Major upgrade - no appreciable performance increase

N

nitz12

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
88
I recently made a major upgrade to my system and am extremely disappointed with the results, almost to the point of wishing I hadn't wasted the money. I went from an AMD Athlon 3400+ to an Intel Q6600. The new motherboard is an IP35 Pro, and I have 2GB of Corsair DDR2 800. Fresh installs of Windows XP and all programs.

Programs that used to drag along still drag along. Photo files don't open up any faster than they ever did, nor does any other file. I expected to be able to click a file and wham, have it open up in half the time or less. There is not a single software program I can think of that is any faster than with the AMD. Frankly, I am shocked beyond belief. Am I missing something? What could be causing the drag on the system? It has locked up on me several times, necessitating reboots, and several programs have crashed while in use - just like would happen with the old system.

Any suggestions as to some things I could try to wake this supposed beast from its slumber?
 
Just because your computer can crunch 1's and 0's faster, doesn't mean your hard-drive can get the data to it faster. What harddrive do you have?
 
Have you tested the memory at all? Seems odd that it is crashing and such. Try running memtest86+ for a few hours, and see what pops-up.
 
Vashypooh said:
Just because your computer can crunch 1's and 0's faster, doesn't mean your hard-drive can get the data to it faster. What harddrive do you have?
Click to expand...

+1.

Also, make sure to run Memtest+ to rule out your memory.
 
KORI said:
lol that q6600 is like 10x faster then that amd
Click to expand...

It's not 10x faster in Firefox, or Word, or even Windows. Unless you are playing games or encoding video, then no, you aren't going to see a major difference between a 3400+ and a Q6600.
 
Eh, you would notice a speed difference in those things. Once stuff is in ram it will crunch fast.

However the Op did say hes having a lot of crashes. So give us some more info. Run a CPUZ and see if all 4 cores are crunching. Make sure your stuff is checking out right at basic levels.

Running memtest86 would be a good idea as well as suggested earlier.

Can you also give specifics on your powersupply, videocard, with the HD too.

Also please check your temperatures for the processor and make sure its not overheating.
 
Don't know what could be wrong. Should be way faster.

One thing you might want to do is spend $150 on a WD Raptor 10k RPM drive. That will increase system responsiveness, as some have noted.
 
I assume since you didn't mention the hd that you just brought it over from your old build and did a fresh install of XP. The hd could possibly be on its last legs so it's slowing down.
 
Another vote for a hard drive upgrade. I replaced my old 80GB Western Digital with 8MB of cache with the Seagate in my sig and everything loads in about half the time with no other changes. OS is even identical since I just cloned the drive image.

In my opinion it's a better option than the Raptor. I'm getting about 85-90% of the Raptor's performance, over three times the capacity and I spent $60 less.
 
Rabid Badger said:
A well reasoned argument. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

it wasn't an argument, simply a funny remark meant to illustrate the point that people who dont understand technology at all shouldn't make reccomendations about said technologies.

feel free to join him in previously mentioned ball punching activities.
 
Too many people are talking about Vista here. Ick.

Use XP Pro thats my #1 advice, i know the OP is.

Anyway - if you Have a Q6600 and dont have a Raptor than you are killing yourself. Why have an awesome fast CPU if you dont have an Awesome fast Hard drive?

PS you said you had an older Athlon. Do you know how to properly configure your BIOS settings for your Intel? Check those again as well. make sure your memory is all good in proper dual channel etc. Disable any speedstep crap and make the bad boy run at full speed all the time <3 Powersavings is for pansies :)
 
If you're having crashes, there is something wrong. Period. Fix it. There are literally THOUSANDS of threads on how to do that.

Other than that, a Q6600 at 4.0GHz will still be as slow as an ancient hard drive, especially on XP.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Too many people are talking about Vista here. Ick.

Use XP Pro thats my #1 advice, i know the OP is.
Click to expand...
I'm not, and I don't have a single problem. I'd need more evidence to the contrary to say that Vista is his issue.
USMC2Hard4U said:
Anyway - if you Have a Q6600 and dont have a Raptor than you are killing yourself. Why have an awesome fast CPU if you dont have an Awesome fast Hard drive?
Click to expand...
There's much better drives than the raptor. OP doesn't state what HDD he's running though, so this is moot right now. For what it's worth, I do not run a raptor in my system, and it screams beyond belief without it.
USMC2Hard4U said:
PS you said you had an older Athlon. Do you know how to properly configure your BIOS settings for your Intel? Check those again as well. make sure your memory is all good in proper dual channel etc. Disable any speedstep crap and make the bad boy run at full speed all the time <3 Powersavings is for pansies :)
Click to expand...
Even if he didn't, with the IP35 Pro running at stock, he should notice a very great increase in performance. Best thing he could do to start that troubleshooting is clear CMOS.
And, you, nor I, know the OP's situation. Maybe he has speedstepping enabled for a reason. I know I do. Power saving isn't for "pansies", it's for people who don't need full on power when the fucking this is just sitting there doing nothing anyway.
 
IIRC, it just kicks the multi down to 6x. So, it's still 1600MHz. Four cores at 1600MHz should still be plenty. Especially considering my Vaio laptop is a dual 1.5GHz, and it's QUITE snappy!
 
Thanks for all the responses thus far, sorry I haven't gotten back sooner, but there's a 13 month old in the house.

First, you guys are going to have to dumb it down a bit. I hope you can handle that, especially all you Gawds.

  1. Vista is definitely not the problem, I'm running XP Pro
  2. "Maybe he has speedstepping enabled for a reason"- are you talking about me? If I do, and I know I never said I did, it's by accident because I don't know what it is.
  3. You are correct, I did not replace my hard drives. The HD with the OS on it is a Western Digital WDC WD800JB @ 7200rpm
  4. Would that be the bottleneck that prevents the Q6600 from making any difference at all? I would have expected SOME increase in performance, but is this considered an 'ancient' hard drive?
  5. Why are all those programs, like Memtest, in DOS? What a pain, and I don't understand what to do with them to be honest. Isn't there an easier way to tell if the RAM is running properly?
  6. "If you're having crashes, there is something wrong. Period. Fix it. There are literally THOUSANDS of threads on how to do that." Oh OK, I'll just do that. Why didn't anyone say so in the beginning? I've chosen thread #7,856 to begin with, hopefully I'll get lucky and it will have the info I need to solve my unknown problem.
  7. "if you Have a Q6600 and dont have a Raptor than you are killing yourself". Well, the noose is pretty tight and my left foot has begun to slip off the chair.
  8. quoted thread crap removed You talking to me, or one of the Limp guys, which would explain the limpness?
  9. Say I run memtest and/or CPUZ, what do I look for in the results to report back here that would indicate a problem?
  10. Does Superfetch apply to XP Pro?
  11. "ReadyBoost flash drive" - I know I don't have one of those.
  12. "you said you had an older Athlon. Do you know how to properly configure your BIOS settings for your Intel?" It's a new BIOS and mobo, but in answer to your question, I don't know much about BIOS to understand whether it's optimized or not.
  13. "Check those again as well. make sure your memory is all good in proper dual channel etc." - How do I do that?
  14. "Disable any speedstep crap and make the bad boy run at full speed all the time" - How do I do that?

You guys following the 'dumbing down' request I made earlier now?

Please refer to the number when responding - remember, dumb down.

Thanks.
 
HellToµpée;1031875964 said:
SuperFetch only shows an increas with a ReadyBoost flash drive.
Click to expand...

No. That's not true. Superfetch will work without Ready Boost but Ready Boost does really help.
 
nitz12 said:
[*]Why are all those programs, like Memtest, in DOS? What a pain, and I don't understand what to do with them to be honest. Isn't there an easier way to tell if the RAM is running properly?
Click to expand...

Because Windows uses up resources and is a higher-level environment that could itself cause problems. The bootable version of Memtest is by far the best way to check whether your memory is behaving.


The guy that said Superfetch only works with Readyboost. Vista will gobble up large amounts of memory if you're not using it for the sake of preloading programs and making them open fast.

nitz12 said:
[*]Say I run memtest and/or CPUZ, what do I look for in the results to report back here that would indicate a problem?
Click to expand...

Memtest, if there are any errors they will show up highlighted in red. We don't care what the errors are, just how many they are. Sometimes what test they occur during.

CPU-Z is a Windows program, just take screenshots of it and show us. Easy way.

nitz12 said:
[*]Does Superfetch apply to XP Pro?
[*]"ReadyBoost flash drive" - I know I don't have one of those.
Click to expand...

No. Likewise, Readyboost is Vista-only.

nitz12 said:
[*]"Check those again as well. make sure your memory is all good in proper dual channel etc." - How do I do that?
Click to expand...

It may say on the first screen when you boot where it runs the memory test. Also make sure your memory is installed in the correct slots of your motherboard, consult your motherboard's manual for this.

Dan_D said:
No. That's not true. Superfetch will work without Ready Boost but Ready Boost does really help.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that Readyboost becomes pointless as system memory capacity increases?
 
OK, nitz12, I'll try and help you out a bit. First off, your hard drive is most definately going to slow your entire system down. That is a very old hard drive. At the very least, get yourself a Seagate 7200.10/7200.11, 320gb-500gb. The 7200.10 320gb version is a heck of a lot faster than your 80gb and it is very inexpensive. Second, disable all of the speed-stepping/thermal control options in the bios. Enter the bios. Go to the "Advanced BIOS Features", then enter the "CPU Feature". Disable "Thermal Control", "EIST Function" and C1E Control". Hit F10, save and reboot. Next, re-enter the bios and enter the "uguru Utility" section. See what speed you cpu is actually running at. Make sure your multiplier is at 9.

Post results.

Shawn
 
Also, make sure your two sticks of ram are in the proper slots for dual channel operations. There are 4 total slots. 1/2 and 3/4. Slots 1/2 are closest to the cpu, then there is a small space and then slots 3/4. Make sure one stick is in slot 1 and the other is in slot 3. In summary, they should NOT be right next to each other tightly.

Also, what type of memory is it? Who makes it? What is the model number? You might need to up the ram voltage in the bios. Post back what you got. Also, as said before, post the rest of your system specs, specifially power supply and video card. Then, what drivers do you have installed? Did you install any Intel drivers for the motherboard? Let me know and I will do whatever I can to help you out.

Shawn
 
Here is my system OS and HW info:

Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2
Abit IP35 PRO\par
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600\par
WDC WD800JB (contains OS and progs)
WDC WD1600JB
2GB Corsair DDR2 800 C4 (model # COR 240P TWIN2X2048-6400C4) - in slots 1 and 3;system recognizes 2048MB)
Visiontek Radeon X1650 Series graphics card
CoolerMaster eXtreme Power 500W

Disabled Thermal Control, EIST Function and CIE Function

CPU Op Speed - User Define?
Estimated New CPU Clock - 2394 MHz
DRAM Speed - Default (DDR2 - 798)

Voltages in uGuru

CPU Core = 1.325
DDR2 = 1.8
CPU VTT = 1.2
MCH 1.25 = 1.25
ICH 1.05 = 1.05
ICH10 1.5V = 1.50

Voltages in ABIT EQ

CPU = 1.3
DDR2 = 1.81
DDR2 VTT = .90
CPU VTT = 1.2
MCH = 1.24
ICH 1.05 = 1.06
ICH10 1.50 = 1.50
ATX 12 V 24 pin = 12.07
8 pin = 12.13
ATX 45 V = 5.23
ATX +3.3 = 3.31
ATX 5 VSB = 5.11
 
According to Corsair's website, your RAM should have a voltage of 2.1, and as it stands you are running it at 1.8v. If you could possibly set it to 2.1v, you may see your system stabilize, but it wouldn't account for any performance gains.

So, under Voltages in uGuru, set the DDR2 voltage to 2.1. PageUp & PageDown changes those values. You may have to set voltages and/or clock frequency to User Define. This should allow you to manually change these settings. If you're not sure about something post back here, and there are plenty of people that will answer your questions.

http://www.corsair.com/products/xms2.aspx

http://www.corsair.com/_datasheets/TWIN2X2048-6400C4.pdf
 
Thanks for your help.

Hard to believe that after getting a Q4, new mobo and DDR2 800, that all I really needed to increase performance was a new hard drive. I still find it difficult to comprehend that I see absolutely no performance increase thus far, but with the purchase of a new hard drive, I will have this blazing machine. Never saw that in any of my research. I'll get the new hard drive, but I won't believe anything until I see it.
 
Computer use asks the system to perform many different types of tasks, and you're judging it by how fast programs open. It's a very specific one that's not terribly CPU related given a certain baseline.

For comparison, I'm typing on a laptop running Vista with 4GB of memory and a 1.6GHz dual-core Intel processor (with speedstep, on battery, so sometimes it's significantly underclocked). Most programs open in under two seconds.
 
I think you will be very, very suprised at the difference a newer, faster hard drive makes. Personally, I would spring for a 150gig Raptor for your system. But i may be a bit biased towards them, as you may notice from my sig.:D
 
The primary reason I upgraded my system was to perform video and photo editing. A new hard drive would have to perform a miracle for me to be able to accomplish those tasks in reasonable time based on what I've seen thus far. I kept reading how just getting a dual core would make video editing a breeze. Dismayed is an understatement as to how I feel right about now.
 
ashmedai said:
Computer use asks the system to perform many different types of tasks, and you're judging it by how fast programs open. It's a very specific one that's not terribly CPU related given a certain baseline.

For comparison, I'm typing on a laptop running Vista with 4GB of memory and a 1.6GHz dual-core Intel processor (with speedstep, on battery, so sometimes it's significantly underclocked). Most programs open in under two seconds.
Click to expand...

I just went through my system, remember, it's a Q6600, and the fastest any program opened and was ready to use was 5 seconds. The majority took closer to 10 seconds. A new hard drive is going to shave 80% off this? And if so, will it shave 80% off other tasks as well?
 
Certain tasks for video & photo work will benefit greatly from the extra cores, others will not. If you're working with a large file, maybe more memory is what you need. Or yes, a different hard drive configuration (a popular trick for video work is using a different hard drive for the source and target files).
 
nitz12 said:
I just went through my system, remember, it's a Q6600, and the fastest any program opened and was ready to use was 5 seconds. The majority took closer to 10 seconds. A new hard drive is going to shave 80% off this? And if so, will it shave 80% off other tasks as well?
Click to expand...

Some of that is due to Vista's improved prefetching. A faster hard drive will have some effect, but probably not 80%, unless you are using a heck of a clunker right now.
 
nitz12 said:
I just went through my system, remember, it's a Q6600, and the fastest any program opened and was ready to use was 5 seconds. The majority took closer to 10 seconds. A new hard drive is going to shave 80% off this? And if so, will it shave 80% off other tasks as well?
Click to expand...

My laptop has a slower CPU than your desktop, with fewer cores, and a slower hard drive (5400 RPM !). Why do my programs load faster, then? I bet it's neither of those.

Vista has "Superfetch" which basically means that it watches what programs you use frequently and preloads them into memory. If you have plenty of extra memory (I have 4GB) then after you've used it for a week or so it knows your most commonly used programs very well and has the info necessary to start them in memory ahead of time, and may not have to touch the hard drive at all to start them.

Whether you want to change your OS out and add another 2GB of memory just to make programs load 3s faster...sounds kinda uneconomical to me, but it seems the most obvious reason why my relatively slow laptop loads more quickly than your powerful desktop.


Note, almost nothing is going to shave 80% off the time it takes to encode a video file. You'd need a computer 5 times as fast. Since video files are sequential, you could accomplish this by breaking it into 5 parts and handing each one off to a separate computer...still, point being, you're not going to get *that* big of a speed boost there.
 
At this point, I'd settle for 'noticing' a difference between my old Athlon 3400+ and my new Q6600.
 
HellToµpée;1031875964 said:
SuperFetch only shows an increas with a ReadyBoost flash drive.
Click to expand...
Not true at all, superfetch runs on all Vista systems with at least 1 gb of ram. It's the reason so many people think Vista is a ram hog. It will usually use 1/2 of your ram up to 1.5 gb.
At least, that seems to be the cap in my experience going from two to three to four gigs.

Also, I would expect to see a difference btw the two processors. I noticed a difference in most apps going from an E6300 @ 2.8ghz to a Q6700 @ 3.0.
 
nitz12 said:
I recently made a major upgrade to my system and am extremely disappointed with the results, almost to the point of wishing I hadn't wasted the money. I went from an AMD Athlon 3400+ to an Intel Q6600. The new motherboard is an IP35 Pro, and I have 2GB of Corsair DDR2 800. Fresh installs of Windows XP and all programs.

Programs that used to drag along still drag along. Photo files don't open up any faster than they ever did, nor does any other file. I expected to be able to click a file and wham, have it open up in half the time or less. There is not a single software program I can think of that is any faster than with the AMD. Frankly, I am shocked beyond belief. Am I missing something? What could be causing the drag on the system? It has locked up on me several times, necessitating reboots, and several programs have crashed while in use - just like would happen with the old system.

Any suggestions as to some things I could try to wake this supposed beast from its slumber?
Click to expand...

This is expected because processor and memory are not the bottlenecks when it comes to opening large programs. If this is what you wanted to increase, you should have invested in a lower latency hard drive (SSD) or Raptor. Opening photo files and other applications are such trivial tasks for the processor that your old processor and memory probably weren't even stressed at all, so as expected, upgrading them is utterly pointless. However, you should see a marked improvement in Photoshop applying gigantic gaussian blur filters on 100 MB PSD files....:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top