Subject: Newly built comp is laggy and begins to hangs

[Jerry Chong]

Specs,



Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz

Motherboard: Asus P5E3 Deluxe with Intel X38 chipset

Ram: Mushkin Enhanced 2x1GB DDR3 1333MHz;

Graphics Card: Asus GeForce 9800GTX 512Mb

Sound Card: Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS

Harddisk: 2 x WD120GB and 1 x WD320GB

DVDRW: Pioneer 18X drive

PSU: CoolerMaster Extreme Power 650W



I just finished assembling my comp last weekend and have been using with no
hardware problems. The thing is that the system just does not seem that much
quicker or responsive than what I expected in comparison to my old P4
2.4GHz. I'm saying this happens when performing various task such as
starting of application, photo editing, running office or running games
(Counterstrike, Battlefield 2, Starcraft etc.). I was expecting the overall
system to be substantially faster considering the faster processor and ram
and also more responsive due more powerful graphics card and faster ram. But
this doestn't seem so, rather the system is mainly sluggish and every task
done seems to have some delay.



Another thing is the system would sometimes restart itself during bootup,
usually after the Windows logo while entering windows. And recently the
system started to hang when I launch graphics intensive application like my
Battelfield 2 game, Google Earth or my Sim Aquarium 2 screensaver.



I'm guessing this (the restarting and hanging), could be a problem with my
ram (CL 9,9,9,24) being faulty or it could be that there might be a problem
with the power as I'm using a 4pin ATX12V connector for my motherboard
whereas it comes with an 8pin EPS + 12V power plug for the EATX12V. But
coming to the system being sluggish and less responsive I'm still at a lost
or could it be due to the same causes.



Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.







Jerry

 

[Ofnuts]

I'm guessing this (the restarting and hanging), could be a problem with my
ram (CL 9,9,9,24) being faulty or it could be that there might be a problem
with the power as I'm using a 4pin ATX12V connector for my motherboard
whereas it comes with an 8pin EPS + 12V power plug for the EATX12V. But
coming to the system being sluggish and less responsive I'm still at a lost
or could it be due to the same causes.

Run any common benchmark and see how your system fares compares with
others with the same CPU. It's hard to diagnose things using "feelings",
it's much easier with hard data

 

[Dave]

Specs,



Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz

Motherboard: Asus P5E3 Deluxe with Intel X38 chipset

Ram: Mushkin Enhanced 2x1GB DDR3 1333MHz;

Graphics Card: Asus GeForce 9800GTX 512Mb

Sound Card: Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS

Harddisk: 2 x WD120GB and 1 x WD320GB

DVDRW: Pioneer 18X drive

PSU: CoolerMaster Extreme Power 650W



I just finished assembling my comp last weekend and have been using with
no hardware problems. The thing is that the system just does not seem that
much quicker or responsive than what I expected in comparison to my old P4
2.4GHz.

(snip)

Nope, you built a more current system which should run slightly faster, but
not noticeably so. The problem is, your old system was right on the edge
where CPU manufacturers stopped competing on pure clock speed, and started
adding features, instead. Such as multiple cores. If your new CPU is
3.16GHz, that's pretty fast. But so is 2.4GHz. You'd have to bump up to
about 5GHz to really notice a difference, assuming that all other components
could keep up with that processor. -Dave

 

[Ed Cregger]

(snip)

Nope, you built a more current system which should run slightly faster,
but not noticeably so. The problem is, your old system was right on the
edge where CPU manufacturers stopped competing on pure clock speed, and
started adding features, instead. Such as multiple cores. If your new
CPU is 3.16GHz, that's pretty fast. But so is 2.4GHz. You'd have to bump
up to about 5GHz to really notice a difference, assuming that all other
components could keep up with that processor. -Dave

-----------


Where the new computers shine is at mult-tasking. However, I'm more
interested in running one application very quickly and reliably. I've gone
back to using my Dell 2.8 GHz computer for music recording and editing. I
can find a few computers that advertise they are as fast, or faster, but so
far no one has topped it running Sonar 4 or 5.

I bought a new Dell XPS with a 6550 and 4 GB of ram last year. It came with
Vista, unfortunately. I was told that it would easily cream my 2.8 GHz Dell
in speed. It had a 64 bit, dual channel chip running at 1.8 GHz. It was a
turtle. Furthermore, I couldn't get the hard drive to let me replace Visa
with Win XP Pro, no matter what I did. We talked about this before. One day
a Dell representative called to ask me if I was pleased with the XPS. I told
her that I was not happy. She offered to take it back. I accepted. I was
much happier after that. That was a $2000 computer in those days. Here I am
with a five year old Dell that dusts the new computers drawers with ease.
What's the world coming to?

Ed Cregger

 

[John Doe]

....

Where the new computers shine is at mult-tasking. However, I'm
more interested in running one application very quickly and
reliably. I've gone back to using my Dell 2.8 GHz computer

I bought a new Dell XPS with a 6550 and 4 GB of ram last year. It
came with Vista, unfortunately. I was told that it would easily
cream my 2.8 GHz Dell in speed.

The E6850 would cream your 2.8 GHz Dell in speed, depending partly
on your applications.

It had a 64 bit, dual channel chip running at 1.8 GHz. It was a
turtle.

If an application is using only one core, then you may as well be
using a single core 1.8 GHz CPU. Naturally it's going to be slower.

That was a $2000 computer in those days. Here I am with a five
year old Dell that dusts the new computers drawers with ease.

Like somebody in the electronics design group said, it's the
gigaflops that matter (without other bottlenecks). If you have a
dual core chip running at 1.8 GHz, that's probably roughly
equivalent to a single core 3.6 GHz if it is fully utilizing both
cores. I had an Opteron 152 (2.6 GHz, 1 MB cache, 400 MHz bus) and
recently upgraded to an Intel E6850 (3.0 GHz, 4 MB cache, 1333 MHz
bus). Even running a single application, when both cores are being
fully utilized, preliminary results indicate that the new CPU is two
or three times faster. It's only the second upgrade I've been
impressed with, the first being the move from VESA to PCI a long
time ago. It makes little difference in ordinary everyday stuff, but
multitasking isn't required to benefit from multiple cores.

 

[John Doe]

[dual/multiple cores make] little difference in ordinary everyday
stuff

However, multiple cores are making a big difference with speech
recognition that is constantly used. It's much more responsive
especially at times when it used to bog down, the CPU always has
time for it.

 

[Ed Cregger]

...



The E6850 would cream your 2.8 GHz Dell in speed, depending partly
on your applications.

***The 6550 didn't. I don't know diddily about the E6850. What is its clock
speed? Yeah, I know about more channels, faster bus, etc.

If an application is using only one core, then you may as well be
using a single core 1.8 GHz CPU. Naturally it's going to be slower.

***I know that now, but the sales hype implied otherwise. At least they were
nice enough to take it back.

Like somebody in the electronics design group said, it's the
gigaflops that matter (without other bottlenecks). If you have a
dual core chip running at 1.8 GHz, that's probably roughly
equivalent to a single core 3.6 GHz if it is fully utilizing both
cores.

***And there is the rub. I'm running expensive four year old software that I
am semi-competent with. The learning curve for new editions is so steep and
the old program so effective, I'm just going to stick with the old version
for a while. I'm not getting paid to do this. It took me nearly six months
to learn enough to make a simple recording with Sonar 3. Yeah, I'm probably
not the brightest bulb in the pack these days either. Bad vision doesn't
help.

I had an Opteron 152 (2.6 GHz, 1 MB cache, 400 MHz bus) and
recently upgraded to an Intel E6850 (3.0 GHz, 4 MB cache, 1333 MHz
bus). Even running a single application, when both cores are being
fully utilized, preliminary results indicate that the new CPU is two
or three times faster. It's only the second upgrade I've been
impressed with, the first being the move from VESA to PCI a long
time ago. It makes little difference in ordinary everyday stuff, but
multitasking isn't required to benefit from multiple cores.

I've been using computers/building/some programming since the early
Eighties, but I'm not a professional in the field. RF electronics is/was my
specialty. I do consider myself to be an experienced PC end-user, not an
expert. But even I can tell when something runs faster or slower. From what
I've seen a lot of the new consumer level stuff is really slow. Vista only
compounds the problem.

I would love to get my hands on an E6850 like yours.


Ed Cregger

 

[Dave]

If, by any chance, you were using XP with your old system, and you have
switched to Vista in your new system, then you have your answer. Vista is
MUCH slower in all tasks than XP. That is why MANY people such as myself
installed XP rather than Vista in our current systems.

You're talking out your ass, DaveW. I triple-boot WinXP, Vista and linux on
the same system. Linux blows the doors off of both Microsoft Operating
Systems. But XP is NOT faster than Vista. For all normal tasks, XP and
Vista are the same speed. Running the same software with all the same
startup tasks, Vista actually boots significantly faster than XP. So while
you will be working at the same speed, you will start working faster with
Vista.

People really love to bad-mouth Vista, but I haven't found any significant
problems with it. And I'm very skeptical of ANY product that originates in
Redmond, so if there was a nit to pick with Vista believe me I would be the
FIRST to start picking! -Dave

 

[John Doe]

You're talking out your ass, DaveW. I triple-boot WinXP, Vista
and linux on the same system.

Speaking of blowing.

Linux blows the doors off of both Microsoft Operating Systems.
But XP is NOT faster than Vista.

I'm sure you realize that Linux "blowing the doors off of Microsoft
operating systems" has nothing to do with whether XP is faster than
Vista.

 

[Dave]

Speaking of blowing.


I'm sure you realize that Linux "blowing the doors off of Microsoft
operating systems" has nothing to do with whether XP is faster than
Vista.

Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP is
faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by claiming
that the hardware is identical. But then if they were dual-booting or
triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough to post that they
believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not true. -Dave

 

[Shadow36]

Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP
is faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by
claiming that the hardware is identical. But then if they were
dual-booting or triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough
to post that they believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not
rue. -Dave

There are thousands of people who disagree with you.

 

[SteveH]

There are thousands of people who disagree with you.

And I'm another one. We've got a dual boot XP/Vista box, and especially in
gaming, XP is faster. The difference isn't so noticable in Office apps, and
TBH I'm not really bothered - the PC is always gonna be waaay faster than I
can type a document in Word, regardless of the O/S. And if an app opens a
couple of seconds faster in one O/S compared to another, who gives a shit?

 

[Dave]

There are thousands of people who disagree with you.

And that's exactly why newsgroups like this are so popular. There are
thousands of people who can **** up a simple OS install. If XP and Vista
are both properly installed and configured, Vista boots faster, and the two
operating systems run the same speed, you can't say that one is faster than
the other. But Vista does definitely boot faster. -Dave

 

[SteveH]

But Vista does definitely boot faster.

This is one I've seen levelled at XP/Vista, ME/XP, 98/ME etc. over the
years.
And ususally the difference turns out to be a few seconds. Even of the
difference was say a minute or so, does it /really/ matter? As most people
seem to leave their PC's on all day (or even 24/7), even if the boot takes a
couple of minutes, it hardly seems relevant.
Personally, I'm more concerned with how well the PC performs when its up and
running than whether it takes 30secs or 2 mins to boot up.

 

[John Doe]

There are thousands of people who disagree with you.

It certainly goes against experience. With every new version of
Windows comes a hugely greater number of files. Faster hardware is
needed to run a new version at the same speed. There's nothing
insightful about that, that is true for successive applications too.

A decent test would be to do a clean install of both operating
systems and then use Performance Monitor to look at CPU usage. If
Vista uses a higher percentage of the CPU, then it's probably slower
especially when the CPU is fully used.

I too vaguely recall the "boots faster" claim associated with new
versions of Windows. I also remember touting Windows Millennium for
being able to shut down errant programs, but that infatuation didn't
last very long. Fortunately, after lots of experience I can say with
certainty that Windows XP is able to cleanly shut down programs. I
think Windows XP was partly a product of the big antitrust trial, in
that era Microsoft was under lots of pressure to do good. But
Microsoft has been worry free since the year 2000 and Windows Vista
is a big question mark to me. It's not worth trying until XP is
broken.

 

[GortWeasel]

You're talking out your ass, DaveW. I triple-boot WinXP, Vista and
linux on the same system. Linux blows the doors off of both Microsoft
Operating Systems. But XP is NOT faster than Vista. For all normal
tasks, XP and Vista are the same speed. Running the same software with
all the same startup tasks, Vista actually boots significantly faster
than XP. So while you will be working at the same speed, you will start
working faster with Vista.

Bullshit, bullshit bullshit.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html