Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is my new build not as fast as I thought it'd be?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 22, 2007 5:39:03 PM

Ok, I just built a new system, its running... C2D e6750, 2gb g.skill ram, xfx 8600gt, 550w coolermaster PSU, zalman 9700 pro cooler, lite-on dvdburner, 250gb WD hd (sata) and the computer runs the same if not slower than my old computer which was...

p4 2.66ghz (single core)
1.5gb ram
Ati Radeon 9600 Pro
400w Ernamex PSU

soo what is up here? everyone raves about the c2d e6750... why am I displeased?

More about : build fast thought

December 22, 2007 6:01:31 PM

Also I forgot to mention, but since I have a sata HD, i was expecting to transfer at speeds of 3.0gb/p/s but it still runs like my old ide drive..
December 22, 2007 6:01:44 PM

You either screwed up with the install, or have gone crazy, LOL.

Ok, seriously, in what capacity are you THINKING it runs slower?

edit: Load times, games, windows xp or vista
Related resources
December 22, 2007 6:10:24 PM

If all you do is surf the web or do light word processing chores, you won't see much of a difference. However, if you do rendering, encoding, HD playback, or play the latest games, you should see a huge difference. How have you tasked your new system and what operating system(s) are you using?
December 22, 2007 6:13:12 PM

Sorry I didn't clear that up, it lags a little when starting up xp pro w/sp2, everyone said theres pretty much no lag with the e6750, and games play the same if not worst on this computer than my last computer.

I'm comparing that its running slower to my old single core p4 2.66ghz 2mb l2 cache to this c2d e6750 2.66ghz 4mb l2 cache..

In otherwords I was expecting a little jump in speed, not the same..

I've tried crysis, it lags, but thats to be expected, installing F.E.A.R right now. Also can someone aide me on the sata hd that I got? how do I check if its really running at 3.0gb p/s?

I haven't installed premier pro or photoshop yet, but I just thought the computer would be running alot faster...

I've also been using winrar alot, and i notice the speeds a little faster, but not by much...and I mean not by much at all. What should I be looking for? Any help is greatly appreciated. This is my second build in a long time, so I'm still new at this.
December 22, 2007 6:23:25 PM

Find and download superpi ... run the 1million test and tell us how many seconds it takes ... it's a quick and easy way for us to see if there is actually anything wrong or whether it's in your head :) 
December 22, 2007 6:33:03 PM

Your hd is not going to be transferring at 3.0Gb/s.
December 22, 2007 6:47:49 PM

Also, your video card is not going to run the newer games all that well. IMO, the 8600 series cards were more intended for HTPCs.

For great gaming performance, stick to the 8800 line.
December 22, 2007 6:53:51 PM

Might want to try 3dmarks05 or 06 to see how it scores. People here can tell if theres something up, and will try to help get your score to par, if its too low.

I agree with the video card, might not make your system run good on newer games, that are gpu intensive at higher resolutions.
December 22, 2007 7:07:25 PM

OS startup and getting around Windows is mostly going to be a hard disk benchmark, and gaming with that card is going to be a video card benchmark. A CPU won't magically make your files appear faster or your games more lifelike, as those tasks belong to the HD and GPU, respectively.

But just to make sure nothing is wrong with the CPU settings, do run a SuperPi or 3dmark06, which can separately test CPU and GPU.

December 22, 2007 7:10:41 PM

You can test the drives with HD Tach.

Don't be suprised when it is less than 1 GB/s...

Edit: My RAID0 with 2 Seagate 160 GBs scores 345.2 MB/s in Burst Speed with an average read of 117.7 MB/s. 14.5ms Random Access.. I'm happy with that.
December 22, 2007 7:12:29 PM

Check to see if both cores are registering/being used. At least in my new Intel MB, you can set the bios to function in single core mode...
December 22, 2007 7:22:14 PM

First look at your SATA HDD and see if there is a jumper on it.If so,remove it and your HDD should transfer at the higher speed.Most HDD manufaturers put a jumper on that limits speed to 150mbs for the older systems with SATA 1.0 by default.To fix it just remove the jumper and you are running at 300mbs for data transfer,provided your board supports the higher SATA speeds.Goodluck.

Dahak

M2N32-SLI DELUXE WE
X2 5600+ STOCK (2.8GHZ)
2X1GIG DDR2 800 IN DC MODE
TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
EVGA 8800GT SUPERCLOCKED
SMILIDON RAIDMAX GAMING CASE
ACER 22IN WS LCD 1680X1050
250GIG HD/320GIG HD
G5 GAMING MOUSE
LOGITECH Z-5500 5.1 SURROUND SYSTEM
500WATS CONTINUOUS,1000 PEAK
WIN XP MCE SP2
3DMARK05 15,686
3DMARK06 10,588
December 22, 2007 7:44:31 PM

no one asked so I will..

Did you clone yur old windows drive to not have to reinstall windows - or is this a clean install of windows?

BTW you will see some marginal increases in disk drive speed BUT... if you had a top of the line PATA drive before and now have a SATA drive that is near bottom of the list (performance wise) it is likely the new SATA could be on par or even slower than the old drive

dunno what you had exactly and dunno what you upgraded to, you only mentioned that the new drive is WD..

The interface does not automatically mean the drive will be faster. New hard drives are still spinning at the same 7200 RPMs. Don't read into what I am saying here, the newer drives have stepped up their performance a bit, but it really does depend on what you had and what you have.

P.S. If you haven't done it... do a fresh install of windows and save yurself a few headaches.
December 22, 2007 7:48:56 PM

What MoBo you using?

You are using one right? ;) 
December 22, 2007 8:13:32 PM

lej420 said:
Sorry I didn't clear that up, it lags a little when starting up xp pro w/sp2, everyone said theres pretty much no lag with the e6750, and games play the same if not worst on this computer than my last computer.


My Core 2 Duo E4500 even lags on startup, same as my older Athlon 64 3200+ and Athlon 64 X2 4400+. They all do. It's to be expected. However with games, you should notice a good jump in performance, I know that when I upgraded my RAM and CPU to higher speeds I went up by 10 frames alone.

lej420 said:
I'm comparing that its running slower to my old single core p4 2.66ghz 2mb l2 cache to this c2d e6750 2.66ghz 4mb l2 cache..


In certain applications you won't notice ANY difference at all. The applications you will notice tremendous performance increases are in games, rendering programs, and sim programs. Such as Photoshop or AutoCad.

lej420 said:
In otherwords I was expecting a little jump in speed, not the same..


Once again, depends on the program you're running. If it's a web browser, playing music, etc etc, no difference. Now if you rip DVD's or CD's, you'll notice decreased decoding times, which is a good thing.

lej420 said:
I've tried crysis, it lags, but thats to be expected, installing F.E.A.R right now. Also can someone aide me on the sata hd that I got? how do I check if its really running at 3.0gb p/s?


Crysis is buggy as all hell. Triple 8800GTX Ultras with an Extreme Edition CPU won't even push it beyond 40 frames per second. The game is a huge flaw. The hard drive however, will not run at 3.0GB/s. However, it is a lot faster than IDE drives. Try a disk defrag on it and you'll see.

lej420 said:
I haven't installed premier pro or photoshop yet, but I just thought the computer would be running alot faster...


it varies on the software you're using, which seems to be a common trend here.

lej420 said:
I've also been using winrar alot, and i notice the speeds a little faster, but not by much...and I mean not by much at all. What should I be looking for? Any help is greatly appreciated. This is my second build in a long time, so I'm still new at this.


You might not notice speed increases because WinRar might not be optimized for dual core.

EDIT: I was looking up if WinRAR is in fact optimized for dual core and multithread, and here's what i got...


Is WinRAR optimized for multi-processor systems?


Since Version 3.60, WinRAR is opimized for multi-processor systems.

Multithreaded version of RAR compression algorithm improvesthe compression speed on computers with several CPU, dual core CPU and processors with hyperthreading technology.

Multithreading is enabled by default, but you can disable it in "General" part of "Settings" dialog.


In the command line mode you can control multithreading with -mt switch.


http://www.win-rar.com/index.php?id=24&kb=1&kb_article_...

As I review this I wondered if maybe you have the chipset drivers installed. That might affect performance. Just make sure everything is up to date and you should be able to have better performance. But you're primarily going to notice the increase in games and stressful application, try SuperPi as some other members have suggested. Here is a link to the program.

http://files.extremeoverclocking.com/file.php?f=36
December 22, 2007 8:20:20 PM

Unless it's big time slow I wouldn't be worried....
My system, unless you're pushing it isn't much quicker than my old single core Athlon 3700+
A couple of builds that I use at work that are QX6850 + 8800GTX + DDR2 1066 RAM, >1TB etc. don't feel that much quicker, but they show when I'm encoding 5Gb video files in premiere.
Time not spent watching that was £2k+ ($4k+) well spent (on each machine :D ) in my opinion...
December 22, 2007 8:42:36 PM

Disable Windows Indexing ...

SATAII interface has the capacity to handle 3Gb/sec. Unfortunately "SATAII drives" are barely faster than IDE ... you might also want to disable acoustic management on the HD
December 22, 2007 8:54:05 PM

take it to a jobsite and have someone run over it with a bulldozer. Get pictures and post back. I want to see this non-hard working Cpu get what it deserves.
December 22, 2007 9:05:07 PM

FALSE

"Triple 8800GTX Ultras with an Extreme Edition CPU won't even push it beyond 40 frames per second"

A single G92 GTS plays it at about 40 FPS, dual GTXs will run it at 1920x1200 at about 30 (youtube it :) )

And yeah don't expect raving gaming from an 8600. Grab the new G92 GTS. Or wait till 9800GTX in Feb.
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2007 9:28:06 PM

lej420 said:
Ok, I just built a new system, its running... C2D e6750, 2gb g.skill ram, xfx 8600gt, 550w coolermaster PSU, zalman 9700 pro cooler, lite-on dvdburner, 250gb WD hd (sata) and the computer runs the same if not slower than my old computer which was...

p4 2.66ghz (single core)
1.5gb ram
Ati Radeon 9600 Pro
400w Ernamex PSU

soo what is up here? everyone raves about the c2d e6750... why am I displeased?

Well, just send it to me and I'll test it with my x1800xt and see if it's any slower than your setup. I'll test for about 1-2 years and get back to you.
December 22, 2007 9:34:09 PM

lunyone said:
Well, just send it to me and I'll test it with my x1800xt and see if it's any slower than your setup. I'll test for about 1-2 years and get back to you.


lol... :lol:  :lol: 

Ditto....I'll test it for you, but it'll take till Nehalems out
December 22, 2007 9:36:56 PM

jonisginger said:
FALSE

"Triple 8800GTX Ultras with an Extreme Edition CPU won't even push it beyond 40 frames per second"

A single G92 GTS plays it at about 40 FPS, dual GTXs will run it at 1920x1200 at about 30 (youtube it :) )


I didn't say dual, i said TRIPLE!

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3183&p=4



Very High Settings, 1920x1200

43.2 FPS.

You stand corrected Sir.
December 22, 2007 10:07:01 PM

Just think and READ:

"The theory is that the better a game scales from 2 to 3 GPUs, the more GPU bound and less CPU bound it is. The worse a game scales, there's greater the chance that it's CPU bound (although there are many more reasons for poor scaling from 2 to 3 GPUs)."

So you would expect a fairly linear correlation....

2.66ghz/2ghz = 30%

So:

37.3/30.9 = 21%

Etc...its extremely similar for the 3.33ghz vs the 2.66ghz...

3.33/2.66 = 25.1%

So:

43.2/37.3 = 16%

A similar result. Crysis is buggy yes, and the three way SLi has only just been released so allow some time for the drivers to catch to something as complicated as Crysis. I'm not a Crysis fanboy, its not brilliant.

Running a standard statistical analysis on the data (to measure correlation):

I get 0.999613433

I'm an A grade Maths and Further Maths student, if you want to check type in...well use this:



Where 1 is a perfect linear correlation, thus leaving me with a staggering amount of evidence that Crysis is CPU limited... And here are the calculations I did so you can see I am not lying

P.S. If you graph those values accurately on a scatter plot graph and draw the line:

y = 9.247x + 12.5

You will notice that the point are exactly on the line...

So it CAN do it, if the CPU is up to the job. Which, evidently it is. I think they used a QX6850...

What I am trying to say it is CLEARLY no longer graphics limited, with over 1.8 teraflops of power...

Also: I just realised that 3x Ultra = 2x GTX in terms of framerate, so its defo CPU that is holding it up. That big slow complicated game engine...
December 22, 2007 10:26:28 PM

your 6750 is a 1333 fsb chip, if your board cannot support that ,that is why it is not running as fast as you believe it should be. so change the fsb to 1333 and you will see a a 30 percent increase in spd
8 X 266 = 2.128
8 X 333 = 2.664
December 22, 2007 10:28:28 PM

Not that I am disputing this at all, but is that really the case?

OH I SEE

The multiplier is kept constant but the stock FSB drops back because the mobo can't handle it?
December 22, 2007 10:41:08 PM

jonisginger said:
Bunch of math....

So it CAN do it, if the CPU is up to the job. Which, evidently it is. I think they used a QX6850...

What I am trying to say it is CLEARLY no longer graphics limited, with over 1.8 teraflops of power...

Also: I just realised that 3x Ultra = 2x GTX in terms of framerate, so its defo CPU that is holding it up. That big slow complicated game engine...


Firstly, I never said ANYTHING about his CPU being a limitation, not did I say his GPU was a limitation. I used Crysis as an EXAMPLE to demonstrate how the performance increase he was expecting and receiving would truly be found in games. Granted the OP stated this...

I've tried crysis, it lags, but thats to be expected said:
I've tried crysis, it lags, but thats to be expected


I was stating that Crysis is buggy, and I was also assuring him that his lag was to be expected, by using an EXAMPLE of 8800GTX Ultras in Triple SLI. You clearly missed my entire point...Thank you.



December 22, 2007 10:43:15 PM

chckup said:
your 6750 is a 1333 fsb chip, if your board cannot support that ,that is why it is not running as fast as you believe it should be. so change the fsb to 1333 and you will see a a 30 percent increase in spd
8 X 266 = 2.128
8 X 333 = 2.664


Still though a Core 2 Duo at 2.12GHz would still stomp a Pentium 4 at 2.6+ GHz.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
December 23, 2007 2:41:50 AM

Only reason why I brought up 3dmarks, is that in the past threads I read, a low score on the CPU side could indicate over heating problems, from the CPU throttling.

He didn't say what HS he's using, and the load temps.

But other then that, he could be expecting too much. :lol: 
December 23, 2007 3:43:21 AM

aiight so, im using a zalman 9700 heatsink, running temps around 20-25` C
December 23, 2007 3:45:29 AM

lej420 said:
Also I forgot to mention, but since I have a sata HD, i was expecting to transfer at speeds of 3.0gb/p/s but it still runs like my old ide drive..

There is NO home user HD sold that will give you 3gbps trasfer speed...that is the speed of the INTERFACE from the HD to the MB.
No home HD is yet able to use all the bandwith of a ATA133 interface...yet.
December 23, 2007 3:57:55 AM

Well I guess the reviews on newegg are overly exaggerated... I read on newegg reviews of their hdd install a fresh copy of windows from partition to install..15 minutes.
December 23, 2007 4:34:32 AM

I think your problem lies in your graphic card. Its not much of a step up from what you had before. Anything 3d wont impress. CPU apps should be significantly faster. Try running four or five things at a time and tell me its not faster.
December 23, 2007 5:14:26 AM

lej420 said:
Well I guess the reviews on newegg are overly exaggerated... I read on newegg reviews of their hdd install a fresh copy of windows from partition to install..15 minutes.

i did a fresh install of fedora 8 linux, in 6mins, with a WD
a c 127 à CPUs
December 23, 2007 3:56:16 PM

The hd will not go that fast but I can tell you this much. I got SATAI when it first came out(running 150mb/s) and set up a RAID0 and it did only take me 15 minutes to install Windows XP.

Now it looks like you only have one drive. Where SATAII doubles the speed over SATAI, you wont be able to do the performance of 2 SATAI in RAID0 with one SATAII. Now 2 SATAII in RAID0 should prove to be faster than a RAID0 setup of SATAI. It seems to be to me since I have 2 500GB Seagate SATAII 7200.10 in RAID0.

I never heard of the jumpers though and if so mine do have one but I might just check that out first.

Now why you haven't seen a huge jump in performance s beyond me. I went from a P4EE 3.4GHZ(Northwood), Asus P4P800 Deluxe, 2GB Corsair XMS PC3200, 2 SATAI 120GB Seagate HD. Compared to my current rig my old one is ancient. I start windows in 16 seconds(and thats Visat too) and run everything much faster. 2GB unzips in winrar in 20 seconds.

I think you need to relook over you setu in BIOS and so on to make sure its all correct.
December 23, 2007 4:46:56 PM

Games do run signifcantly better on this computer, and I do see the push in performance, I guess I was just expecting more..

How long am I supposed to leave orthos running? I checked the bio and everything seems to be right, when I installed the heatsink I heard a few cracks, so I guess I assume I broke something and thought it was the cpu.

I also don't have any jumpers on the wd HD.

I was also on a budget thats why I got the 8600gt, which I can honestly say is a night and day difference from my old card, but I know theres better out there still.
December 23, 2007 11:17:27 PM

ok, a little more info, I used coretemp, and it showed both cores running at 10C at idle, while tjunction was at 85C. What exactly does tjunction mean?
December 23, 2007 11:24:03 PM

Tjunction is the max temp your cores can go before the computer shuts down....(bad to be near)

I could be wrong but your temps are way off......
10C is very low even with a new cooler.
Also, your Tjunction should be 100C i think.....
I would suggest reading over CompuTronix temp. guide and recalibrating.
December 24, 2007 4:35:27 AM

lej420 said:
ok, a little more info, I used coretemp, and it showed both cores running at 10C at idle, while tjunction was at 85C. What exactly does tjunction mean?

You need to get the Beta 0.95.4 from http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/
to read your correct tjunction max of 100 C.

December 24, 2007 5:01:52 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
I think your problem lies in your graphic card. Its not much of a step up from what you had before. Anything 3d wont impress. CPU apps should be significantly faster. Try running four or five things at a time and tell me its not faster.



his old 9600 Pro in comparison to his new 8600 is like night and day my friend, it's a HUGE difference. And yeah he should run a bunch of things, not 4 or 5 though, more like 50 and beyond. I could easily run 56 processes on my old AMD 64 3200+; the Core 2 Duo should run three times that coupled with enough memory, such as 2GBs.
December 24, 2007 5:06:38 AM

2 big lessons in his poor build are:
1) always spend more on the gpu then cpu
2) do not use a really low end psu
December 24, 2007 5:11:40 AM

dragonsprayer said:
2 big lessons in his poor build are:
1) always spend more on the gpu then cpu
2) do not use a really low end psu



isn't he running a Core 2 Duo E6750? That's not low end buddy.
December 24, 2007 5:37:23 AM

PSU , not CPU.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2007 11:33:30 AM

8600GT are crap ... I bought one.

Its an ASUS with some overclocking console ... woopee !!

Still hitting myself with the box it came in.

Man they are crap graphics cards.

Nice sturdy box tho.

Take my advice ... take the card back and get an 8800GT ... make sure the case fans give plenty of airflow because they run hot.

Crap coolers on the 8800GT ... should have been 2 slot coolers standard on all of them.
December 24, 2007 12:39:40 PM

justinmcg67 said:
his old 9600 Pro in comparison to his new 8600 is like night and day my friend, it's a HUGE difference. And yeah he should run a bunch of things, not 4 or 5 though, more like 50 and beyond. I could easily run 56 processes on my old AMD 64 3200+; the Core 2 Duo should run three times that coupled with enough memory, such as 2GBs.



Um 4-5 applications. Not processes. Windows will run more then that default. The differences in cards isnt night and day, its more like breakfast to lunch. Thew graphics are better but the speed is what he is worried about. In terms of speed its not night and day.
December 24, 2007 3:04:06 PM

roadrunner197069 said:
Um 4-5 applications. Not processes. Windows will run more then that default. The differences in cards isnt night and day, its more like breakfast to lunch. Thew graphics are better but the speed is what he is worried about. In terms of speed its not night and day.


A process is an application. Run ANY game, which is an application, and it will have a process. And if you seriously think a very old 9600 Pro to an 8600GT is not night and day and minimal difference, than you know absolutely nothing about graphics cards...
December 24, 2007 3:14:27 PM

Do yourself a favor next time windows stars up. Check your processes. They arent applications. Oh my looky looky. The process tab is right next to the alpplication tab. How could that be. We are talking speed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not pixel pipeline. Quality and speed are entirely different buddy. When you know what you are talking about feel free to post. Thanks.
December 24, 2007 3:20:43 PM

Errr... windows taskmanager may not show a process as an application.

For example, I use ypops. That will not show up in the applications tab. Some of the processes that you see, are services as well. There other programs as processes that do regular checkups for updates, which I kinda hate.. like quicktime.

But mostly all processes are programs/services or applications.
December 24, 2007 3:26:37 PM

lej420 said:
I've tried crysis, it lags, but thats to be expected, installing F.E.A.R right now. Also can someone aide me on the sata hd that I got? how do I check if its really running at 3.0gb p/s?


Video card./RAM

Crysis is a monster. A little more RAM could help. For XP you should have 2 gb, for Vista go with three.


Crysis is the only Christmas present I asked for from my wife. I will be playing it on ultra-low as a result of my GeForce 7800gt.
!