Which CPU for browsing

Rainmaker · 27 Dec 2019 at 22:57

TNA said:
You are wrong! He can confirm that browsing can be CPU-heavy, which is confirmed by at least several other sources if you check google search!

Bat **** crazy no?

Exactly this. If a 15 watt 2500U can't load YouTube without hitting a whole 9% CPU usage (at a massive 1.4GHz) then no way can your 12 thread 5GHz Coffee Lake chip even load the page. Give up now and spend a grand on a real CPU. Obviously.

4K8KW10 · 27 Dec 2019 at 22:59

Rainmaker said:
Nonsense. As I said it's a software issue and would use 100% CPU of whatever you threw at it. I don't need to check 'google search' to understand CPU resource allocation or browser architecture, thanks - at least on Linux, BSD or Windows. It would be interesting to see what Task Manager actually showed if the arrow was expanded next to Edge, and/or if OP tried the same site in Firefox or Chrome with NoScript and uBlock Origin running.

Look, if you have or know a way or methods to configure your browsers, it's great for you.
Many people, however, run their systems as they are. I can tell you that browsing is CPU-heavy and a faster CPU will be better. Don't ignore it.

Even the benchmarks confirm it:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/8.html

Ryzen 9 3900X is faster than i7-8700K.

Rainmaker · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:02

4K8KW10 said:
Even the benchmarks confirm it:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/8.html

Ryzen 9 3900X is faster than i7-8700K.

One benchmark, of one particular aspect of web code - and even then the difference between 3900X and 8700K is miniscule. Again - if your measly 15W 4 core CPU can load YouTube at 1.4GHz using only 9% CPU, what makes you so adamant that an 8700K will in *any* way struggle? Again you ignore that I posted I just upgraded from a 8700K to a ThreadRipper 3960X (way above your posited 3900X) and see no real discernable difference in browsing. Give it up and stop posting nonsense. You litter the forums with junk and refuse to acknowledge that (1) not everyone is running an underpowered laptop and (2) that you can be wrong or have something to learn.

4K8KW10 · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:06

Rainmaker said:
One benchmark, of one particular aspect of web code - and even then the difference between 3900X and 8700K is miniscule. Again - if your measly 15W 4 core CPU can load YouTube at 1.4GHz using only 9% CPU, what makes you so adamant that an 8700K will in *any* way struggle? Again you ignore that I posted I just upgraded from a 8700K to a ThreadRipper 3960X (way above your posited 3900X) and see no real discernable difference in browsing. Give it up and stop posting nonsense. You litter the forums with junk and refuse to acknowledge that (1) not everyone is running an underpowered laptop and (2) that you can be wrong or have something to learn.

I am right. And my laptop is not underpowered. It can boost to 3.15 GHz which is not a small figure. 9% load was when the page was already idle. The maximum load is 50%. One tab only.

TNA · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:09

Rainmaker said:
One benchmark, of one particular aspect of web code - and even then the difference between 3900X and 8700K is miniscule. Again - if your measly 15W 4 core CPU can load YouTube at 1.4GHz using only 9% CPU, what makes you so adamant that an 8700K will in *any* way struggle? Again you ignore that I posted I just upgraded from a 8700K to a ThreadRipper 3960X (way above your posited 3900X) and see no real discernable difference in browsing. Give it up and stop posting nonsense. You litter the forums with junk and refuse to acknowledge that (1) not everyone is running an underpowered laptop and (2) that you can be wrong or have something to learn.

You are lying, obviously. Google says otherwise

4K8KW10 said:
I am right.

Rainmaker · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:20

TNA said:
You are lying, obviously. Google says otherwise

Can't argue with The Donald. My 2012 MacBook Pro has a puny 35W i5 3210M and comes with 2c4t. Even that can load and play YouTube without problems, and loads multiple tabs without issue. Sorry, I can't stop lying...

4K8KW10 · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:31

Rainmaker said:
Can't argue with The Donald. My 2012 MacBook Pro has a puny 35W i5 3210M and comes with 2c4t. Even that can load and play YouTube without problems, and loads multiple tabs without issue. Sorry, I can't stop lying...

20 tabs:

TNA · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:37

4K8KW10 said:
20 tabs:

I recommend you upgrade to an 3950X!

Quartz · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:41

A relatively modest 40 tabs:

And playing a random HD video (a trucker dashcam) from Youtube:

Rainmaker · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:41

4K8KW10 said:
20 tabs:

At the final split second you took the screenshot, yes - but one assumes the 19 tabs were open over the previous 4 minutes with seemingly little load. You can manipulate a screenshot however you wish. Also, if you persist in saying that you can load 20 tabs on your little 2500U but the 8700K apparently will struggle with YouTube alone? Like we said - pull the other one and stop posting drivel. I have direct experience of the two CPUs, you're posting from a comparison with a 15W part.

ETA: Your load averages over 1,5,15 would be far more telling.

Rainmaker · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:43

Quartz said:
A relatively modest 40 tabs:

And playing a random HD video (a trucker dashcam) from Youtube:

TNA · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:45

4K8K pwned once again

Masochist I tell ya!

Rainmaker · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:49

TNA said:
4K8K pwned once again

Masochist I tell ya!

That's one word for it...

TNA · 27 Dec 2019 at 23:50

Rainmaker said:
That's one word for it...

opethdisciple · 28 Dec 2019 at 00:43

Any software with bugs can use up system resources. Just because you see high CPU usage (once in a bluemoon) whilst browsing doesn't mean that browsing in general is CPU intensive. It just means that some errant script on that page etc... has gone crazy and is using up system resources.

An 8700k is an absolute beast for web browsing.

opethdisciple · 28 Dec 2019 at 00:45

4K8KW10 said:
Look, if you have or know a way or methods to configure your browsers, it's great for you.
Many people, however, run their systems as they are. I can tell you that browsing is CPU-heavy and a faster CPU will be better. Don't ignore it.

Even the benchmarks confirm it:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/8.html

Ryzen 9 3900X is faster than i7-8700K.

No one was disputing that.

But look at the difference between the 3900x and the 8700k. Miniscule.

I guarantee you that even with a 3950x you will still see the odd time where CPU usage hits 100%. As I said this is due bugs on the web page you are visiting not issues with your hardware.

TNA · 28 Dec 2019 at 08:43

opethdisciple said:
No one was disputing that.

But look at the difference between the 3900x and the 8700k. Miniscule.

I guarantee you that even with a 3950x you will still see the odd time where CPU usage hits 100%. As I said this is due bugs on the web page you are visiting not issues with your hardware.

Agreed.

4K8KW10 · 28 Dec 2019 at 09:48

opethdisciple said:
Any software with bugs can use up system resources. Just because you see high CPU usage (once in a bluemoon) whilst browsing doesn't mean that browsing in general is CPU intensive. It just means that some errant script on that page etc... has gone crazy and is using up system resources.

An 8700k is an absolute beast for web browsing.

Sorry but Edge and Chrome show the same results - very strong overload on the CPU, easily hitting 100% load.

SupraWez · 28 Dec 2019 at 10:09

Expand the Edge parent process to see if it’s an issue with just one or multiple child processes.

TNA · 28 Dec 2019 at 11:07

4K8KW10 said:
Sorry but Edge and Chrome show the same results - very strong overload on the CPU, easily hitting 100% load.

Keep burying your head in the sand. When I think of you, Jim Carey from Dumb and Dumber comes to mind where he sticks his fingers in his ears and starts saying la la la la la...

Stop comparing ****** laptops to PC’s!