Vivaldi on modest older hardware



  • I'm just posting this because I found it interesting and thought it it might be of interest to some other Vivaldi users with Windows on modest hardware. [b]Fresh Vivaldi v1.0.151.7 standalone immediately after installation on following system:[/b] [size=2][b]Dell E5400 Laptop (Mfr 2010) 32-bit Win7 Pro (although WEI reports CPU is 64-bit capable) Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo P8400 @ 2.26GHz 2GB DDR2 RAM @ 398MHz Intel Mobil 4 Series Express Chipset 64MB on-board dedicated graphics memory (plus 745MB shared system RAM) WEI 4.1 Graphics; 3.4 Gaming graphics (on 19" external 1440x900 monitor, as laptop screen dead)[/b][/size] [b]NOTE:[/b] The following screenshot is with only one tab open, the Vivaldi FirstRun tab that always appears on a new installation. [attachment=1039]newVivaldiv1.0.151.7installw1tabVivaldi1strunhomepage4processesGPUPID692443CPUperPE46CPUperVivaldiTaskManagermasked.png[/attachment] For some reason that page is very CPU intensive on this machine. If I understand it correctly, Vivaldi's Task Manager suggests the graphics on the page are probably the culprit: [b]GPU Process (PID 6924) 46% CPU in Vivaldi's Task Manager and 43% in Process Explorer[/b]. (AFAICT, VTM and PE show slightly different CPU usage because they don't update at the same time or with the same responsivity. I deliberately caught them near the high end of CPU usage, but they fluctuated in the 35%-45% range for 10-15 minutes until I finally closed the First Run tab. Most of the time VTM was 1-3% lower than PE, but this screenshot happened to catch the opposite.). BTW, this CPU/GPU usage is [b]NOT[/b] typical of other tabs in regular usage, which is part of what makes this particular FirstRun Vivaldi tab phenomenon interesting (and puzzling) to me. (I've also noticed it, but not observed it so carefully, in other Vivaldi installations.) AFAICT, graphics processing on websites seems to be the worst browsing bottleneck on this machine (There are probably some ways to test that directly now that I think of it, so if anyone has a good suggestion, I'd like to try testing it.) Based on my experience with other machines and browsers, I imagine I could open many more tabs if I bought two 2GB RAM chips to replace the two 1GB chips in the machine to max out its RAM, but I suspect I would still see high CPU usage on more graphics intensive sites. As it is, Vivaldi generally seems to perform adequately on this machine with 4-6 tabs open (if I close the FirstRun tab :P), and I can sometimes use up to 10-12 tabs if none are too taxing on the system. Although I'm very enthusiastic about Vivaldi, even with the promised future refinements to improve its speed, it is hard to imagine it will ever be the browser I would hope for on such a modest machine. Attachments: [img]https://forum.vivaldi.net/uploads/attachments/40170/newVivaldiv1.0.151.7installw1tabVivaldi1strunhomepage4processesGPUPID692443CPUperPE46CPUperVivaldiTaskManagermasked.png[/img]



  • Well right now, I'm typing on an E4300 @2.4Ghz and I consider it all but a modest machine.

    It has 8GB of ram and is pretty fast. Right now is downgraded to a 7200rpm HDD, but usually runs on SSD and is more than enough to do everything but recent games, given the lack of a decent AMD Vga.



  • I'm running an older system too, WinXP on a P4, 2.60GHz, with 2GB ram. Definitely no speed demon. I can only compare Vivaldi's performance to Opera 12, which I use every day. I don't expect Vivaldi to be lightening fast on my older machine, but it would nice for the Vivaldi devs to keep in mind that not everyone is on the latest quad cpu machine stacked to the rafters with ram.

    As it is, Vivaldi is comparable to Opera 12 speed-wise, perhaps a little slower page rendering, comparable to Chrome. Where Vivaldi becomes sluggish, is with several tabs open. Opera 12 handles this scenario fine, and does not seem to suffer from what appears to be problems handling memory in Vivaldi, in the same scenario.



  • @MrPants: Yes, I think it would be nice to hear from a few others with similarly "modest" machines.

    The main reason I posted this was because of the interesting high CPU usage with that particular Vivaldi First Run page. That seems very odd, and I thought it was probably attributable to the relatively low-end 64MB on-board graphics that shares system RAM.

    But as I started to post this I got curious and rechecked the same page in 64-bit Vivaldi on my 64-bit Win7 laptop with 8GB RAM and was surprised to see similar high (35-44%) CPU usage there (128MB on-board Intel HD Graphics, WEI 4.5 Graphics, 5.6 Gaming graphics). This machine is about 2 years newer (presumably faster video) and has twice the on-board video memory, so I would have thought it would perform much better on that page.

    You didn't mention your video hardware, which might be nice to know, and if you have time, I'd be interested to know what you observe if you visit the Vivaldi First Run page.

    As I mentioned above, Vivaldi generally performs adequately on this machine with 4-6 tabs open and is OK with up to 10-12 tabs if none are too taxing on the system. For comparison, on this same machine I regularly run 30-40 tabs in Olde Opera and have run up to 50 before it chokes.

    (I haven't yet loaded more than a few tabs in Vivaldi on my 64-bit 8GB RAM Win7 machine as I'm having some HDD problems on that machine and using it as little as possible until I can address those, but I'm guessing it will probably handle at least 20-30 tabs and probably more.)



  • This first run page is probably resource hungry on any hardware.
    It uses vector graphics with javascript modifications to keep toggling movement and uses filtering on those images.



  • The animations in that first run screen are pretty taxing … that computer really isn't "modest" by my standards, by the way. Okay, this Ultrabook has more RAM and 64-bit Windows 7, that's about it. My bigger (physical size) laptop has the same amount of RAM yours does but a slower processor - however, it does have AMD graphics. My netbook ... well. it is a netbook, what do you expect. Then there's my XP system - a "nettop" (Atom processor, 1 GB RAM but nVidia graphics)

    Might be interesting to see what vivaldi://gpu says about your system. Especially under Performance Information ... here's my Ultrabook

    Performance Information
    Graphics 5.7
    Gaming 6.4
    Overall 5.7



  • @sgunhouse:

    Might be interesting to see what vibaldi://gpu says about your system

    Oh, nice! I didn't know all that info was there.

    But the performance stats are the same as the WEI stats I mentioned:

    32-bit Win7 laptop in OP snapshot:
    Performance Information
    Graphics 4.1
    Gaming 3.4
    Overall 3.4

    64-bit Vivaldi in 8GB RAM 64-bit Win7 laptop in my last post:
    Performance Information
    Graphics 4.5
    Gaming 5.6
    Overall 4.5

    (BTW: took me a couple minutes to figure out why vibaldi://gpu wouldn't work :P)



  • Vivaldi is unusable for me on old PC.It keeps on using 100% cpu, After some time the cpu usage goes down but it again rises on just slight movement of mouse.Other browsers(chrome,firefox,opera blink) work fine on this PC.
    OS - Win xp sp3 with P4 2.66ghz and 1.5gb ram

    https://vivaldi.net/en-US/forum/vivaldi-browser/1488-what-versions-of-windows-are-supported-by-vivaldi#16033

    Performance Information
    Graphics0
    Gaming 0
    Overall 0 :lol:



  • @Desidevil: Your first post since the one you linked to, which was Feb. 16, 2015.

    I hope you've updated since then to the most recent Developer snapshot. ;)

    Vivaldi is developing rapidly and there have been numerous bug fixes and feature improvements. Some forum users have also reported improved performance, but I don't think the development team is working much on speed/performance enhancements yet.

    Follow the Team Blog for weekly updates (usually on Mondays) and occasional mid-week updates.



  • @gdveggie:

    @Desidevil: I hope you've updated since then to the most recent Developer snapshot. ;)

    I have tried all the snapshots.The recent ones are certainly better than the first TP but still it is unusable.I have to wait for a loooong time till CPU settles down or the links become click-able.I know that this problem is related to the old onboard graphics(supports win Xp only),that is why I posted this problem in the system requirements thread. :)



  • @Desidevil: It's interesting that Chrome & Opera Blink will run OK on that machine, but not Vivaldi. How much memory does the on-board graphics have? …And if you know, what is it that limits it to WinXP?

    I think I have an old still-working WinXPsp3 box with either 1GB or 1.5GB RAM and either on-board graphics or a low-end graphics card. I'll try to dig it out at some point and see what Vivaldi does on it. If I get around to it and learn anything useful, I'll post back here or in the other thread.



  • I have one, but I even resist running current versions of Opera on it.



  • @gdveggie
    All other browsers that I used/tried on this PC, worked fine.This PC has 865 chipset which supports only xpdm vga drivers with max.96mb shared memory. Windows vista/7 needs wddm drivers but I have used windows 7 for more than 1.5 years on this PC.And I think you are right,the development team will take care of speed/performance issues later.

    vivaldi://gpu info -

    ! Graphics Feature Status
    Canvas: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
    Flash: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
    Flash Stage3D: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
    Flash Stage3D Baseline profile: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
    Compositing: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
    Multiple Raster Threads: Disabled
    Rasterization: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
    Threaded Rasterization: Unavailable
    Video Decode: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
    Video Encode: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
    WebGL: Unavailable
    Driver Bug Workarounds
    clear_uniforms_before_first_program_use
    disable_d3d11
    exit_on_context_lost
    scalarize_vec_and_mat_constructor_args
    Problems Detected
    GPU process was unable to boot: All GPU features are blacklisted.
    Disabled Features: all
    Drivers older than 2009-01 on Windows are possibly unreliable: 72979, 89802, 315205
    Disabled Features: all
    Hardware video decode is only supported in win7+: 159458
    Disabled Features: accelerated_video_decode
    All Intel drivers before 8.15.10.2021 are buggy with Stage3D baseline mode: 172771
    Disabled Features: flash_stage3d_baseline
    Accelerated video decode interferes with GPU sandbox on older Intel drivers: 180695, 298968, 436968
    Disabled Features: accelerated_video_decode
    Disable GPU on all Windows versions prior to and including Vista: 315199
    Disabled Features: all
    GPU rasterization is blacklisted on non-Android: 362779
    Disabled Features: gpu_rasterization
    Some drivers are unable to reset the D3D device in the GPU process sandbox
    Applied Workarounds: exit_on_context_lost
    Disable use of Direct3D 11 on Windows Vista and lower
    Applied Workarounds: disable_d3d11
    Clear uniforms before first program use on all platforms: 124764, 349137
    Applied Workarounds: clear_uniforms_before_first_program_use
    Always rewrite vec/mat constructors to be consistent: 398694
    Applied Workarounds: scalarize_vec_and_mat_constructor_args
    Old Intel drivers cannot reliably support D3D11: 363721
    Applied Workarounds: disable_d3d11
    Raster is using a single thread.
    Disabled Features: multiple_raster_threads
    Version Information
    Data exported 4/20/2015, 10:51:13 AM
    Chrome version Chrome/41.0.2272.105
    Operating system Windows NT 5.1 SP3
    Software rendering list version 9.18
    Driver bug list version 7.13
    ANGLE commit id ea878cb95829
    2D graphics backend Skia
    Command Line Args Settings\Application Data\Vivaldi\Application\vivaldi.exe" –always-authorize-plugins --flag-switches-begin --flag-switches-end
    Performance Information
    Graphics 0.0
    Gaming 0.0
    Overall 0.0
    Driver Information
    Initialization time 0
    Sandboxed false
    GPU0 VENDOR = 0x8086, DEVICE= 0x2572
    Optimus false
    AMD switchable false
    Desktop compositing none
    Driver vendor Intel Corporation
    Driver version 6.14.10.4396
    Driver date 9-20-2005
    Pixel shader version
    Vertex shader version
    Machine model name
    Machine model version
    GL_VENDOR
    GL_RENDERER
    GL_VERSION
    GL_EXTENSIONS
    Window system binding vendor
    Window system binding version
    Window system binding extensions
    Direct rendering Yes
    Reset notification strategy 0x0000
    GPU process crash count 0
    Diagnostics
    ... loading ...



  • @Desidevil:

    This PC has 865 chipset which supports only xpdm vga drivers with max.96mb shared memory. Windows vista/7 needs wddm drivers but I have used windows 7 for more than 1.5 years on this PC.

    I'm not clear enough about the hardware and driver issues, or maybe I would understand this, but if the chipset only supports xpdm vga drivers, how are you able to run Win7 on the machine? …And if it is some driver workaround to run Win7, is the chipset the reason for the performance problem (and the 0.0 scores below?) ...And if you had a video card to add, would that make a difference, or would the chipset still be a limiting factor?

    Performance Information
    Graphics 0.0
    Gaming 0.0
    Overall 0.0

    Oh, that's funny! When you reported those numbers earlier, I thought you were joking and just making up the numbers because the performance was so poor! :P



  • @gdveggie:

    I'm not clear enough about the hardware and driver issues, or maybe I would understand this, but if the chipset only supports xpdm vga drivers, how are you able to run Win7 on the machine?

    Just using the XP drivers.

    For the record with win8/win8.1 they cannot be used, but in win 8.x the "basic microsoft vga driver", is not so basic anymore and some sort of video and 3D acceleration is available.

    My TC1100 tablet (which is more than 10 years old) has a VGA ranking of 1 point in win 7 (using the XP drivers) but reach 2.2 in win 8 and almost everything works better there.

    So my suggestion is to try win 8 on outdated PCs



  • @The_Solutor:

    My TC1100 tablet (which is more than 10 years old) has a VGA ranking of 1 point in win 7 (using the XP drivers) but reach 2.2 in win 8 and almost everything works better there.

    So my suggestion is to try win 8 on outdated PCs

    Verrry interesting! I have no interest in the Win8 UI, but I recall hearing before it was released that it would probably be better on older hardware than Win7. I have a 2003 Acer TravelMate C102ti Tablet PC (WinXPpro Tablet Edition) with dead batteries and a "passive" VGA screen (too dim to use anywhere but indoors) that I've been thinking of either updating to WinXPsp3 and the last XP WinUpdates at some point or trying Puppy Linux with legacy drivers. But can't Win8 be installed on a trial basis for 3 days or 30 days or something like that? If so, might be fun to check it out.

    And you've been checking out Win10 IIRC. How would it be on older hardware?



  • @gdveggie:

    Verrry interesting! I have no interest in the Win8 UI

    It depends on what's your meaning of Win8 UI.

    If you are talking about the Metro part, almost no one cares (me included). But Classic Shell is more than enough to forget it.

    The Desktop part instead is greatly improved over Win 7. A bunch of little things that are more than worth to have.

    Say the damn "open command prompt here" menu, which is present on KDE since '99 or so, is finally available in win8.x.
    The double click to mount an ISO image or a virtual disk, the ability to use the WIFI to share a 3G connection and so on.

    Most of them are available via third party utilites on win 7, but have them ready to go is a real pleasure.

    I have a 2003 Acer TravelMate C102ti Tablet PC (WinXPpro Tablet Edition) with dead batteries and a "passive" VGA screen (too dim to use anywhere but indoors)

    A CCFL replacement lamp is cheap nowadays (around 10$) and not impossible to replace even for an inexperienced user.

    Who sells the lamps, usually provides links to some video guides.

    For most adventurous people there are also some cheap LCD upgrade kits.

    that I've been thinking of either updating to WinXPsp3 and the last XP WinUpdates at some point or trying Puppy Linux with legacy drivers.

    Puppy is nice on older HW, especially if you don't use the latest versions. You can even install it on a virtual drive on top of a FAT32/NTFS disk, so no partitioning troubles.

    And you've been checking out Win10 IIRC. How would it be on older hardware?

    Well, win 10 is likely a bit slower than win 8, but that's not the main problem.

    Win 8 and win 10 wants a CPU with NX bit and PAE support. The latest windows version that install w/o doing that control is Win 8 Developer Preview (build 8102).

    So if you have a CPU that lacks one or both of that features you have to patch it.

    The patch is available for win 8 and win 8.1 but no one bothered to do it for win 10, given it changes every week.

    Maybe after the official release…



  • @The_Solutor:

    If you are talking about the Metro part, almost no one cares (me included). But Classic Shell is more than enough to forget it.

    Yes, I was referring to Metro, but I'm already familiar with Classic Shell and there's no way I would even consider using Win8 without it.

    A CCFL replacement lamp is cheap nowadays (around 10$) and not impossible to replace even for an inexperienced user.

    The screen on that machine works as it is supposed to; but it is older "passive" technology than the newer "active" that became widely available not long afterward. I haven't looked up the official/correct terminology, but "passive" and "active" were widely used at the time. So I don't know if "CCFL" is "active" or "passive", but if an "active" replacement screen could be substituted (I doubt it ?) and could be procured cheaply enough, I would be comfortable doing the physical dismantling/installation.

    But I doubt it would be worth it as the machine only has (IIRC) an 800MHz Pentium 3-M CPU, max 256MB RAM (PC100-SDRAM per online review), 8 MB on-board video RAM (per online review), 30GB HDD, USB 1.1 port, and a PCMCIA type II port that never seemed to work properly with anything I tried in it. On the other hand, it does have a Firewire port (roughly equal to USB 2.0), external VGA port (may only drive up to 1024x728 IIRC), a 10/100 Mbit network port, and Wacom electromagnetic digitizer to convert handwriting (that worked very well in WinXP TabletPC Edition).

    Puppy is nice on older HW, especially if you don't use the latest versions. You can even install it on a virtual drive on top of a FAT32/NTFS disk, so no partitioning troubles.

    You can also install/uninstall and run it directly in Windows (like any other program) which makes it very nice for Windows users to check out Linux without having to uninstall Windows or dual-boot Windows/Linux.

    Win 8 and win 10 wants a CPU with NX bit and PAE support. The latest windows version that install w/o doing that control is Win 8 Developer Preview (build 8102).

    Do you know if that Win 8 Developer Preview (build 8102) is still available as a "clean" download from a reliable source? If so, it might be interesting to at least try on that machine before I decide whether to install anything "permanently". (If I ever get around to it, as I'll have to dig it out from wherever I packed it during a recent move.)



  • @gdveggie:

    The screen on that machine works as it is supposed to; but it is older "passive" technology

    Ahhh… got it. You mean an old style non TFT display. I have one of it but is inside a Thinkpad 701C, which is from '95 or so.

    I tough in 2003 they were already extinct, especially on tablets. My TC1000 have not only a TFT panel but it is also an IPS display, an almost mandatory choice, because the need to read it from different orientations.

    So I tough to the lack of retroillumination

    So I don't know if "CCFL" is "active" or "passive", but if an "active" replacement screen could be substituted (I doubt it ?) and could be procured cheaply enough, I would be comfortable doing the physical dismantling/installation.

    CCFL is a lamp "a neon lamp" . Was used on any color LCD, no matter the tecnology of it. In the latest model a led stripe is used instead.

    replacement screen could be substituted (I doubt it ?)

    Maybe. The model number of the original panel is a good starting point to investigate.

    If a TFT panel was an option offered by ACER, that "maybe" becomes "almost surely" .

    But I doubt it would be worth it as the machine only has

    Well 256Mb of ram is a really small RAM amount by nowadays standards. Are you sure can't be upgraded further?

    Do you know if that Win 8 Developer Preview (build 8102) is still available as a "clean" download from a reliable source?

    I downloaded it few months ago, was a public release so the MD5 checksums are known, so no matter if the source is reliable or unreliable, just check the MD5 to be sure the image is untouched



  • Yes, this is a pre-TFT screen, and I don't think TFT was offered as an option in the Acer TravelMate C100 series (IIRC correctly this C102ti may have been both the "top" and end of that series). This (2003) was definitely near the tail-end of "passive" matrix screens in laptops.

    IIRC at the time TFT was still a fair bit more expensive, but prices probably dropped rapidly as they became widely available and were used almost exclusively. At the time, I think maybe "active" TFT screens also used more power than "passive" (I imagine they have improved since then), and this machine had a pretty decent (at the time) 4-4.5 hour battery life IIRC.

    I know it is already maxed out on RAM, and I'm about 95% sure it's only 256MB, but I have a vague idea it could possibly be 512MB (definitely not more than that).

    For me at the time, the dimness of the screen was no problem as I was only using it indoors, but it really was unusable outdoors.

    :doh: I didn't even think about the Win8 md5 when I was posting. I either already have a saved list somewhere or know where it used to be located on the Microsoft site, but I don't recall if they posted Developer Preview or RC md5s… ...but sure, that should be not problem to find.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.