back to it, I certainly notice just how slow it is in comparison.

 

[Burpo]

I certainly notice just how slow it is in comparison.

Doesn't have 32Gb of ram either, does it?

 

[Arachnotronic]

(Did I mention Intel's video drivers generally suck anyways?)

They are nowhere near what NV/AMD deliver, that's for sure.

 

[Torn Mind]

Hey Larry, have you tried out your CPUs with Speedstep disabled?

 

[2is]

Doesn't have 32Gb of ram either, does it?

Nope, not that it would make any difference. I'm talking about performing basic tasks like launching a program like the mail app, safari, office apps, loading web pages. All of the above are notably less snappy. It's still good enough for those tasks which is what I use it for and why I haven't replaced it, but if anyone thinks it can even compare to newer hardware, they are deluding themselves.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Hey Larry, have you tried out your CPUs with Speedstep disabled?

Curious; what would that do? My G4400 CPUs have SpeedStep disabled, due to BCLK OC. The i3-6100 runs at max performance, because I'm running BOINC tasks in the background, so it keeps the CPU pinned at the highest performance state all the time anyways.

 

[Magic Carpet]

My G4400 CPUs have SpeedStep disabled, due to BCLK OC.

I wonder, if mb vendors are going to address this issue at some point. Sucks SpeedStep has to be disabled :/

 

[jihe]

I've got a MacBook with very similar specs, except the SSD is Toshiba IIRC. While it's still serviceable, it's very notably slower and less pleasurable to use then newer machines (with ssd) even loading web pages, there's a noticeable difference. It's not my pain PC so whenever I go back to it, I certainly notice just how slow it is in comparison.

Web pages? It loads as fast as my i7-3960x @4.5G. What you need is adblockplus and noscript. Really webpages should not be taxing cpus.

 

[jihe]

Nope, not that it would make any difference. I'm talking about performing basic tasks like launching a program like the mail app, safari, office apps, loading web pages. All of the above are notably less snappy. It's still good enough for those tasks which is what I use it for and why I haven't replaced it, but if anyone thinks it can even compare to newer hardware, they are deluding themselves.

I don't know what you are talking about, I am on the L9400 right now and clicking on Word, instant launch, can type even before moving my hand off the mouse. Same with excel, powerpoint, onenote, they are all instant launches. Sure if I do a huge spreadsheet computation it's way slower than my i7-3960x, but for the basic tasks you are talking about there is no difference. I am on windows 7 and I do keep my OS clean (in fact I'm on the same original installation from 2010). The point is, basic tasks simply do not tax the cpu, nor should they.

 

[crashtech]

I don't know what you are talking about, I am on the L9400 right now and clicking on Word, instant launch, can type even before moving my hand off the mouse. Same with excel, powerpoint, onenote, they are all instant launches. Sure if I do a huge spreadsheet computation it's way slower than my i7-3960x, but for the basic tasks you are talking about there is no difference. I am on windows 7 and I do keep my OS clean (in fact I'm on the same original installation from 2010). The point is, basic tasks simply do not tax the cpu, nor should they.

My experience has been different, to say the least. Also, being a hobbyist and an enthusiast, using a Core 2 Duo for anything more than something like a PfSense box holds absolutely no interest to me.

 

[Torn Mind]

Curious; what would that do? My G4400 CPUs have SpeedStep disabled, due to BCLK OC. The i3-6100 runs at max performance, because I'm running BOINC tasks in the background, so it keeps the CPU pinned at the highest performance state all the time anyways.

Having Speedstep active makes the browsing experience, and to a lesser extent, OS interfacing, more seamless. Less "jerky", so to speak.

Right now, I have set the minimum processor state on my G550 rig(with entterprise OS HDD) to 83%. Having minimum clocks of 2.3 GHz vs 1.6 on Sandy Bridge makes a difference. In the long past, when it had an SSD, I also disabled Speedstep in the past temporarily, and there was a noticeable increase in responsiveness as well.

So, if someone wants to improve their rig's "feel", increasing the minimum processor state in Windows power options or disabling Speedstep altogether is an option.

 

[Cerb]

I don't know what you are talking about, I am on the L9400 right now and clicking on Word, instant launch, can type even before moving my hand off the mouse. Same with excel, powerpoint, onenote, they are all instant launches. Sure if I do a huge spreadsheet computation it's way slower than my i7-3960x, but for the basic tasks you are talking about there is no difference. I am on windows 7 and I do keep my OS clean (in fact I'm on the same original installation from 2010). The point is, basic tasks simply do not tax the cpu, nor should they.

I'm on a quad Haswell, with an 840 Pro, and Word 2013 takes around 3 seconds to start. By what magic are you getting any semblance of instant launching?

 

[fuzzymath10]

I'm on a quad Haswell, with an 840 Pro, and Word 2013 takes around 3 seconds to start. By what magic are you getting any semblance of instant launching?

Basic programs like word open close to instantly with an SSD or if it's in memory already, even on a Core 2. But if you used the ms office web installer (vs downloading the massive image/exe similar to the files on the DVD version), I noticed the programs take longer to open and sit on the splash screen for about 5-10 seconds.

For browsing, Core 2 is borderline (have three - a T7250, T8300, and E7300). Firefox is sluggish, but Edge is fine (I don't use Chrome). It's not a memory issue; these machines have 3-4GB of memory and as the tabs load up, it's the CPU which becomes strained. Same with windows updates - they take a while but at least SSDs remove the i/o bottleneck.

I have a Core M tablet, and I've run an XP VM alongside regular applications and the speed is fine, even with 4GB memory and an emmc ssd. 2 Sufficiently fast cores + SSD + 4GB memory covers a lot of the population. Slow cores and spinning platters are what kill the experience.