Impact of CPU cache for basic web browsing experience?

Status
Not open for further replies.

LinComp

Honorable
Mar 8, 2013
143
0
10,680
Hi, For basic web browsing how much is the CPU cache important?

I am thinking of buying AMD A4-5300 which has 3.4 Ghz speed and L2 cache of 512 KB (0.5 MB). It sounds like this AMD CPU has no L3 cache, also there is no smart cache like for example the 3 MB smart cache used in an intel i3 CPU. my question is how much this absence of L3 cache and also the less amount of L2 cache compared to an intel i3 cpu will make difference for a basic computer user who does only web browsing (yahoo, google etc), email, occasional youtube videos etc?

please see that my question is not whether the above mentioned AMD processor is sufficient for basic web browsing or not, i realize that even an old pentium 4 cpu too is enough for basic web browsing etc, my question is whether the above amd processor will produce an inferior web browsing experience compared to for example an intel cpu like i3 3225 which has more cache like 3 MB smart cache, has L3 cache too which the above AMD does not have (also i3 3225 has intel HD 4000 graphic card )? Once again, the computer will be used only for basic browsing - yahoo/Google, email, occasional youtube video etc. I will buy the more expensive i3 3225 only if it produces better web browsing experience compared to the AMD A4-5300 processor, otherwise i will settle for the amd processor mentioned above. Thanks!
 
Solution
With hardware acceleration of web browsing, the quality of your graphics hardware can be important. When hardware acceleration is active, it helps, but that's subject to your browser and the contents of the page you're viewing. I would personally choose to go with the APU rather than the i3, as the drivers available for the Radeon graphics of the AMD APU are more mature than those of Intel's. If your i3 that you are choosing, really does have HD4000 graphics from Intel, it will at least have relatively the same raw horsepower as the Radeon in the APU, but I'm not yet convinced with Intel's software side of things. Besides the graphics, both processors are more than overkill for basic web browsing. You might also look at the total...


well, the i3-3225 is a more expensive cpu then the best AMD APU you can get your hands on, the A10-5800k. so it's sorta a loaded question because you're not asking about an apples to apples comparison. however i'll do my best to answer.

1) the a4 is an inferior chip in just about every way except power drain to the i3. The i3 will process better, and the hd4000 graphics will be about on the same level as the a4's onboard graphics if you were to bench the two chips.

2) the lack of l3 cache basically means the a4 (or any trinity chip) is VERY sensitive to ram speeds. Fast ram really improves the speed of the trinity chips significanly, boosting them across the board (cpu/gpu) by aproximately 30%-40%. Fast, easy to overclock ram is a must in a trinity apu setup

3) intel HD graphics benches far better then it performs in real life. As anyone who's used it can attest to. Simply put, open 2 or 4 web browser tabs and watch your intel hd4000 system crawl to a stop. I've no idea if this is a hardware or software/driver issue, but either way, while hd4000 looks solid on paper it's real world performance really lags badly behind even the a4's wimpy 7480D gpu.

4) if your goal is a web-box i couldn't advise you to rely upon intel hd graphics. not until it performs better. It's fine for a HTPC, not so much for much else yet, as once you open up 5-10 tabs in your web browser, you'll take a seriously bad hit in performance and responciveness from the intel.

summery: in an apples to apples comparison, the almost equally priced a10-5800k would make the superior gaming cpu, as it's onboard video slaughters hd 4000. the overclocked a10 with good ram even can match the i3 in multi-threaded tasks, and show respectfully in single threaded apps as well.

however, since you're asking about the baby a4, i'll direct my closing statements about it. For the price the a6 is actually a better buy (on a price/performance scale). I would suggest if you DO go with the APU, you'll go with overclockable ram and a motherboard who's bios will let you do it. the i3 will slaughter either of the a4/a6 in computing tasks yet take it to the chin in graphical tasks. I'll leave the rest up to you.
 
Will an i3 CPU produce better web browsing results than an A4 APU? That's rather subjective. As for rendering performance, good luck measuring and subjectively feeling the difference. For tasks that can use GPU acceleration however, the APU should run circles around the i3's integrated graphics.

Are you planning to use the built in graphics of each chip, or did you plan to use an add-in, discrete graphics solution?
 

LinComp

Honorable
Mar 8, 2013
143
0
10,680
Thanks very much both of you! Bigpinkdragon286 - hi, no i am not planning any discrete graphics, just the built in that comes with the CPU. I thought the basic browsing may not benefit from discrete graphics, is that right? Thanks!
 
With hardware acceleration of web browsing, the quality of your graphics hardware can be important. When hardware acceleration is active, it helps, but that's subject to your browser and the contents of the page you're viewing. I would personally choose to go with the APU rather than the i3, as the drivers available for the Radeon graphics of the AMD APU are more mature than those of Intel's. If your i3 that you are choosing, really does have HD4000 graphics from Intel, it will at least have relatively the same raw horsepower as the Radeon in the APU, but I'm not yet convinced with Intel's software side of things. Besides the graphics, both processors are more than overkill for basic web browsing. You might also look at the total cost to get into both machines. The APU is likely going to save you some money.
 
Solution
Status
Not open for further replies.