Recommended requirements to surf the web and for videos?

[ironk]

I recently upgraded a XP machine to Windows 7 64-bit with all the updates. The specs on the machine are:

Athlon X2 3800+
3GB DDR Ram (socket 939)
Radeon HD 6450 1GB

Now, I thought *maybe* it would surf the web ok and although it does work somewhat, the heavy websites just slow it to a crawl. I used the latest Firefox, Chrome and the page loading on some websites is just too much...especially with flash. A example website would be this one:

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports

I can barely have it load, and this is just with one tab open. So, I would like to ask: What are the recommended (not minimum) specs for a computer to have to surf the web comfortably? I would like specs with AMD as the processor..not sure if its better to go with a APU since I think the web has become so heavy that a GPU that works with the CPU closely is needed for help. I would also want it to support 1080p youtube / blu ray videos.

Thanks

 

[TheELF]

You only need a GPU to help the CPU if the CPU is very weak, still it will not help for flash,also the APU's are made for gaming and GPGPU,but not for video playback,so you will have to go pretty high and spend a lot to get something that will be usable,although you can reuse your vga and play video even on a weak machine.

The cheapest you could buy that will be very comfortable for the web,high single thread power for flash,and can even playback up to 4k video (due to quick sync and DXVA) would be the intel g1820/1840 with at least 4gb ram,it has weak game playing graphics but for anything else the graphics are more than adequate .

 

[VirtualLarry]

the APU's are made for gaming and GPGPU,but not for video playback

Nonsense. APUs are built for video playback, AND lite gaming. They have the same video-decoding hardware as discrete GPUs of the same class.

The cheapest you could buy that will be very comfortable for the web,high single thread power for flash,and can even playback up to 4k video (due to quick sync and DXVA) would be the intel g1820/1840 with at least 4gb ram,it has weak game playing graphics but for anything else the graphics are more than adequate .

This I agree with.

I'm using a Bay Trail-T Atom quad-core 1.33Ghz, with 1GB RAM and 16GB eMMC storage, and it works for web browsing for forums, and playing back 1080P YouTube.

Look at Microcenter.com for the Winbook TW700. It's currently $60.

 

[TheELF]

Nonsense. APUs are built for video playback, AND lite gaming. They have the same video-decoding hardware as discrete GPUs of the same class.

Witch is why I said "so you will have to go pretty high and spend a lot" a cheap APU will drop frames even at 1080@30fps

 

[VirtualLarry]

Witch is why I said "so you will have to go pretty high and spend a lot" a cheap APU will drop frames even at 1080@30fps

Maybe Intel's... even my old AMD E-350 (first-gen mobile APU) could play back 1080P YouTube without dropping frames. Granted, it used 90% CPU, and perhaps it might stutter these days due to flash bloat, but the APU video-decoding hardware is capable. I find it hard to believe that any APU released since then (2011-ish?) would be less capable.

 

[Ketchup]

When the websites slow to a crawl, see if your hard drive is getting hit a lot. If it is, you may need more RAM. Also check device manager and make sure you aren't missing anything.

Just be careful. As VirtualLarry pointed out, you can buy something that will handle websites pretty well for very little, so I wouldn't put a lot of money into this one.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Are you looking for a desktop or a mobile device? For a desktop, I would go with a Haswell pentium, as someone else already suggested. For a laptop, something like a pentium or i3 as well. And be sure it is the Haswell pentium, not atom.

I just dont subscribe to the "get it as cheap as possible" metric for computers. I want a bit of extra performance, since a decent machine should last for a few years. You should be able to get a Haswell pentium laptop or desktop for 300 to 400 dollars.

I have that 60.00 tablet that Larry is talking about. It is not terrible, but some sites definitely dont load as fast as on my sandy bridge desktop or laptop. It is a great value for 60.00, and nice for use on the go, but I dont think I would want it as my main computing device.

Edit: And yes, get at least 4gb of ram. That tablet has only 1gb of ram, which may be part of why it seems a bit slow at times. I havent tried it, but I would think opening a lot of tabs at once would really slow it down.

 

[inachu]

For decent web play back for windows 7 I would say Minimum 8 gig of ram.
Partition the hard drive in half and put the swap file onto the unused partition.
This way a dedicated partition to the swap file will keep the OS partition very lean.

I did this to a i7 refurbished pc and its nominal speed boost was not really a boost but optimization.

 

[ironk]

thanks everyone, yes, its for a desktop build but its good to know what specs would be good for laptop as well. This will be put together, so I am not getting a OEM like Dell, etc.

I was really thinking that APU's would be specifically built for this kind of thing...doesn't look like it.

Anyone try to go to that mercury link? How does the page load for you and what are your specs?

 

[Fardringle]

APUs are ideal for the situation you described. Just stay away from the lower end as those really aren't good for anything except being cheap.

The Mercury News page took about 8-9 seconds to fully load for me in Firefox 34 on a system with an i5 5670, 8 GB RAM, and a 30mbps internet connection.

 

[ironk]

APUs are ideal for the situation you described. Just stay away from the lower end as those really aren't good for anything except being cheap.

The Mercury News page took about 8-9 seconds to fully load for me in Firefox 34 on a system with an i5 5670, 8 GB RAM, and a 30mbps internet connection.

The mercury page loads for me (20- 25 seconds), but then the scrolling stutters and flash videos on the right side of the page play very slowly. So, I don't know if its fully loading though..

Which APU is worth getting? Quad core is the minimum then?

 

[Burpo]

I would like specs with AMD as the processor.

Thanks

FX6300 & use your video card..
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboB...=Combo.1751406

 

[ironk]

FX6300 & use your video card..
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboB...=Combo.1751406

Thanks! Does it matter if the mobo has heatsinks on the VRM? I won't be overclocking, but some have said that with higher core cpu's its good to have heatsinks there.

 

[Burpo]

No, that board has pretty good reviews..

"Pros: - Very sturdy construction.
- Good, solid North & South bridge cooling that doesn't take up too much room."

 

[Cerb]

Witch is why I said "so you will have to go pretty high and spend a lot" a cheap APU will drop frames even at 1080@30fps

What ones, when? Bay Trail (may as well be one), Zacate, and Kabini, even slow, can do that as well as any other, often better (due to never knowing if the new Forcewares will introduce HW decode/render problems, again). All the CPU has to do is demux, decode the audio, and manage buffer timing.

I wouldn't recommend any of those to the OP, given the circumstances, of course.

I was really thinking that APU's would be specifically built for this kind of thing...doesn't look like it.

APU means an AMD CPU and GPU on the same silicon. Nothing more. There is a manifold difference in performance between the likes of Kabini APU and a Kaveri APU. One competes with Atoms and fast ARM SoCs, one competes with Haswell Pentiums and Core i3s.

Whatever you get, use a browser that can block individual flash elements (Firefox w/ Flashblock, or Chroe-based browsers, which can be set to without extensions).here is a manifold performance difference between the low end and high end of even that range of processors.

E6400
4GB
4-series IGP
Old HDD
Your link takes about 5 seconds to fully load, with no flash (I <3 Flashblock).

P.S.:
E3-1230V3
16GB
GTX 970
M500
OP link takes 3-4s with no added JS or flash allowed, in FF.
With all JS and flash allowed, it seems to get done around 11s, but then takes another 20s or more before the throbber stops, as it waits on [invisible?] content from a few domains. Scrolling is mildly stuttery, but not bad.
In Chrome, it takes 3-4s with Flash and Javascript allowed, but adblock still blocking, and the flash doesn't make scrolling stutter (and by the growth of that one process, around 300MB to do that).

Whatever you get, use a browser that can block individual flash elements (Firefox w/ Flashblock, or Chrome-based browsers, which can be set to without extensions).

For a desktop, a Core i3-4xxx wouldn't be bad at all, IMO, with 2x4GB RAM, and a good SSD.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The mercury page loads for me (20- 25 seconds), but then the scrolling stutters and flash videos on the right side of the page play very slowly. So, I don't know if its fully loading though..

Which APU is worth getting? Quad core is the minimum then?

What browser are you using? That page loads for me in about 15 seconds on an atom tablet!
And almost instantaneously on my i5 desktop. This us using chrome. Maybe it is automatically disabling some stuff.

Personally, I would not chose AMD, but if you must, yes, get at least a quad core APU, and make sure it is Kaveri or Richland, not Kabini. The nomenclature is very confusing.

 

[ironk]

What browser are you using? That page loads for me in about 15 seconds on an atom tablet!
And almost instantaneously on my i5 desktop. This us using chrome. Maybe it is automatically disabling some stuff.

Thats odd...may I have a network problem then? It is wireless and I have N adapters as well as a N router. The browsers are Firefox and Chrome (latest versions). Is pingtest.net a good way to test the network? I will have to install java then.

APU means an AMD CPU and GPU on the same silicon. Nothing more. There is a manifold difference in performance between the likes of Kabini APU and a Kaveri APU. One competes with Atoms and fast ARM SoCs, one competes with Haswell Pentiums and Core i3s.

Whatever you get, use a browser that can block individual flash elements (Firefox w/ Flashblock, or Chroe-based browsers, which can be set to without extensions).here is a manifold performance difference between the low end and high end of even that range of processors.

E6400
4GB
4-series IGP
Old HDD
Your link takes about 5 seconds to fully load, with no flash (I <3 Flashblock).

P.S.:
E3-1230V3
16GB
GTX 970
M500
OP link takes 3-4s with no added JS or flash allowed, in FF.
With all JS and flash allowed, it seems to get done around 11s, but then takes another 20s or more before the throbber stops, as it waits on [invisible?] content from a few domains. Scrolling is mildly stuttery, but not bad.
In Chrome, it takes 3-4s with Flash and Javascript allowed, but adblock still blocking, and the flash doesn't make scrolling stutter (and by the growth of that one process, around 300MB to do that).

Whatever you get, use a browser that can block individual flash elements (Firefox w/ Flashblock, or Chrome-based browsers, which can be set to without extensions).

For a desktop, a Core i3-4xxx wouldn't be bad at all, IMO, with 2x4GB RAM, and a good SSD.

This is more of what I am seeing, the load times fluctuate but they aren't less than 15 seconds. I will look into flashblock and such, thanks.

 

[ironk]

I did some more tests and had the task manager open when I loaded the mercury webpage. In the task manager, the CPU (x2) reaches 75 - 100% and fluctuates between 35% to 85% when I scroll up or down. I think the cpu is the one that is causing the slowdown and not the ram as much. It looks like the cpu is constantly being used on that website...websites are getting as heavy as a video game now, it seems. I thought that maybe Firefox would use the GPU to help out with the graphics on the webpage, but I don't think that its using the GPU at all.

 

[Cerb]

It's using the GPU, unless set otherwise, but the GPU is only good for taking rendered blocks, putting them at coordinates, and then merging that into a final image. All the Javascript, DOM/inneerHTML editing, etc., is done in the CPU, as is the setup work to tell the GPU what to do.

 

[ironk]

It's using the GPU, unless set otherwise, but the GPU is only good for taking rendered blocks, putting them at coordinates, and then merging that into a final image. All the Javascript, DOM/inneerHTML editing, etc., is done in the CPU, as is the setup work to tell the GPU what to do.

ok, that is good to know.

I ran some other tests:

Pingtest.net: Grade A

Speedtest: ping at 16ms, speed is about the same as I signed up for (25Mbps)

Mozilla gpu test:

https://developer.mozilla.org/media...illaorg-achi_1334270447_demo_package/HWACCEL/

I got 60+Fps on that. I don't know...it all checks out but when it comes to flash, something is giving the cpu a hard time. It can't be spyware or virus, since I just did a new install of Windows and had a antivirus running prior to connecting to the internet.

 

[TheELF]

Flash just needs a lot of CPU single thread power that's all,your CPU is getting very old and not having adblockers installed worsens it so much more since it's all in flash.
Install adblock and adblock plus and if it is still too slow upgrade your CPU.

 

[BadThad]

All this chatter and not a single question about the hard drive?

That system has plenty of power for web/video use. Your problem is either your hard drive is too slow to keep up or you have a driver issue.....assuming this is a clean Win7 system, i.e. no malware/viruses.

 

[BadThad]

For decent web play back for windows 7 I would say Minimum 8 gig of ram.
Partition the hard drive in half and put the swap file onto the unused partition.
This way a dedicated partition to the swap file will keep the OS partition very lean.

I did this to a i7 refurbished pc and its nominal speed boost was not really a boost but optimization.

Bull.....I have probably over 50 customers using old machines with 2GB of ram and they don't have a single issue on the web. Ditto with the old method of moving the swap file to a different partition - there is no reason to do that at all on a modern computer. You'll see ZERO performance change by going through all that trouble.

 

[Cerb]

All this chatter and not a single question about the hard drive?

That system has plenty of power for web/video use. Your problem is either your hard drive is too slow to keep up or you have a driver issue.....assuming this is a clean Win7 system, i.e. no malware/viruses.

Read the chatter, and visit the link. This was gone over, already. It's a CPU bottleneck. Frankly, without Flashblock and Adblock, my >3GHz Haswell does not have, "plenty of power," for the OP's link, and it's a CPU hog for multiple seconds, even with them.

 

[ironk]

All this chatter and not a single question about the hard drive?

That system has plenty of power for web/video use. Your problem is either your hard drive is too slow to keep up or you have a driver issue.....assuming this is a clean Win7 system, i.e. no malware/viruses.

Although I think its a cpu issue, I will take the hard drive into consideration. The hard drive is a Sata Seagate:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148230

I ran Seatools on it and it passed the short and long tests, so it looks like the drive is good. I also ran CrystalDiskmark 64, and got the following:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

           Sequential Read :    71.815 MB/s
          Sequential Write :    71.492 MB/s
         Random Read 512KB :    35.030 MB/s
        Random Write 512KB :    29.584 MB/s
    Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :     0.536 MB/s [   130.8 IOPS]
   Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :     1.111 MB/s [   271.3 IOPS]
   Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :     0.923 MB/s [   225.3 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :     1.096 MB/s [   267.7 IOPS]

  Test : 1000 MB [C: 24.8% (36.9/148.9 GB)] (x5)
  Date : 2014/12/17 
    OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

I don't know, but shouldn't a Sata connection be a little faster? Or is this one of those "real world" vs advsertised things?

Flash just needs a lot of CPU single thread power that's all,your CPU is getting very old and not having adblockers installed worsens it so much more since it's all in flash.

Thats where I am leaning towards also, but just want to make sure it is the cpu.