Aura89:

There's Nothing "zoom" about two cores, no matter how fast they individually are. Nope. I got an i7 dual-core in the 6000 family i believe and that sucker is slow for pretty much everything. Sure, it can do single tasks generally just fine, but once you start doing multiple tasks, that thing just dies in performance. Essentially, considering your PC these days are always doing multiple tasks, that means to you have to boot it up and wait awhile to actually feel like it's of any decent speed. Dual-core is a thing of the past, and people trying to make excuses, like you are, for why they still exist, are the problem. In regards to this CPU, i'd rather a quad-core @ 1.2Ghz max each then this hunk of junk.

Accusing people of making excuses for a product that you can't comprehend the existence of is quite ignorant. Windows has been multi-threaded for over 3 decades..... Even Windows 3 ran multiple tasks in the background and it ran on single-core processors. Windows 95, 98 and XP also ran on single core processors and ran multiple tasks in the background. How about we try an excuse that actually sounds remotely reasonable next time? I have a Core i3 380m that runs Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 10, Ubuntu or CloudReady depending on my mood. I have a Pentium N3710 that I use at work that runs Windows 10. I also have a Core i3 7100U that runs Windows 10. I also have my AMD RyZen R5 1600, AMD Athlon 5350, Intel Celeron J1800 and Core i5 6600K. At the end of the day, they all perform identically when I'm typing up documents for my lawyer, employer or engineers. Text appears on the screen no faster for my RyZen R5 1600 than it does for the Pentium N3710. Coincidentally, webpages don't load any faster for my RyZen R5 1600 than they do the i3 380m or i3 7100U either, both of which multi-task just fine. Maybe you should look into what you have running in the background.... Just because your laptop isn't setup properly, doesn't mean the processors have no reason to exist.