Comment by jpc0

Comment by jpc0 a day ago

Because number bigger doesn’t translate to higher perceived performance…

The only compelling reason that I want to upgrade my Sandy Lake chip is AVX2.

So it is instruction set not perf, sure there will be improved performance but most of the things that are actually performance issues is already handed off to the GPU.

On that note probably rebar and PCIe4 but those aren’t dramatic differences, if CPU is really a problem (renders/compilation) then it gets offloaded to different hardware.

Aurornis a day ago

> Because number bigger doesn’t translate to higher perceived performance…

When the numbers are that far apart, there is definitely room to perceive a performance improvement.

2011 era hardware is dramatically slower than what’s available in 2025. I go back and use a machine that is less than 10 years old occasionally and it’s surprising how much less responsive it feels, even with a modern high speed SSD drive installed.

Some people just aren’t sensitive to slow systems. Honestly a great place to be because it’s much cheaper that way. However, there is definitely a speed difference between a 2011 system and a 2025 system.

Reply View 5 replies

hedora a day ago

Choice of things like desktop environments matters a lot. I’m using xfce or lxde or something (I can’t tell without checking top), and responsiveness for most stuff is identical between 2010 intel and a ryzen 9.
The big exceptions are things like “apt get upgrade”, but both boxes bottleneck on starlink for that. Modern games and compilation are the other obvious things.

Reply View | 1 reply
- Aurornis 21 hours ago
  
  > The big exceptions are things like…
  > Modern games and compilation are the other obvious things.
  I mean if we exempt all of the CPU intensive things then speed of your CPU doesn’t matter
  I don’t have a fast CPU for the low overhead things, though. I buy one because that speed up when I run commands or compile my code adds up when I’m doing 100 or 1000 little CPU intensive tasks during the day. A few seconds or minutes saved here and there adds up multiplied by 100 or 1000 times per day. Multiply that by 200 working days per year and the value of upgrading a CPU (after over a decade) is very high on the list of ways you can buy more time. I don’t care so much about something rendering in 1 frame instead of 2 frames, but when I type a command and have to wait idly for it to complete, that’s just lost time.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
estimator7292 a day ago

Believe it or not, "good enough" often is good enough. Regardless of how big the numbers are.

Reply View | 1 reply
- Aurornis 21 hours ago
  
  The comment claimed there wasn’t a perceivable difference
  That’s different than acknowledging that newer hardware is faster but deciding current hardware is fast enough
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
cassepipe 21 hours ago

Especially on single core, everything is painfully slow. Tried to install linux on a ppc imac G5 five years ago and I had to admit that it was never going to be a good experience, even for basic usage

Reply View | 0 replies

alberth a day ago

Agreed that if you’re not using NVMe (as example), that non-CPU upgrade will translate into the biggest perceived benefit.

Then again, not many Sandy Bridge mobo supported NVMe.

Reply View 1 reply

mgaunard 10 hours ago

I did get a PCI-Express to M2 adapter and installed an NVMe drive.
That was indeed the biggest upgrade ever.

Reply View | 0 replies

LtdJorge 21 hours ago

I went from a Sandy Bridge (i5 2500k) to a Ryzen 9 3950x, and the perceived performance improvement was insane. You also have to take into account RAM and PCIe generation bumps, NVMe, etc.

Reply View 0 replies