New q6600 system - poor windows xp response

[richard3i]

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?

 

[aevm]

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.

 

[richard3i]

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.

 

[Jim_L9]

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.

 

[aevm]

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.

 

[richard3i]

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..

 

[Mousemonkey]

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 .

 

[richard3i]

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

 

[Mousemonkey]

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.

 

[zenmaster]

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.

 

[Jim_L9]

I think XP was never optimized for multi-core CPUs.

 

[ns1988]

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

 

[richard3i]

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?

 

[General_Disturbance]

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

 

[Jim_L9]

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.

 

[richard3i]

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?

 

[General_Disturbance]

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).

 

[Zorg]

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 %

 

[shadowmaster625]

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.

 

[richard3i]

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

 

[aevm]

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:

 

[nukemaster]

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]

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+?

 

[Zorg]

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.

 

[Zorg]

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.