4 ms·

I think this has been the case for a while. Performance plateaued pretty hard in the middle range spec hardware. Power consumption is getting better though.

I think this has been the case for a while. Performance plateaued pretty hard in the middle range spec hardware. Power consumption is getting better though. Somebody gave me an ASUS laptop from a few years ago, probably about 2017. I wasn't expecting miracles, it was a Celeron N3350 (2016), but I wasn't expecting the i5-560 in the M4500 (2011) in the garage is about 2x as fast. Still shipped with an 5400RPM HDD as well. The low end is still as garbage as it was in the past - barely a usable system at the time of purchase.

joxel 4y ago
Yeah, I bought a $150 laptop from best buy with windows on it and the latest celeron and had to return it, it was literally unusable for anything, even emptying the recycle bin. I don't know how they get away with selling that stuff.
criley2 4y ago
I actually disagree. Middle range hardware is so much better than it was 5-6 years ago. I've built two computers recently around AMD Ryzen 5600 and that chip is so impressive. It runs circles around "high end" from the 5 years ago, and does it on stock cooling and 65W peak. (ex: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-7960X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-5600/m357952vsm1822932 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-7960X-vs...) And that's not low end. That's still a $500-$700 computer depending on what we're doing about gpu. And I disagree that lowend is still garbage. I picked up a used business machine from Microcenter for $250 that had Windows, a multicore processor, 8GB ram and a SSD. I'm not quite sure what you want from an emailchecker and youtube watcher but the parents are very happy with it. Maybe that's a bad example but the bottom end feels better than ever for light use. To me the real question mark is high end. $1000 processors? $2000 graphics cards? What in the world is happening?
- maximus-decimus 4y ago
  A used business machine isn't "garbage tier". In general it's probably better than mid-tier. At least in build quality. Real garbage tier barely has enough ram to run the OS. W11 officially requires 4 GB of RAM (which is insane), and you can find plenty of 4GB laptops on Amazon : https://www.amazon.com/Acer-A515-46-R3UB-Display-Quad-Core-Processor/dp/B09HVC79PC/ref=sr_1_4?crid=3HCM4EUSU0W42&keywords=laptop&qid=1675693216&sprefix=lapto%2Caps%2C147&sr=8-4 https://www.amazon.com/Acer-A515-46-R3UB-Display-Quad-Core-P... Now, that's shit tier (at least if you're running Windows.)
  - criley2 4y ago
    Honestly is that one really that bad? I get that 4Gb is offensive and I consider 8GB to be the minimum, but the reviews on that model are actually pretty universally positive. They say it actually has good performance on low-use tasks and has good battery life. I'm watching a youtube video review of the exact model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6GIE-bcSQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6GIE-bcSQg and even doing the 7 minute 4k video edit over ethernet in Adobe Premiere Pro, it stutters at full resolution but can handle basic tasks at 1/2 resolution. Is this thing really shit?
    - doubled112 4y ago
      It is definitely low end. However, it is likely around double the CPU/GPU performance vs the older Celeron laptop I brought up, plus it has an NVMe. Not even the same tier in my mind. If you could put another 4GB RAM in, it would probably be just fine for basic use. It might be an example of where budget machines "caught up" to software again.
    - maximus-decimus 4y ago
      Interestingly, I didn't catch that this was running Windows S which only allows installing software from the windows store and running edge. That version apparently only requires 2GB of ram, so I guess that's why it runs fine. I would consider something that only allows me to run stuff from the Microsoft store to be "garbage", but what do I know, it probably fits a lot of people's use case.
maximus-decimus 4y ago
Did they run the same OS? If the 2011 was using Windows XP, that that would be very unsurprising to me.
rfoo 4y ago
N3350 is from the Atom product line, which, IMO, is only suitable for embedded / thin clients. It does not tell much if an i7, even very dated, beats it.
- doubled112 4y ago
  I agree about what the CPU was good for, but I think the situation does tell us something. The problem is that they were putting those in $300 and $400 Windows laptops and selling them to people who didn't know better at BestBuy. Shouldn't a new $400 laptop be able to open Outlook in less than a minute? There used to be enough improvement over time where a budget chip would at least be comparable to a decent chip from a few years back. Now you're stuck comparing chips across most of a decade to see if performance is actually any better.

joxel 4y ago

Yeah, I bought a $150 laptop from best buy with windows on it and the latest celeron and had to return it, it was literally unusable for anything, even emptying the recycle bin. I don't know how they get away with selling that stuff.

criley2 4y ago

I actually disagree. Middle range hardware is so much better than it was 5-6 years ago. I've built two computers recently around AMD Ryzen 5600 and that chip is so impressive. It runs circles around "high end" from the 5 years ago, and does it on stock cooling and 65W peak. (ex: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-7960X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-5600/m357952vsm1822932 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-7960X-vs...) And that's not low end. That's still a $500-$700 computer depending on what we're doing about gpu. And I disagree that lowend is still garbage. I picked up a used business machine from Microcenter for $250 that had Windows, a multicore processor, 8GB ram and a SSD. I'm not quite sure what you want from an emailchecker and youtube watcher but the parents are very happy with it. Maybe that's a bad example but the bottom end feels better than ever for light use. To me the real question mark is high end. $1000 processors? $2000 graphics cards? What in the world is happening?

maximus-decimus 4y ago
A used business machine isn't "garbage tier". In general it's probably better than mid-tier. At least in build quality. Real garbage tier barely has enough ram to run the OS. W11 officially requires 4 GB of RAM (which is insane), and you can find plenty of 4GB laptops on Amazon : https://www.amazon.com/Acer-A515-46-R3UB-Display-Quad-Core-Processor/dp/B09HVC79PC/ref=sr_1_4?crid=3HCM4EUSU0W42&keywords=laptop&qid=1675693216&sprefix=lapto%2Caps%2C147&sr=8-4 https://www.amazon.com/Acer-A515-46-R3UB-Display-Quad-Core-P... Now, that's shit tier (at least if you're running Windows.)
- criley2 4y ago
  Honestly is that one really that bad? I get that 4Gb is offensive and I consider 8GB to be the minimum, but the reviews on that model are actually pretty universally positive. They say it actually has good performance on low-use tasks and has good battery life. I'm watching a youtube video review of the exact model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6GIE-bcSQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6GIE-bcSQg and even doing the 7 minute 4k video edit over ethernet in Adobe Premiere Pro, it stutters at full resolution but can handle basic tasks at 1/2 resolution. Is this thing really shit?
  - doubled112 4y ago
    It is definitely low end. However, it is likely around double the CPU/GPU performance vs the older Celeron laptop I brought up, plus it has an NVMe. Not even the same tier in my mind. If you could put another 4GB RAM in, it would probably be just fine for basic use. It might be an example of where budget machines "caught up" to software again.
  - maximus-decimus 4y ago
    Interestingly, I didn't catch that this was running Windows S which only allows installing software from the windows store and running edge. That version apparently only requires 2GB of ram, so I guess that's why it runs fine. I would consider something that only allows me to run stuff from the Microsoft store to be "garbage", but what do I know, it probably fits a lot of people's use case.

maximus-decimus 4y ago

Did they run the same OS? If the 2011 was using Windows XP, that that would be very unsurprising to me.

rfoo 4y ago

N3350 is from the Atom product line, which, IMO, is only suitable for embedded / thin clients. It does not tell much if an i7, even very dated, beats it.

doubled112 4y ago
I agree about what the CPU was good for, but I think the situation does tell us something. The problem is that they were putting those in $300 and $400 Windows laptops and selling them to people who didn't know better at BestBuy. Shouldn't a new $400 laptop be able to open Outlook in less than a minute? There used to be enough improvement over time where a budget chip would at least be comparable to a decent chip from a few years back. Now you're stuck comparing chips across most of a decade to see if performance is actually any better.