RichardC (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on May 15, 2013 1:15 pm wrote:
> 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).

Well, usually it isn't. But it can be tens of milliseconds to fetch something from an HDD and it can pile up.
Of course, network is by far the biggest issue.

>
> 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.

One of my desktops has the cheapest Bobcat I could buy and I really have no complaints about web browsing performance.
But I don't use it that often.


> > 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.

That JS can be fetching stuff from the network (AJAX, etc) though...

Can you provide an example of such page? Can you run a JS CPU profile on them?