Tweet
I work on computers for a living. Unfortunately I come across some real dogs that people bought at a store where you can also buy diapers and toilet paper. They are cheap and what you would expect for something with minimum specs. These end users are often the most demanding and I recently ran across a woman running her small business off a low-end AMD based system. She had no antivirus installed and the computer was a disaster. So, I clean up the computer and had Kaspersky Internet Security installed. The problem now is that the computer doesn't have enough power to run basic tasks such as e-mail, web, and Microsoft Office with the antivirus running in the background. She is upset with me as I charged her for the service and feels that she didn't gain anything.
Basically, I am now going to have the end user sign a form acknowledging some limitation that will impact performance and is outside my control. I am going to include slow internet speeds as well as CPU speeds and RAM. I still feel that 4GB of RAM is more than adequate for a lower end system to operate decently. I haven't settled on a Passmark score for the CPU yet but feel that somewhere in the 1300-2000 range should be the lowest score of any CPU on the market. The computer that prompted me to do this was well below 1000 on the score. So,, I am going to have a form that I will require people to sign if the internet speed is below 3MBPS, they have less than 4GB of RAM, and/or their CPU falls below a certain number on the Passmark scores. I don't benchmark the computers. I just lookup the CPU score on Passmark online once I see what CPU they are running.
I know certain things can influence the performance of a computer. A slower older CPU will do better with an SSD and a nice modern CPU will fall on its face when mated to a slow 5400RPM mechanical hard drive. I have worked on some Core 2 Duo systems with a Passmark score of around 2000 and a SSD. They hold up quite nicely in terms of user experience and "snap" of applications opening/closing, etc. I also find that Windows 10 and even 8/8.1 run much better than Windows 7 on similar hardware due to more efficient resource usage.
I basically want to have a score that can do most things that most users today will be able to do without many issues. I figure on this system having onboard graphics and not a discrete card. This is a basic system, not an enthusiast or gamer rig. Running a decent antivirus in the background without maxing out the CPU is a must! I have also run into a few modern but cheap systems that cannot play videos recorded using current cameras and cell phones. Most of these are encoding in x.265 which takes more CPU power to decode. I was able to decode a 1080P x.265 video without trouble on a Core 2 Duo that scored 1110 on the Passmark score. It was pretty much maxed out but was able to play the video.
So, I want to hear opinions on what a person should consider as a minimal Passmark score for a decent user experience. We all know how people buy whatever is cheap and then complain when there is nothing they can do about it so they blame you. I will make people acknowledge their system CPU's Passmark score alongside what I consider to be minimal before doing any work on their systems if they are low-end junk. I feel that this number will be in the 1300-2000 range. Anyone have other opinions or a more narrowed range and why?
Thanks,
Conor
Basically, I am now going to have the end user sign a form acknowledging some limitation that will impact performance and is outside my control. I am going to include slow internet speeds as well as CPU speeds and RAM. I still feel that 4GB of RAM is more than adequate for a lower end system to operate decently. I haven't settled on a Passmark score for the CPU yet but feel that somewhere in the 1300-2000 range should be the lowest score of any CPU on the market. The computer that prompted me to do this was well below 1000 on the score. So,, I am going to have a form that I will require people to sign if the internet speed is below 3MBPS, they have less than 4GB of RAM, and/or their CPU falls below a certain number on the Passmark scores. I don't benchmark the computers. I just lookup the CPU score on Passmark online once I see what CPU they are running.
I know certain things can influence the performance of a computer. A slower older CPU will do better with an SSD and a nice modern CPU will fall on its face when mated to a slow 5400RPM mechanical hard drive. I have worked on some Core 2 Duo systems with a Passmark score of around 2000 and a SSD. They hold up quite nicely in terms of user experience and "snap" of applications opening/closing, etc. I also find that Windows 10 and even 8/8.1 run much better than Windows 7 on similar hardware due to more efficient resource usage.
I basically want to have a score that can do most things that most users today will be able to do without many issues. I figure on this system having onboard graphics and not a discrete card. This is a basic system, not an enthusiast or gamer rig. Running a decent antivirus in the background without maxing out the CPU is a must! I have also run into a few modern but cheap systems that cannot play videos recorded using current cameras and cell phones. Most of these are encoding in x.265 which takes more CPU power to decode. I was able to decode a 1080P x.265 video without trouble on a Core 2 Duo that scored 1110 on the Passmark score. It was pretty much maxed out but was able to play the video.
So, I want to hear opinions on what a person should consider as a minimal Passmark score for a decent user experience. We all know how people buy whatever is cheap and then complain when there is nothing they can do about it so they blame you. I will make people acknowledge their system CPU's Passmark score alongside what I consider to be minimal before doing any work on their systems if they are low-end junk. I feel that this number will be in the 1300-2000 range. Anyone have other opinions or a more narrowed range and why?
Thanks,
Conor
Comment