4 ms·
Depends on your daily driving :) For web browsing and playing video (i.e. 99% of all users' "daily driving"), I don't think it even matters to consider these s
by theon144 7y ago
Depends on your daily driving :)
For web browsing and playing video (i.e. 99% of all users' "daily driving"), I don't think it even matters to consider these sorts of benchmarks.
I do edit video and work with 3D graphics almost daily though, so this is sort of comparison is very relevant.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoNot worth considering these benchmarks because there’s no effect, or because the system requirements for browsing the web are too low overall for there to be a perceptible difference? In other words, of you were to actually measure page load speed, are you saying the measirements would correlate with the benchmarks?
- lunchables 7y agoMy guess is that a 10ms difference in network latency would be a bigger impact on page load times than the latest Zen2 vs Intel CPU. In reality I think for general web browsing the difference, if it exists at all, in either direction, would not be perceptible. I know that's not EXACTLY what you're asking, but I think it's worth mentioning the practical aspect as well.
- jxcl 7y agoThat seems to have been the "common wisdom" for a while now, but I'm not so sure that it holds so much today. With everybody coming out with bloated SPAs is it possible that faster processors will start to be required for normal web work?
- fock 7y agobut then, anyone with a recent(ish) Macbook is up-to-date for web-browsing and playing video (on the internet). Any post-Lynnfield Desktop-Process is quite a bit faster (starting at 3GHz) and since Haswell, even the video-playing is no problem (in higher resolution).