Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxx.xx) on May 15, 2013 12:43 pm wrote:

> Uh? Browsers use memory and *disk* for caching.

Disk cacheing shouldn't be on the critical path for rendering a page,
unless the browser is brain-dead (maybe some are).

> > don't think it's all about network bandwidth. Even on fast local network some kinds of
> > pages take noticeable time to render. And I've read of various efforts to speed it up,
> > using threading or GPGPUs, which suggests that other people than me think it's a real
>
> For those people who have CPUs like an Atom, a Bobcat or an A7, it is an issue.
> Ie, my Atom can choke quite a bit on some pages. And since it
> has SMT, a threaded HTML rendered would be quite welcome.
>
> But we were discussing CPU cores with top single threaded performance, like an Ivy Bridge, were we not?

There isn't *that* much gap between a Bobcat and an IvyBridge - if it's painfully
slow on Bobcat, then it's still going to be a noticeable delay on IvyBridge.

> Can you present evidence otherwise?

I've used Core i5 and now a 6-core Intel. I still find some webpages rather clunky
(I think mostly those with lots of javascript). These days, processing a webpage very
often involves running a pretty complex JS program.