At what point does a CPU become sufficient for regular non intensive PC multitasking usage?
Like having 10+ tabs, skype video, steam chat, and a bunch of other stuff open without getting stuck and no annoying hangups.
Because a sempron 240 is really not there, gets stuck all the time.
I'm more familiar with intel. Any of the celeron or pentium new ones should be fine.
For any new cpu you'll probably need a new motherboard as well, and depnding on how old your current one is you might need new ram too.
Tbh, you might just be better off doing a 300 quid new build.
Stuck this together in 5 mins out of boredom. Would probably be a bit of overkill for a shitty side pc, but it's sstill cheap. 220 dollars apparently.
Also proably missed something cause i barely paid attention to it.
My second oldest computer runs mainly 2008 gear. Everything can be bought as parts for next to nothing, here's what I have:
>Asus P5K LGA775
>Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 (@ 3ghz)
>Samsung DDR2 800mhz 4 x 2gb
>XFX Radeon HD7870
>OCZ Vertex 120gb SSD
It's actually so capable, that it runs Battlefield 4 with medium settings at 30 to 50 fps. It's playable. If my main computer(s) were to fail, I wouldn't have a problem going back to using this old beast. I occasionally use it just because I love how it can do almost everything even though it's mostly 10 years old in a couple of years. It's not just passable, it's fast. Browsing the internet feels exactly the same on it than it does on my new computer, and that's what I pretty much do all of the time. I haven't tried running Skyrim yet, but I bet it's going to play smooth as butter even with some mods.
People are getting rid of old comptuers for next to nothing. A quad core LGA775 based system can probably be bought for even $50 if you are lucky. Without a modern GPU and SSD, but you can get a 7870 and SSD for $100 or less.
Alternative option with SSD, 8GB RAM, SSD and ITX form factor based on AM1 platform:
Honestly though, for an extra $50 you could get an i3-based system like the ThinkServer TS140 that'd crush anything you could put together yourself for the same money. Those things are a bargain, especially with the cashback offers they regularly run.
Can currently get the one with a Xeon E3-1226 v3 for £225 here in Bongolia at the moment after cashback, which is what the CPU costs by itself.
I would say the Athlon 5350 (4 x86 kabini cores @ 2.05 GHz) is the minimum you would need to do some light multi-tasking in 2016. Though an A8-7600 (4 x86 kaveri cores @ 3.1 - 3.8 GHz) would be better if you could afford it since it has about twice the performance so you would have to upgrade later in the long run.
>i3-6100 should do the trick for awhile. Only $130 and is plenty fast. Excellent single core performance, which is really what matters.
Not really unless the only game you play is arma 3.
I was gonna go with an SSD too, but i didn't know how much storage would be needed, and 500gb is just safer.
I also never had a problem with big PCs so the ITX doesn't make a difference to me. Never really care for aesthetics but thats just me.
I have several systems. CPUs are a 4790K, Phenom II X3 720, Athlon 5350 and a Core 2 Duo E6700. Honestly, there's pretty much fuck all difference between the 4790K and the C2D for general desktop and shitposting use. But then I don't multitask much beyond having foobar open in the background.
I'm on a celeron 540 single core from 2008 with 2 gig of ram and it's enough for youtube. about 10 tabs, skype and some programming (with server daemons running) and apart from some slight lag in cpu intensive web pages (that demand alot of resources but offer little for it which is another subject) it's pretty good. Go cop a Celeron G1840 which is the cheapest new cpu and is 6 times faster than this single core celeron (therefore more than enough for non-gaming tasks) I have a build on pcpartpicker called the "designated shitposting build" if you want a cheap monitor + keyboard + rig setup.
>I'm on a celeron 540 single core from 2008 with 2 gig of ram and it's enough for youtube
I really hate it when poor people get through 4chan's spam filter.
There's no way 2gb of ram can handle 10 tabs comfortably, if you define "comfortable" by non-poor standards.
8gb is bare-minimum for great firefox + youtube searching. Browsers take up huge amounts of ram nowadays.
Basically they're laptop grade APUs that nobody talks about. They're really good for the rock bottom prices but they have very little upgradeability. Best you can do is pray to god you can crank the FSB from 100 to 115 mhz and the voltage a little to get your pleb 5350 chuggibg at 2.4 GHz.
it depends on how poorly programmed your software is
businesses don't pay their employees to optimize things when it doesn't matter (a computer from 2016 running software from 2016 being exactly as snappy as a computer from 1996 running software from 2004? consumers don't care.)
but FOSSfags might optimize in the name of autism
>maybe if you're a basic bitch who uses windows, yea
It doesn't matter. Flash is unoptimized as fuck.
You can "relearn" the definition of fast when you're on 2gb (a common technique for poor people), but objectively, it's slow.
Well I'm sorry you struggle this hard with using computers, no need to be angry about it though, computers are so simple these days that even you might figure'm out.
no storage fgt, get a 2$ usb stick and put chromium os build on it
It is also important as many smart anons have pointed out to have enough RAM. 4GB is the minimum you should have for 2016. You can get a single 4GB ddr3 stick for under $20 sometimes.
In that price range I'd get the Athlon 5350, since it's basically on par CPU-wise and GPU-wise it's way more capable.
Also the platform has more expandability options.
>inb4 muh power consumption
Literally a few watts more.
>he thinks 10 tabs is a lot
I daily drove a P4 1300 with 1 GB of RDRAM and Win2k through most of 2013 and I had no problem handling 10-30 tab sessions, fuck even my 200 MHz Pentium Pro legacy dev box can handle 3-10 tab shitposting sessions with JS off
If you seriously have difficulty handling such a small amount of tabs on 2 GB then you are tech-retarded and probably don't belong on this board.
you should try asking yourself if something is true before getting defensive anon, it might do wonders to your fragile insecure ego.
you dont need a trip to be desperate for attention and validation desu
>you dont need a trip to be desperate for attention and validation desu
Maybe. He was right though, bay trail is trash and you know it. Cherry trail on the other hand is pretty based. It's not just the CPU that's garbage on bay trail but the iGPU as well.
>A quad core LGA775
lol no, search for core2quad or 4 core xeons prices on ebay or your favourite website
bay trail is trash for video editing and bf4 ultra settings and whatever but tested a celeron 1037U rig myself once, the pages would load fast (albeit with ublock enabled), 1080p playback was smooth etc so for your memebook normie it's quite enough. You need to consider what the user will do on the computer when you decide what will be the best fit for performance / price
Yeah not bad considering for 1$ more you get about 25% more performance overall, but I also saw this embedded celeron 1037U mobo that allowed me to add storage to the build too (cuz the mobo is cheaper):
I admire your dedication to budgeting but that dual core APU isn't worth it. Better to get the A8-7600 for $40 more and avoid having to upgrade soon. I mean you're already on the FM2+ platform so you might as well spend a little more for a CPU with better performance than the Athlon 5350.
You're conveniently forgetting how much bay trail overheats. Cherry trail can sustain burst frequencies for longer.
In all honestly though, nobody should ever consider getting a motherboard with a soldered on bay trail or cherry trail. You can't fucking upgrade the CPU without having to buy another fucking motherboard.
This computer had a Celeron 740 with a shitty intel integrated motherboard. I replaced the processor with an E8400 and installed an old geforce 8400 I had around. Its quite okay-ish now running Ubuntu since I didnt wanted to spend a Windows licence with it.
I would upgrade to a OC C2Q at least. Or Pentium Dual Core Sandybridge+, especially the Haswell Pentium is a beast.
Tried a 680 with a 3 GHz Phenom II and it bottlenecked hard. Could be the 4 GB DDR2 but I don't think they would impact so hard. The Phenom system also had a 840 SSD (but bottlenecked through PCI gen 1).
here's your (You)
You shouldn't believe everything you hear on the Internet anon, most of the integrated cpu mobos were around 48 celsius on speedstep mode, and facebook machines don't usually need upgraded for a long time (my 2008 celeron a such case), but to make you feel better about being wrong I gotta say I love x7-8700, such an amazing CPU for the price (35$ says on ARK)
This was a nice thread until the name/tripfags showed up to get their daily dose of attention.
Ok so if the low tier builds are AM1 and FM2+, which one should I build for my HTPC? I just wanna watch 1080p netflix/youtube and maybe browse chrome a little from my couch. I already have an old wireless mouse and keyboard in storage and a coffee table beside my couch.
>4chan must cater to me and only me
Get bent. I don't like the tripfags either but I accept them as a part of 4chan. They've been with use for years and aren't going away. Either filter them or fuck off back to i2p where everyone is truly anony-mooose.
>I don't like the tripfags either but I accept them as a part of 4chan.
But for the same price you can get an athlon 5150 which has 4 threads. The reason I don't ever think a dual thread cpu is a good idea is because they can't multi-task as well which was something OP wants to do albeit lightly. Sharing 2 threads between multiple applications is a nightmare.
our recommendations have dual physical cores though, if that's what you mean the OP should buy.
Stop lashing out buddy, shit happens, you get beaten in arguments sometimes, move on
literally the same thing applies, why do you think you need a quad core for a fucking 10-tab browsing session, a couple chat clients and a shitty 1080p movie? it's not like any of those require a lot of performance
Like I said, I mean dual-thread.
Having two physical cores is cool as long as you get 4 threads (ie i3 cpu). What you cucks are recommending are cpus with dual cores yet only 2 fucking threads. This is not something you want if you plan to multi-task even a little bit. Hell, a 4-thread atom/celeron is still miles better than a pentium for this sole reason.
Once again you are showing that you don't know what you are talking about man, atoms and celerons dont come with hyperthreading, and it's overkill for basic desktop multitasking, I suggest you leave the thread because you make yourself look stupid even further
Not him but are there downsides to using a dual thread pentium meme as opposed to a quad-thread i3? This isn't the first time I've heard people telling others that having 4 threads is better than having 2.
yeah I did the same shit he did in the post I was shitting on originally
don't really think that kills my point though, decent dual-thread, core, whatever chips are still breddy good for that kind of work, at least better than OP's turd
again depends on the use case, a i3 4160 will show clear performance gains over a dual core G3258 for example, but for browsing and 1080p playback will be overkill as HTML parsing and rendering is a breeze, hell an overclocked raspberry pi 2 can do that decently lol
You get labeled as stupid and poor. The cheapest i3 is like 30 dollars more than the best pentium. Having 2 threads does impact the ability to multi-task but not to a noticeable extent to most. It does however cause problem for playing vydias since most expect you to have 4 logical cores out of the box.
You must be in high school or something, i have 2gb ram with windows 8.1,10chrome tabs,an ide with 2projects open and only use 1.4gb. I can have 20chrome before i run out of ram, i could upgrade for $5 to 4gb but it isnt worth my time
1$ more for pentium fag here. I had a similar build for my work pc. It had that same cpu, 4gb ram and a 128 ssd because why not. It was overkill for office work.
These other faggots only think that they need i7 and 980ti because linusShillTips or other faggot says so. For my personal rig, i have an i3 4160 and r9 380 and it runs pretty fine.
>i could upgrade for $5 to 4gb but it isnt worth my time
your time is garbage then :)
>If you seriously have difficulty handling such a small amount of tabs on 2 GB then you are tech-retarded and probably don't belong on this board.
I don't care about what you can "technically" handle, nerd. I'm talking about 10-30 tabs comfortably with youtube in the background. That's impossible on 1gb of ram, unless you have a really poor definition of "comfortable".
there u go.
Add $50 (SSD) + $40 (GT 610) + $40 (8gb kit). Ultimate browsing computer at sub-$200.
I have dual xeon x5365s (quad cores) at 3ghz with 32gb ddr2
not the fastest but it does photoshop and stuff just fine
to me it seems more like a case of people having little knowledge about hardware requirements but still want to have an opinion to not face how ignorant they are, i almost wish smartphones didn't exist so mcdonalds employees / school kids couldnt come here anymore
>People having little knowledge about hardware requirements
No, you dirty refugee.
It's grasshopper/ant philosophy. The i7/980ti guys are the "ant". They want to build big and store for several winters. You are the grasshopper, who builds flimsy structures that need to be repaired every 2 years. NOTHING to be proud of.
Man stop being so smug, it's bad for your health you know. Yeah most of us know jack shit about the hardware we use but that doesn't mean that we have to follow some arbitrary guideline that you set.
Maybe some people can make due with a celery cpu, maybe some people need an i3. The best thing you can do is recommend someone something a little bit overkill but not batshit expensive for their needs so that they won't have to upgrade in 1-2 years.
You see, you're fucked either way. Either you get some low end hardware now and upgrade every 1-2 years or you pay top dollar for something that will last you 4-8 years. Think about that.
>gets into argument
>engages maximum damage control
>le get le life bro
>being this cocky
I hope you're just bored and not like this in real life.
>"Hey guys, I won an internet argument!"
Legitimately feel sorry for you man.
>4GB is the minimum you should have for 2016
8GB is the bare minimum you should have in 2016. It's 30 dollars for 2x4GB kit. It's just not practical to give yourself that low a ceiling. 4GB is usable, but very restrictive.
>There's no way 2gb of ram can handle 10 tabs comfortably
>128 mb IGP
>old intel dual core GPU
>less than 1 GB of RAM
>no problems with browsing the web (7 4chan tabs, a blog, a youtube video, an online shopping site, and a banking site)
>listening to FLAC music
>have skype running in the background
Have you ever tried turning off your fucking antivirus and using common sense instead?
For the record, I'm on XP and
>use chromium (no site is broken)
>flash for games and porn
I want to fucking slap your bitch ass. You can't learn how to computer if you always have the best PC. It takes an old PC to force you to learn.
>not socket 775
True. I mean if you can't afford that 8gb ram kit then you shouldn't even be getting a computer. You're obviously really poor and need to buy more groceries instead or saving up for emergencies.
Kinda crazy how ram prices have dropped. I remember at once point an 8gb ddr3 ram kit was like $160. The media told us it was due to factory fires but I get the feeling it had to do with greedy jews.
Literally the dumbest fucking meme in computing, but I guess I shouldn't expect much from a gamertard who, like the ants in his analogy, is a dumb sheep incapable of thinking on his own.
I guess you'll at least get some enjoyment out of masturbating to how bleeding edge your crusty old shitbox used to be in the coming years when even a cheap walmart box will comfortably out-perform it with half the power consumption and a far more modern feature set.
Not him but I'm still chugging my i7-2700K at 4.4 GHz you shitbird. I won't be upgrading even when kabby lake or cannon lake arrives.
Shit, I'll probably die before there is a better cpu worth upgrading to.
But I doubt you're still using a 580 or whatever.
I have a 2500k and while hyperthreading would be nice, it certainly isn't vital. Even a sandy bridge i3 would probably hold up alright.
Point is, buying the best doesn't really mean you're going to get more for your money than buying lower end stuff more frequently.
I would rather buy a 300 dollar graphics card every 2 years than buy a 600 dollar graphics card every 4 years.
I'm literally moving back an architecture, from an entry-level single socket nehalem workstation to a high-end core 2 workstation, but like >>52322600 implied, CPUs don't really age like shit like say a graphics card will. And "future proofing" in itself is a misnomer, especially right now when we're on the cusp of all kinds of retarded new interfaces like USB-C that a bleeding edge system right now will need to rely on expansion cards to support in the future, not to mention power consumption adding on to what you've already paid for it.
I'm not at all shitting on buying something high-end, mind you, in fact I usually almost always buy used high-end gear over retail mid-range gear, but I'm shitting on the idea of buying something incredibly overkill for your use case in pursuit of some nebulous "future proof" system when you can simply buy according to your needs and upgrade as they require you to.
My 2¢ in the matter:
Any mainstream desktop or laptop dual-core from the last 10 years is perfectly adequate for everyday internet usage. I'm currently using a dual core Sandy Bridge mobile Pentium and there are no noticeable stalls anywhere on the web. It stalls only when viewing multiple heavily enhanced video streams in CPU-intensive formats like VP9 but even then only at 1080p or larger with 60FPS.
On the other hand, a dual core Atom chip that is one year older struggles to do anything, even 720p video rendering. Windows 7 on these chips is borderline unusable.
So, my usability borderline would be:
Core2 Era Pentiums and above. Never ever touch an Atom, regardless what year's made, and I have no experience with Celerons or AMD chips.
I am jealous.
I already have an i5 2400 but I'm curious about the athlon, but too much of a poorfag to justify it when I already have 2 laptops and a gaming desktop.
What overclock, what gpu, and what games?