|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:a n3050 is only very slightly behind a core 2 duo e6600, which is really impressive once you realize that the n3050 uses less than a tenth of the power Look at a N3700 vs a Q6600, 6W vs 105W.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:a n3050 is only very slightly behind a core 2 duo e6600, which is really impressive once you realize that the n3050 uses less than a tenth of the power It's even more impressive when you notice that an e6600's stock clocks are 2.4 GHz while the N3050's stock frequency is 1.6 GHz and only clocks up to 2.16 GHz with turbo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You put a graphics card from this year in, of course that's going to help things, and even though it's based on an "old" core design it's still one 4 years newer than the CPU and system. That's hardly a standard setup for a Core 2 Duo, which is more likely by far to have either ancient, terrible, Intel integrated graphics or low end cards from that time. You're just reinforcing how unacceptable a Core 2 Duo system is - and I'm not sure why you think gaming is relevant, the modern internet and browsers are quite intensive now that everything's gone to poorly optimized HTML5 that demands acceleration support. I think you are really overestimating the power of a brand-new low-end computer system. Even the newest Atoms are pretty slow, and more often than not they are double handicapped with slow eMMC storage and 2GB of RAM, with no allowance for RAM upgrade. Looking around at Passmark scores, a C2D E7500 system scores 1886 compared to 907 for a Celeron N3050 (dual core Braswell). AMD A6 CPUs have Passmark CPU scores roughly equivalent to an E7500. When we start talking about Core 2 Quad CPUs, things start to get ugly for modern low-end CPUs (C2Q Q6600 scores 2988 and C2Q Q9650 scores 4274). A Pentium G4400 (Skylake) only manages 3673. Celeron N3050 and Pentium G4400 are available in desktop computer systems you can walk into Best Buy or Walmart and pick up off the shelf today. A C2D system with 4GB+ RAM and a hard drive is good enough for most people's computer activities. Throw a cheap SSD into the mix ($35 ADATA 120GB), and many people would think a C2D/SSD was newer than a Pentium Skylake machine with a spinning rust hard drive. Dell and friends still sell a lot of brand new computers with spinning rust storage. C2D machines on Intel G31 integrated graphics can watch 720p30 Youtube videos in Chrome without any problems. These machines can watch 1080p Netflix streams in the Windows 10 Netflix app with no issues. Pretty much any discrete GPU since GeForce 8000 series supports hardware 264 acceleration. C2D machines are practically free. Add a $25 GPU for hardware 264 support and a $35 SSD, and for well under $100, the result is a desktop most people wouldn't mind. Content creators and 3D gamers are the exceptions, of course. There sure is a lot of chatter about Core 2 Duos in this AMD CPU thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:My parents have a core 2 duo with a gt 710 added to it ($25 on sale) for video decode/browser acceleration. If there is a free as in beer benchmark for general use I can run on it, let me know. Most of the people I know that own PCs do not game, and are quite happy with their celeron/pentium branded bay trails/braswell CPUs that have a weaker per core performance than a core 2 duo. Yep, because the the enthusiast market is small dollars compared to the business market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
PBCrunch posted:
No it is not, it is basically the minimum that won't grind to a halt on modern websites people use, but it's not good enough. Modern low end Intel systems absolutely perform better all around for normal people usage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
It is true that the Core 2 series is still able to at least power users through the Internet and other lite task that you could barely do with P4's even a year or two in. I have a Sony SZ laptop that has a C2D 1.6ghz with a Intel 3000/Nvidia 8400GS GPU setup and with the Intel, it can handle up to 1080P content on the web ok, and with the 8400GS (with my custom Windows 10 upgraded Driver from the last 8000 series released) it is able to game some very light gaming even). Also has a SSD and 4G DDR3 in it to round it out as maxed out as it can get for a little 14" laptop. Nothing spectacular, but being able to do modern stuff for the most part on a system from 2006 (I also have a Toshiba from 2005 with a Core Duo (pre Core 2, 32Bit Only and Intel 945GM) that still runs for the parents to browse the web in the kitchen) and it shows how well the old tech has aged. Anything pre Core era is practically useless in comparison. There are plenty of activities that can benefit from the newer modern tech of course, and nothing on these Core 2 systems feels "spunky" vs what you would get from a modern i3 or better, but with the advent of SSD's, 2G of ram or better, and multi cores, it really has made even the old lower end able to last a lot longer than systems did before. Now battery life with these old systems, yea thats non existent past an hr or so. Newer tech not only did get faster of course, but can actually last multiple hours while doing more, so keeping old tech around tethered to a wall is ok, but if you actually want to travel untethered, only the past year or 3 have tech that can do it for a reasonable period of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
People learn to scale back their demands if the only thing they ever use is a old computer. If you only have a C2D then it will probably feel fine. But if you use someone's i7 for a few days you can't go back to the C2D. Just like you can't ever go back to a magnetic hard drive after you 've used a SSD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
I recently went from a C2-Q6600 to an i5-2500 (while keeping the SSD) and I could hardly tell a difference in day to day use. Maybe it boots a bit faster and programs launch a few seconds quicker but not that much of a difference that one is clearly unusable. I definitely got a big boost in rendering and some games, but the old system was perfectly fast enough for most web or office crap that "regular people" still use their PCs for. Anandtech actually did a 10 year anniversary of Core 2 (holy poo poo  ) article:  That's not brilliant but it's 10 years old and it wasn't even the top C2D model. In practice, an E6600 should be fast enough for most tasks. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10525/ten-year-anniversary-of-core-2-duo-and-conroe-moores-law-is-dead-long-live-moores-law As for AMD, I'm cautiously optimistic for now. I don't really buy those ashes benchmarks but I'll be more than happy if they can shake things up a bit with something vaguely competitive so that I have an excuse to get something actually modern.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
I was actually forced to upgrade recently, from a 4.2GHz i7-875K. Wasn't enough CPU anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You put a graphics card from this year in, of course that's going to help things, and even though it's based on an "old" core design it's still one 4 years newer than the CPU and system. That's hardly a standard setup for a Core 2 Duo, which is more likely by far to have either ancient, terrible, Intel integrated graphics or low end cards from that time. You're just reinforcing how unacceptable a Core 2 Duo system is - and I'm not sure why you think gaming is relevant, the modern internet and browsers are quite intensive now that everything's gone to poorly optimized HTML5 that demands acceleration support. I could put a 610 (which is a 520 - 2011) and get the same hardware acceleration for rendering and decode that the c2d lacks built in. If it wasn't clear, my point was that as a *CPU* the core 2 duo was still good enough for 80% of users. Which is a massive problem for a company that derives the bulk of their income from producing processors. They can't count on software making processor technology obsolete within a reasonable time frame anymore. Even windows system requirements haven't budged much since vista. Once they can no longer iterate on performance per watt (which can justify an upgrade in data centers and enterprises by reducing the TCO in electricity costs) AMD and Intel are up poo poo creek. Intel is going the IBM route and trying to pivot to a services/consulting company. AMD is presumably praying for a carrington level event to drive new sales. mobby_6kl posted:I recently went from a C2-Q6600 to an i5-2500 (while keeping the SSD) and I could hardly tell a difference in day to day use. Maybe it boots a bit faster and programs launch a few seconds quicker but not that much of a difference that one is clearly unusable. I definitely got a big boost in rendering and some games, but the old system was perfectly fast enough for most web or office crap that "regular people" still use their PCs for. Fishmech? SYSV Fanfic fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:I could put a 610 (which is a 520 - 2011) and get the same hardware acceleration for rendering and decode that the c2d lacks built in. If it wasn't clear, my point was that as a CPU the core 2 duo was still good enough for 80% of users. And your point is wrong. Because it isn't good enough. SYSV Fanfic posted:
That guy started with a quad core, not a dual core. In case you were asleep for 10 years, all Core 2 Duos are dual core. Core 2 Duo systems simply aren't fast enough for normal users these days, unless you pile in a bunch of other equipment they don't have already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Basic office tasks are like the low-hangiest of low-hanging fruit and video decoding is basically always GPU-accelerated nowadays. OSs have actually started getting faster for the first time in forever (Win8.1 and Win10), and software bloat hasn't gotten too much worse. So office tasks certainly haven't ramped up much in the last 5 years or so. It's absolutely correct that having a SSD is going to put you lightyears ahead in terms of perceived system responsiveness, it makes a massive difference. A clean install of Windows and an SSD is going to make it feel like a whole new computer. PBCrunch posted:I think you are really overestimating the power of a brand-new low-end computer system. Even the newest Atoms are pretty slow, and more often than not they are double handicapped with slow eMMC storage and 2GB of RAM, with no allowance for RAM upgrade. Looking around at Passmark scores, a C2D E7500 system scores 1886 compared to 907 for a Celeron N3050 (dual core Braswell). AMD A6 CPUs have Passmark CPU scores roughly equivalent to an E7500. When we start talking about Core 2 Quad CPUs, things start to get ugly for modern low-end CPUs (C2Q Q6600 scores 2988 and C2Q Q9650 scores 4274). A Pentium G4400 (Skylake) only manages 3673. Celeron N3050 and Pentium G4400 are available in desktop computer systems you can walk into Best Buy or Walmart and pick up off the shelf today. If I was going to put together a low-end build it would look something like this:
Total cost of ~$130 and you're up around a Passmark score of 2567. You're not going to do any power gaming on it obviously but it's totally OK for desktop tasks and light server work (particularly since some of the motherboards are compatible with ECC RAM, so it's good for stuff like ZFS, and it supports AES crypto acceleration). I think it would probably be especially nice as a second work computer running a lightweight Linux distro like Lubuntu. I have one as a home fileserver running Ubuntu Server and it's great, it's pretty much the one AMD product I can wholeheartedly recommend. Intel also has the J1800/J1900/J2800/J2900 but they're not quite as dirt cheap as that Microcenter deal. The Liva X is also a cute little box with mSATA capability, but it's not quite as powerful. The Zotac ZBOX BI320 is also pretty neat and it can do 2.5" SATA disks and has expandable memory, but it's a little more expensive. And none of these options do ECC. The Intel D2500 is a pretty cute little board but it's literally more expensive than any two of these combined. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
I just looked up my laptop's processor (i7 720QM, a Clarksfield quad) and it gets a Passmark score of 3050. Sp I can confirm that that vintage of quadcore is still reasonably workable for modern desktop tasks with an SSD, especially if you have accelerated video decoding. It has a discrete GPU (48 Tesla cores) and it's actually quite plausible for older games at lower setting levels, or DOTA/indie stuff. If it were a desktop that you could throw a 750 Ti into, it would probably be a reasonable 1080p gaming machine, and it's certainly a workable Win10 productivity machine. The only time it really lags out is when I restart it and Chrome kicks off and tries to reload fifty billion tabs, and that's pretty understandable. And I'm used to being babied with Haswell i7s at this point. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
The C2D is relevant in my mind because AMD has been stuck near wolfdale performance on tasks where you can't just take advantage of a process shrink to cram more specialized circuits (or an entire GPU) on the die. Competitive performance + HSA + stacked DRAM really interests me, because it legitimately feels like it could cause a shift in how computer science is applied to desktop computing. The last time I was this interested in anything other than gaming in regards to PCs was the beginnings of CUDA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
I still use 2ghz C2D Mac minis for some stuff  . Two of them...don't really count for this example, one is a basic server and the other is running Windows 7 for Media Center as my DVR and occasional Chrome for web stuff. One other one though is an office machine that I use VMware on and Safari/iWork stuff on the Mac side. Not super fast or anything but it's fine, SSD and >4GB RAM keeps it usable enough. Well it probably helps they have 9400M IGPs but those are crazy slow by today's standards too.I also have some slow Sandy Bridge Celeron as another DVR, maybe 1.1-1.3ghz? I think the C2D Macs feel like they perform a little better, iirc the Geekbench numbers are pretty close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
we have been replacing our core 2 duos that are more or less just citrix clients. they are just long in the tooth at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
As rightly you should. I mean, we bitch about the only thing that Intel does is 10% more IPC year-over-year, but there's a point at which old hardware is just plain old, otherwise I'd still be using a 965 BE.
SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
In hindsight what I meant to say was more along the lines of the performance of a core 2 duo being good enough. Not an actual core 2 duo. I'd prefer to forget a time before USB3 existed, or two amp quick charge ports. SwissArmyDruid posted:As rightly you should. I mean, we bitch about the only thing that Intel does is 10% more IPC year-over-year, but there's a point at which old hardware is just plain old, otherwise I'd still be using a 965 BE. I'm debating getting a usb 3 card for my old 955. My nephew has it and played the witcher III on it with an r7 360 @ 1280x1024. I'm still waiting for my brother and law to incredulously state how much his power bill is up over last year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
One thing you all have yet to address is al the other things you don't get in C2D. Like USB 3, and I imagine a host of other very useful features. Especially enterprise features.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
My mum and my best friend are both on c2d e6400 chips, 6gb ram, one machine on ssd one on hdd both with 5770 gpus. My mum uses hers as business/personal machine and it holds up fine albeit a bit slow with the hdd (and also the 20+ facebook tabs open in chrome...) my friends machine is much quicker feeling because of the ssd. However both machines are on the edge of their performance, especially my friend who watches netflix 1080p on one screen with stardew valley at 1080p on the other. They both run Windows 10 admirably. My pc is similar but with a c2q, q6600. Considering they can be bought for £15 these days I'm pretty sure they'll both be upgrading at some point. 4 cores really does help these days over 2. All of which is very impressive for such old machines. My mother's old machine is an old athlon xp single core with 1gb of ram and an agp graphics card, it's significantly less impressive. everything is a 30 second loading time away and it simply cannot handle youtube or Facebook never mind anything more complex. It doesn't help that it's running an install of xp from when xp was brand new and shiny so it needs a good 5 minutes from booting until windows has loaded up everything and is ready to use. Tldr: more cores = more better, I'd always pay the little bit extra for double the cores on these old machines. Also rooting for amd to get their poo poo together, I'd love to be able to recommend cheaper amd machines again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
I built my mom her Office PC years ago with a C2Q8400 I believe and while it is no speed demon, it gets things done rather ok. What it essentially needs next is to replace the Raid 1 HDD's with Raid 1 SSD's which would bring up the performance of that system exponentially. (Raid 1 + NAS Backups + CD/DVD Backups.. can never have too many backups  ) Outside of that my old Q2Q Q9550 when it is overclocked to 3.84Ghz still runs like a drat top and with the 5870 in it, can pretty much do anything for my Sister and her Husband that they request of it. Since they are not gamers it works great for the light Photoshop and web browsing/torrenting they like to do so which is pretty much way under what that system is capable of. Outside of onboard features like USB 3.0 (Which can be added with expansion cards), the old Core 2 systems really are still capable of task that current gen Atoms still can struggle on. (Atom based desktop systems really, disregarding power usage of course). That Q9550 system I still have to go tinker with a tad as the motherboards cmos battery finally died and it keeps resetting its settings when they shut it down lol. Thank God for the ASUS bios settings profiles that I saved years ago. I also gotta find one of the modular PSU plugs to get the backup drives in the system back up since i swapped out the old SSD that I had in that with my 2 old Plextor SSD. Ran out of power cables but man that thing runs like a champ with Raid-0 SSD's. (Even though they are Sata 2)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
5870 was such a goddamn good card. What kind of power draw does that Q9550 have at 3.8+ GHz? Edit: I ask because I've used a $45 Regor with a 5870 for years then gave it to a sibling who is still using it for web browsing today. I got lucky in the "it is an old Deneb and you can turn extra cores back on" lottery. Supposedly it still sips power. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Captain Hair posted:
Yeah this is the reason I'm so down on the Core 2 duo for the normal user these days. Technical people have the expectation that "normal users" just run one thing at a time, or maybe a word processor and a browser tab simultaneously. But what you actually see happening is they'll open 20 complex tabs like facebook or whatever and have the word processor open and so on. Then they complain everything's so slow, but they're also not going to change their usage pattern.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
For reference my q9400 @ 3.2 and a R9 390 is drawing 300 from the wall playing games, 70w idle. So he's probably pulling around 60w-200w.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
jm20 posted:For reference my q9400 @ 3.2 and a R9 390 is drawing 300 from the wall playing games, 70w idle. So he's probably pulling around 60w-200w. ....huh. That's not terrible. I can't really attack using an overclocked C2Q system on the basis of power consumption / cost if the 3.8 overclock does indeed fall within that range.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah this is the reason I'm so down on the Core 2 duo for the normal user these days. Technical people have the expectation that "normal users" just run one thing at a time, or maybe a word processor and a browser tab simultaneously. But what you actually see happening is they'll open 20 complex tabs like facebook or whatever and have the word processor open and so on. Then they complain everything's so slow, but they're also not going to change their usage pattern. Yeah I see a lot of people around the office with tons of stuff open at once, they very well might not do that at home with their personal computer use but in an office setting it's definitely pretty typical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah this is the reason I'm so down on the Core 2 duo for the normal user these days. Technical people have the expectation that "normal users" just run one thing at a time, or maybe a word processor and a browser tab simultaneously. But what you actually see happening is they'll open 20 complex tabs like facebook or whatever and have the word processor open and so on. Then they complain everything's so slow, but they're also not going to change their usage pattern. This is only because the machine is running out of RAM. 8GB usually fixes it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Interrupting this heated C2D chat to bring you some actual AMD news. http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20160817PR200.html quote:In the second quarter, AMD registered a strong 23% increase in sales sequentially... Zombification complete, what is dead may never die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah this is the reason I'm so down on the Core 2 duo for the normal user these days. Technical people have the expectation that "normal users" just run one thing at a time, or maybe a word processor and a browser tab simultaneously. But what you actually see happening is they'll open 20 complex tabs like facebook or whatever and have the word processor open and so on. Then they complain everything's so slow, but they're also not going to change their usage pattern.  It's almost as if modern software knows how and when to idle itself so the system scheduler can make the best use of resources.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:Interrupting this heated C2D chat to bring you some actual AMD news. One should note that 2Q2016 ended June 30th, so the 480 has nothing to do with it either. Purely console chips and Chinese server farms, I guess? SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Chrome with several tabs open tends to bring my cpu usage up towards 25% on a 2600k
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:....huh. That's not terrible. I can't really attack using an overclocked C2Q system on the basis of power consumption / cost if the 3.8 overclock does indeed fall within that range. At full bore back in the day, I fiddled with 2 4870X2's in the system as well and was able to pull drat near 900W out of the system lol. (Rated from my UPS) Now it is much less with just a single 5870 and the chip is able to downclock 1ghz from 3.84 (so down to it's stock speed of 2.84ghz) and I think the voltage drops a bit as well. I know the OC voltage was something low like 1.28v or something once I got it all dialed in which was really good for that chip. Also rare for an OC'ed chip but it is also able to sleep reliably which is another power saving goodie I haven't been able to have on many OC'ed systems past or present reliably.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
redeyes posted:This is only because the machine is running out of RAM. 8GB usually fixes it. If the machine even accepts 8 GB. And if someone's willing to toss the money into upgrading in the first place. And only if that particular case is the system running out of RAM, when it's just as often all those little things demanding too much CPU time when you add it all up. And what you've got in the end is something that's at the margin of acceptability right now, and will soon be outside that as things continue getting more resource intensive in ways its not easy to expand it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:Interrupting this heated C2D chat to bring you some actual AMD news. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:One should note that 2Q2016 ended June 30th, so the 480 has nothing to do with it either. Purely console chips and Chinese server farms, I guess? Could be the Pachinko deal. http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/major-pachinko-and-pachislot-provider-selects-amd-for-new-3d-gaming-machine-20160725-00450 Says they should be rolling out in fall of 2016, but that doesn't mean the purchase didn't go down before June 30th.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
23% growth is good, but from where? Graphics sales? Low-end laptop cpus?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
playstations?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
incoherent posted:playstations? I bet it's Playstations, Xbones, and Pachinko machines. After all, the new metal gear solid is a pachinko exclusive. http://www.gamesradar.com/konami-remade-mgs-3-in-fox-engine-for-a-pachinko-game-and-everyones-furious/
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
I am actually getting a little excited now!ArsTechnica posted:At an event in San Francisco, AMD also revealed a few more details of the Zen's low-level architecture, and in a multithreaded Blender rendering demo showed that an 8-core/16-thread "Summit Ridge" Zen CPU outperformed an 8C/16T Broadwell-E CPU (presumably the Core i7-6900K) at the same clockspeed. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/amd-zen-performance-details-release-date/
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
mayodreams posted:I am actually getting a little excited now! The problem now is that it's not scheduled to arrive in any quantity until 2017, and there's always time for the chipset to suck, or the pricing to be unrealistic. But if they manage not to screw any of that up, then I'll be happy that AMD is finally back in the game. As an aside, that article says "original Athlon" at the top of the article with a picture of a socketed Athlon, but the original Athlon was in a Slot A cartridge. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:01
|
|
