Glorious wrote:AbBRASiON wrote:It's raw CPU performance, single and multi-threaded and memory bandwidth.
But the fact remains that open tabs in the background
are increasingly being allowed to do less and less by the two browsers you mention, to the point where, currently, they can do almost nothing. This trend is only going to continue, because the impetus for this is primarily for battery life on more mobile platforms, a *VERY* visible metric that is meaningful to millions, whereas the guy going from 4->6 cores to help his transitions between 200+ tabs, well, isn't.
Notice I'm not critiquing your workflow or your choice here, I'm simply telling you that an additional 2 cores beyond 4 isn't going to do anything to help that. Faster per core performance *might*, but no, 4->6 won't.
EXACTLY, you're proving my point. There's nothing intrinsically bad about a heap of tabs open if they aren't allowed to tap the resources too heavily.
The PC is sluggish 'generally' - by my definition and I want to
absoloutely and utterly ensure, Windows is as fast as humanly possible.Opening explorer, changing applications, changing tabs, closing applications, switching things from monitor to monitor, copying files, scanning files, printing, opening RDP connections, booting VMs , copying and pasting extremely extremely large graphics images, saving files, maximising windows, making flash video full screen. Opening local video files, etc
General.use. I want this particular element as quick as possible.
I personally suspect that a 4/8 Intel at 5.0ghz (The Kaby 7700k) would beat a Ryzen 8/16 at 4.0ghz for this kind of general use.
Yes more cores would help this stuff, to a point.
Therefore to get back on topic, a 6/12 Intel with their IPC is probably going to serve me really well. So I'm eager to see this CPU released, hopefully under $400 US