Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New q6600 system - poor windows xp response

Last response: in Systems
Share
September 4, 2007 12:59:05 PM

Hi everyone, these are my specs

q6600 at 2.4 stock
abit ip35 pro
2gig corsair xms2
36 gb raptor - windows XP on this drive
320 gb seagate 7200.10 - programs / games / music
80gb WD - web dev stuff
700w - OCZ gamexstream
8800gts - 640mb stock OC - evga

It appears that windows runs a little slower than my athlon 64 3200+ system. For example start menu response, IE opening, word opening, etc. I do have a pretty old raptor, its about 4 years now, and Im thinking it may be the raptor drive, but any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Of course Im getting great graphics and scores with 3dmark06 at 11052, which I saw was average for this system. So in this area theres no performance issues, just the annoying little click responses in windows and basic app opening speeds.

help? :cry: 

a b B Homebuilt system
September 4, 2007 1:39:12 PM

Lousy drivers, maybe? My XP resets some times when I start games, and it's because of the nVidia drivers (I have an 8800 GTX). I didn't notice poor response though.

Have you checked for spyware/malware/viruses?

Is this a recent Windows install? If not, maybe the registry is just too bloated.
September 4, 2007 1:43:17 PM

Im going to try a driver update, but almost positive im up to date -

this is a fresh XP Pro installation. No spyware/malware/viruses.

Related resources
September 4, 2007 2:30:13 PM

I think this is a multi-core issue. I see the same kind of issues with my E4300@ 3 GHz. It's more of an annoyance to me than real problem.
a b B Homebuilt system
September 4, 2007 4:01:05 PM

As in, the O/S spends a minute tossing a coin a few times to decide which core to use? :) 

How about a network issue, would that be possible? I've seen this behaviour a few times at work some years ago, when there was something wrong with the domain server. Programs would start after 20 seconds and then work normally.
September 4, 2007 5:16:31 PM

Ill be updating the drivers and unplugging the net and see how things go, I hope thats the issue I really dont want to reinstall on a new drive.

I am at a new location so it may be the network because it has been fluctuating and sometimes on and off lately..
September 4, 2007 5:29:14 PM

aevm said:
As in, the O/S spends a minute tossing a coin a few times to decide which core to use? :) 

You might not be too far off the mark there my friend ;)  .
September 5, 2007 3:05:44 PM

well I did a defrag and its pretty much the same response until windows I guess caches, because after I open anything once (it takes a few seconds) everything flies thereafter. Its just annoying having to wait longer than I thought I should for opening apps
September 5, 2007 3:23:14 PM

It's probably going to be of no consolation to you, but I only started seeing the 'hesitation' after I swapped out the E6850 for the Q6600, which is why I have been trying to get people to remember that the Q6600 is a CPU that has been around for a year now and is not 'future proof' in the way that a lot of posters have been talking it up as, it is however a Quad Core for the masses and should be viewed as such, hopefully the Penryn class Quads will have both the power that the Q6600 has and the 'nippiness' that the Q6600 seems to lack.
September 5, 2007 3:52:31 PM

If you think it could be a multi-processor issue, you can set Explorer's affinity to a single CPU. Then no coin-tossing, but I don't think that is likely.

It coudl definately be a network issue as odd as that sounds.
Try disabling the "Workstation" service to see if that helps.
Also, if you have any 3rd party network providers such as an NFS Client, try removing them.

My personal guess is that some Explorer extensions could be the culprit. Many many programs add these pesky items.
September 5, 2007 4:43:56 PM

I think XP was never optimized for multi-core CPUs.
September 5, 2007 4:55:28 PM

Hi,

Had the same problem about a year ago with my Toshiba laptop. Its the hard disk.. or at least it was for me. Hope that helps.

Regards,
Nicky
September 5, 2007 5:01:34 PM

Is there a very quick method to swapping all the xp contents on a new drive without reinstalling to test if its a drive issue?
September 5, 2007 6:02:08 PM

I highly doubt that its the processor. 2.4GHz single core doesn't have a problem loading apps quickly, there's no reason a quad core 2.4GHz should either. It doesn't really take ANY time for the OS to decide which core to use! It sounds to me like there is some other process running which is getting in the way. Do you use Zone Alarm? It is a total hog and drastically slowed load times of all my apps. When I removed it I was back to instantaneous reaction time with a 2.2 GHz processor. It could be the hard drive too.
I've also found vista to be faster with app load times and all that than XP was, so perhaps you might think of "upgrading" your OS. This is the first time I have EVER heard of anyone complain about the Q6600 for response time...so I don't think it is the processor, it's something else.

Cheers
September 5, 2007 6:48:17 PM

As a reference point I had to set affinity to a single core to run the game Call of Duty 2. I don't see why other apps, including Windows explorer might not run slower on a multi-core CPU. The game actually ran OK, but was VERY slow to load.
September 5, 2007 7:03:40 PM

ah! it may be zonealarm - i thought this was the least resource aggressive app to use..if this doesnt fix it im going to reinstall on a new drive, this may be a noob question, but if I did a quick format instead of a long standard format on installation would this affect performance of windows or the drive?
September 5, 2007 7:12:24 PM

Format style shoudn't have any effect.

Turn of zonealarm, and also make sure it doesn't load with windows startup. I ended up completely removing it and haven't looked back, and my 2.2 GHz system runs A LOT faster without it - (at least in regards to app load times).
September 5, 2007 7:21:24 PM

richard3i said:
well I did a defrag and its pretty much the same response until windows I guess caches, because after I open anything once (it takes a few seconds) everything flies thereafter. Its just annoying having to wait longer than I thought I should for opening apps
If what you are saying is that you open an application and it takes a long time. Then you close it and open it again and it starts up fast, then it is the HD. Because when you open the app the second time the data is coming off the ram. Also, you are loading the apps from your Seagate which has a 61.17% deficit in performance related to the Raptor in the workstation I/O benchmark pattern. Try installing an app on the Raptor temporarily and see what you get. In either case, if the app can be restarted from ram very fast it isn't the Q6600.
Not really a 61.17 deficit here is the quote from the bottom of the CPU chart.

Relative difference between Barracuda 7200.10 and Raptor: 61.17 %
September 5, 2007 7:51:04 PM

right, as an owner of a q6600 I must say that amd is well positioned to clean intel's clock with a native quad. I am not altogether impressed with the performance of this thing. If I could trade my q6600 for an e6850 i would in a heartbeat.
September 5, 2007 7:59:17 PM

Zorg said:
If what you are saying is that you open an application and it takes a long time. Then you close it and open it again and it starts up fast, then it is the HD. Because when you open the app the second time the data is coming off the ram. Also, you are loading the apps from your Seagate which has a 61.17% deficit in performance related to the Raptor in the workstation I/O benchmark pattern. Try installing an app on the Raptor temporarily and see what you get. In either case, if the app can be restarted from ram very fast it isn't the Q6600.
Not really a 61.17 deficit here is the quote from the bottom of the CPU chart.

Relative difference between Barracuda 7200.10 and Raptor: 61.17 %



Im referring even to internet explorer, which is on the raptor. But yes, when I open the program the second time it flies of course. But shadowmaster625, just OC it to 3.0, I did and I didnt have to up the voltage or anything, just simply the fsb to 333, close enough to e6850 stocks :)  but this click delay is really bugging me :(  ill let you guys know what I conclude
a b B Homebuilt system
September 5, 2007 8:09:48 PM

My guess is nobody will clean anybody's clock. AMD's quad CPUs will run against exactly the same software as Intel's quads and they will have the same behaviour: brilliant at video encoding, not so much in games. When the software is ready both types of quads will benefit.

Sorry about the rant. I was hoping not to see that "native quad" stuff again :lol:  :lol: 

a b B Homebuilt system
September 5, 2007 8:31:09 PM

1. Windows was not made with multi core in mind
2. If you have an Creative(not sure about other sound cards software) Live or Audigy 1 2(zs as well) or 4(not sure about X-fi). Take off all its software and run drivers only or set CTSysVol(and anything else you use for it...wave editor and all that are fine on multi. Also note that anything CTSysVol launches will run on the one core as well, ie eax console, THX settings and so on....) to run on one core only. This has been known to cause explorer slowdowns when opening file closing then going back to explorer(feels like a small lag).
3. Other software try to msconfig out all software you don't need and try them on at a time to see if anything else is not happy.
4. Don't forget to defrag, windows is only as fast as your drive
5. Intel/AMD lied to us all about multi core J/K

Anyway the most common thing i see is that windows has a slightly longer boot time with multi core then single(not a prob once you are in and running it, you can tweak this away too)...and creative CTSysVol oddly enough can cause explorer to run slower until they are told to run on 1 core only....

I hope this helps somewhat...

Just seen you mention a "Click delay" do you have a Creative card...i got that after watching video game trailers in media player...would close and get a delay in my next internet explorer click....either way was all gone after setting the affinity...
September 5, 2007 8:31:10 PM

Did you make sure XP updated the ACPI driver to use multi-core cpu or is it still set for the single core from your athlon 64 3200+?
September 5, 2007 8:35:26 PM

richard3i said:
Im referring even to internet explorer, which is on the raptor. But yes, when I open the program the second time it flies of course. But shadowmaster625, just OC it to 3.0, I did and I didnt have to up the voltage or anything, just simply the fsb to 333, close enough to e6850 stocks :)  but this click delay is really bugging me :(  ill let you guys know what I conclude
Great then the Seagate is out of the picture. I still say that if the second time you load IE it loads very fast then it is your HD or some other setting in BIOS or last possibly XP is screwed up. It is not the Q6600. Try loading task manager and setting it to stay on top. look at the performance of the Q6600 as the program boots up. I just did and IE used 7-10% of the CPU. Of course it booted immediately on a Raptor 74G. I'm not saying you don't have a problem, I'm sure you do. I'm just saying it's not the Q6600. Even if the Task manager shows that the CPU is using more than 10% you have another problem that is causing it. I didn't want you to waste time looking at the Q6600 when your problem certainly lies elsewhere.
September 5, 2007 8:37:20 PM

aevm said:
My guess is nobody will clean anybody's clock. AMD's quad CPUs will run against exactly the same software as Intel's quads and they will have the same behaviour: brilliant at video encoding, not so much in games. When the software is ready both types of quads will benefit.

Sorry about the rant. I was hoping not to see that "native quad" stuff again :lol:  :lol: 
You are more than welcome to rant at moronic fanboys anytime you would like. I encourage it.
September 5, 2007 8:46:21 PM

just guessing, but if this is the same raptor as you had with your 3200+, then the hdd performance shouldnt be any different, from a hdd perspective anyhow, and if anything, it should feel slightly faster, due to the rest of your system being upgraded

however, if anything else aside from the raptor is any different than it was before (and it is), and the performance has been reduced, then its very likely the cuprit lies elsewhere.

most likely its software based im guessing, as has been pointed out. so updating, and removing/disabling/changing anything unnecessary, may be necessary.

the other likelyhood is that you might just be expecting too much for the given situation.
September 5, 2007 8:52:01 PM

nukemaster said:
1. Windows was not made with multi core in mind
2. If you have an Creative(not sure about other sound cards software) Live or Audigy 1 2(zs as well) or 4(not sure about X-fi). Take off all its software and run drivers only or set CTSysVol(and anything else you use for it...wave editor and all that are fine on multi. Also note that anything CTSysVol launches will run on the one core as well, ie eax console, THX settings and so on....) to run on one core only. This has been known to cause explorer slowdowns when opening file closing then going back to explorer(feels like a small lag).
3. Other software try to msconfig out all software you don't need and try them on at a time to see if anything else is not happy.
4. Don't forget to defrag, windows is only as fast as your drive
5. Intel/AMD lied to us all about multi core J/K

Anyway the most common thing i see is that windows has a slightly longer boot time with multi core then single(not a prob once you are in and running it, you can tweak this away too)...and creative CTSysVol oddly enough can cause explorer to run slower until they are told to run on 1 core only....

I hope this helps somewhat...

Just seen you mention a "Click delay" do you have a Creative card...i got that after watching video game trailers in media player...would close and get a delay in my next internet explorer click....either way was all gone after setting the affinity...





Sfenris said:
Did you make sure XP updated the ACPI driver to use multi-core cpu or is it still set for the single core from your athlon 64 3200+?


This is a fresh install new windows xp with up to date windows updates, Im not using the windows from my athlon. Is there a special driver windows needs for multi-core? Havnt heard of anything like this.

Zorg said:
Great then the Seagate is out of the picture. I still say that if the second time you load IE it loads very fast then it is your HD or some other setting in BIOS or last possibly XP is screwed up. It is not the Q6600. Try loading task manager and setting it to stay on top. look at the performance of the Q6600 as the program boots up. I just did and IE used 7-10% of the CPU. Of course it booted immediately on a Raptor 74G. I'm not saying you don't have a problem, I'm sure you do. I'm just saying it's not the Q6600. Even if the Task manager shows that the CPU is using more than 10% you have another problem that is causing it. I didn't want you to waste time looking at the Q6600 when your problem certainly lies elsewhere.



I have built on sound being used, no creative products - and I have defragged twice. My windows idles at 1% - 3% usage on cpu. Im going to systematically remove anything on startup and go barebone till I pinpoint this, hopefully its not the harddrive, I HATE reinstalling everything.
September 5, 2007 9:13:54 PM

richard3i said:
This is a fresh install new windows xp with up to date windows updates, Im not using the windows from my athlon. Is there a special driver windows needs for multi-core? Havnt heard of anything like this.




I have built on sound being used, no creative products - and I have defragged twice. My windows idles at 1% - 3% usage on cpu. Im going to systematically remove anything on startup and go barebone till I pinpoint this, hopefully its not the harddrive, I HATE reinstalling everything.
I just thought of an idea. You can bench your HD with Sisoft Sandra lite.

SiSoftware Zone

Click the benchmark tab and click physical disks. Select the Raptor if it not selected already. After the benchmark is completed, click the copy button at the bottom and paste it into a post. Let's see what you got.
September 5, 2007 9:15:08 PM

Are the jumpers on your drives set right? Are your drives one the same channel? If so put them on different channels.
September 5, 2007 9:20:03 PM

richard3, it sounded from your third message that you are using ZoneAlarm. If so, I'm almost certain that is the culprit. It bogged down my system at bootup something awful. Once I set it to not start, my comp went back to its original "peppiness." Try disabling ZoneAlarm and re-boot and let us know if you're seeing the same issues.
a b B Homebuilt system
September 5, 2007 9:27:05 PM

well you can use Sandra or HD tach to see how fast the drive is...

HD tach will give you drive speed(in a low lvl way...without any file system impact) and Sandra will write a file and read it back, this takes into account the file system
September 5, 2007 9:49:17 PM

Sandra also benches the whole drive.
September 5, 2007 9:56:41 PM

choirbass said:
HD Tune is also another worthwhile hdd benchmark

http://www.hdtune.com/
I just tried hdtune, nice little app. It gave me a better bench than Sandra. I wonder what the reason is for the disparity?
September 5, 2007 11:33:04 PM

how many times did you retest with each app? (restarting between, etc)

hdtune is fairly accurate though from what ive seen, seems to more fall in line with THG hdd bench results too.
September 6, 2007 12:34:30 AM

Sounds like you need to reformat and reload you have drivers from other board conflicting, i have a q6600 and i find the response in windows lighting fast on my machine.

As to amd fan boys says quads won't be any good in games sorry to burst your bubble but most new titles run much faster on a quad core, than any amd.

Fact Crysis benchmarks clearly show that a quad core blows away anything amd has.

I do lots of 3d rendering tried top end amd can't compete with q6600 due to the fact that its coded to use multi-threads and uses all 4 cores = less time rendering.

a b B Homebuilt system
September 6, 2007 1:04:13 AM

OK, here's another example: when I compress a bunch of wav files or a DVD I get 4 cores at 2.4 GHz at 80%. That's equivalent to an E6850 overclocked to 3.84 GHz working at 100%, if I got my math right. If you overclock the Q6600 a bit there's no dual core from either AMD or Intel that can compete with it :lol:  :kaola: 
September 6, 2007 1:33:40 AM

duals and quads are in two seperate leagues pretty much anyhow, same with singles and duals. similar to comparing apples to oranges, when it comes strictly to performance. and you certainly cant compare a single core system to a 32+ core server, regardless of clock speed... just like apples and oranges; they need practically completely different coded software to take full advantage of either. pretty much any software works with an x86 single core, but to take full advantage of those extra 3+ cores, the software needs to be SMP aware, and even then, its going to depend on how efficiently the software is coded, and how far it can scale even.

anyhow... within in a week well hopefully have new cpus distributed by companies such as dell, so then there will be more than just the intel quads out, hopefully.
September 6, 2007 2:39:53 AM

well, i disabled zone alarm and winamp agent and picasa google, now things are much more responsive, but I did a hd tune anyways, and check out these results, my raptor has issues? I know the access time is quicker than my seagate but the transfer size is signifcantly lower too


HD Tune: WDC WD360GD-00FNA0 Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 23.7 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 55.0 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 47.2 MB/sec
Access Time : 9.0 ms
Burst Rate : 90.7 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 0.6%




heres my seagate 7200.10 320gb

HD Tune: ST3320620AS Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 37.7 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 69.3 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 60.7 MB/sec
Access Time : 13.2 ms
Burst Rate : 107.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 0.9%
September 6, 2007 3:15:21 AM

richard3i said:
well, i disabled zone alarm and winamp agent and picasa google, now things are much more responsive, but I did a hd tune anyways, and check out these results, my raptor has issues? I know the access time is quicker than my seagate but the transfer size is signifcantly lower too


HD Tune: WDC WD360GD-00FNA0 Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 23.7 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 55.0 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 47.2 MB/sec
Access Time : 9.0 ms
Burst Rate : 90.7 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 0.6%
Clearly you have a problem. Here is my bench:

HD Tune: WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1 Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 50.1 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 83.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 71.9 MB/sec
Access Time : 8.3 ms
Burst Rate : 116.5 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 0.6%

Maybe you could put the drive, as a second drive, in another Machine and run HD tune again. Also Sandra has a hardware tab that could give you some insight into the HD and transfer speeds etc. Check it out.

September 6, 2007 3:21:12 AM

your 36GB GD raptors performance is kinda low tbh, even for the oldest raptors

heres the performance of one of the 36GB GDs that i benched a few months back (saved a screenshot):

HD Tune 2.53: WDC WD360GD-00FLA1

Transfer Rate Minimum : 43.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 62.7 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 55.7 MB/sec
Access Time : 8.2 ms
Burst Rate : 102.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 12.3%

so something is amiss, because even for the slowest raptor, those results are too low in all areas, they should be pretty close to what i posted, if not nearly identical... try testing just in safe mode, hopefully you can anyhow, or with the bare minimum needed functionality enabled, to see if performance changes, and hopefully increases.

it may be a driver issue though, so safemode might not be able to get around the low performance, if thats the case.

edit: Zorgs HD Tune results are more typical of the newest raptors, so even if your current raptor was in perfect health and had no performance problems, it would still fall short of his transfer rates, but your access times would be about the same

i know you said it was a new installation of win xp, but did you format the hdd completely before installing windows onto it?
September 6, 2007 12:48:58 PM

It had lots of data on it from my old computer but when I did a new windows installation on it I deleted the partition and did a quick format after.

Am I better off purchasing another 7200.10 and partitioning it using half for windows half for backup?
September 6, 2007 7:31:21 PM

well, if you dont have any other hdds than your current raptor, youd be better off purchasing 2 new hdds actually, one for hosting your OS and applications (partitioned however you want), and another for backup purposes of duplicated important info and other data. so reformatting your OS hdd wont involve losing important data that you would want to keep.

but, at the very least i would purchase 2 new hdds for the above reasons, because it sucks when hdds fail, and it will happen due to them being mechanical, its just a matter of when (typically after the warranty runs out, unfortunately), so the longer warranty they have the better, that way you can just RMA the hdd if somethings wrong with it. you may be able to do that with your raptor too (since it is still under the warranty period of 5 years), download and test the raptor with WDs data security programs, and see if it comes up with any problems, if it does, you can file for an RMA then, and just send it off, and get a new, most likely current 36GB ADFD raptor as the replacement (theyre fast, to say the least). and if you only get a replacement raptor thats the same GD model as what you have, no problem, shouldnt cost anything other than the cost of shipping anyhow, rather than paying for a whole new hdd.

i would also see if the raptors performance returns to normal in a different situation if you havent already (as was suggested by another poster)
September 6, 2007 8:21:09 PM

Does your Raptor support NCQ? Mine doesn't and it will run slower and can get errors if you have it turned on and the drive doesn't support it. I thought the newer Raptor drive would support it.
September 6, 2007 8:27:25 PM

his raptor doesnt. its the original GD version, which uses a PATA to SATA bridge. the newer raptors did away with the bridge, and only use SATA data connections, allowing NCQ support.
June 15, 2009 7:03:47 PM

Did this issue ever get resolved, I've been having similar issues with a similar system?
!