Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Please Help this old man

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 12, 2008 8:13:53 PM

I need some younger help, I just build a new computer. Asus P5kC p35, iNTEL q6600 CPU, 2 Meg CORSAIR xms2 ddr-800 MEM. WD 160 7200 SATA 300 HARD DRIVE. I think my old 3.0 mzg. ran faster. I computer boots slow, some of my programs run slow. I"m running XP Pro. How can I speed this thing up, even a old guy can learn too.
Thank You

More about : man

February 12, 2008 8:30:15 PM

Start by OCing the Q6600 to 3G/1333. I assume you did a clean install of XP. Click start -> run and type "msconfig" and click OK. Click on the startup tab and uncheck all the BS that likes to load at startup but you don't need running. If you have a question about an entry, then Google it to see if it is important.
February 12, 2008 8:35:34 PM

how slow? if you get boot times of more than 1.30 minutes then somethings wrong... otherwise, the only thing to speed it up is getting a faster hard drive or get another and put them in raid 0, the processor and ram will not be holding back anything other than the newest games and media creation sofware.

time your boot up, to when the pc becomes usable and if its longer than 60~90 seconds theres something gone wrong, otherwise this is prolly the normal speed for xp lol, get used to it.. microsoft is ****
Related resources
February 12, 2008 8:38:12 PM

trust me dont start by overclocking... you wont see any advantage for windows xp in general applications like word processing, instant messaging and boot times
February 12, 2008 9:11:57 PM

zplugger said:
I computer boots slow, some of my programs run slow. I"m running XP Pro.


I have to agree with psymanproductions, How slow is slow, Time the boot process.

1) Any conflicts in the device manager?
2) All hardware drivers are up to date?
3) How many things do you have happening during startup? (MSCONFIG as Zorg mentioned)
4) go to your Task Manager and see what all is running (ctrl+alt+del) and how much resources are being used.
February 12, 2008 9:18:24 PM

Your single thread processing in XP is not going to be noticeably faster than with a P4 since the read times on the hard drive are going to be very close and both a P4 and a Q6600 can outrun the hard drive on single thread bandwidth. Also, try a motherboard driver update from Asus and a BIOS flash following that. If the processor is a bit newer than the motherboard then the motherboard drivers that came with it are not going to be optimized for the newer processor. Have you run any intensive programs or games to see the difference? Have you benchmarked the system yet? Make sure all your drivers are the latest from your hardware manufacturers. It makes a big difference.
February 12, 2008 9:20:59 PM

Just adding on something else to tell the guys..

When you bring up Taskmanager/Performance Tab, do you see more then 1 CPU Usage history?
February 12, 2008 9:23:54 PM

I beg to differ with you psymanproductions. I just tested it and here are the results:
Q6600 @3G/1333, Raptor, DDR2 @800 - from kernel load to desktop 27-28sec.
Q6600 @2.4G/1066, Raptor, DDR2 @800 - from kernel load to desktop 34-35sec.
Not a large difference but a difference of about 26%. That is a noticeable difference, although not huge. An OC will make the machine "feel" a little more zippy. I do agree you won't see any difference in word and IM, but as you can see you will see a difference in boot times. However, I'm also using a Raptor. Certainly a faster drive would give the largest difference, although the OC is free. My question still remains, did he do a fresh install or not. and of course how slow is it really as you questioned.
February 12, 2008 9:29:14 PM

^ OMG nice lol
|
|
February 12, 2008 9:36:12 PM

What would be a good benchmarked program too see how this is running
February 12, 2008 9:43:00 PM

zorg... i did the same test with my amd atlon x2 rig...... from 1ghz to the stock 2.6 ghz there was a difference of 4~5 seconds. im not sayin he wont have a difference in boot times but from my experiments he will not be able to notice the difference
February 12, 2008 9:48:47 PM

it is interesting that you got such a big difference in results from me... maybe underclocking your processor on your mobo also affects the interface between mobo and hard drive?..... i dunnno but it would be interesting to see a professional article on this matter i think, or see ing what results other people get
February 12, 2008 9:54:10 PM

zplugger said:
What would be a good benchmarked program too see how this is running
You never did answer any of the questions. SiSoftware Sandra XII Lite - Free has a nice set of benches with a library of results to compare to. Try it at stock and @3G. The OC is really easy, all you need to do is increase the FSB from 266 to 333, lock the PCIe to 100, and set the RAM multi so that it runs @800. Be sure to keep an eye on temps especially with a stock HS. I just ran the CPU arithmetic and Benched 3% faster than a QX6800.
February 12, 2008 10:01:52 PM

ye i agree with zorg try sisoft sandra and i guess see if oc ing helps... it didnt help me but may help you as you have a similar set up to zorg..

and have you timed the boot up yet... if you have a million programs loading at start up it will slow any computers boot time down. try going into start > run > msconfig and disabling some un necesary stuff running at start up, look for things you know you have installed and arent part of the operating system... adobeupdatemanager, stuff like that
February 12, 2008 10:07:00 PM

psymanproductions said:
it is interesting that you got such a big difference in results from me... maybe underclocking your processor on your mobo also affects the interface between mobo and hard drive?..... i dunnno but it would be interesting to see a professional article on this matter i think, or see ing what results other people get
7sec. isn't really a heck of a lot anyway, but it is something. I just didn't want you to think that there was no difference at all. There is something to be said from dropping from 3G to 2.4G. That little bit might look like a lot when you are expecting this huge boost, which the quad won't give you in day to day tasks. You do have the additional cores, but I'm sure XP could do a much better job of distributing the load. If he was doing video encoding, then there would be a clear boost and he probably wouldn't have posted. I used a second hand on a watch, so it was fast and loose.
February 13, 2008 12:48:10 AM

yep.. i agree with everthing youve said zorg... i did acctualy expect to see zero difference in boot time before i did the test myseld just a bit ago. definetly zplugger would have seen the diff if he was running apps like vid editing and audio editing. when i steped up to a higher clocked x2 athlon from a 2.0ghz single core athlon i got nearly twice the power in cubase (audio editing softare) but only a marginal but noticable advantage in gaming and the advantage in general apps and boot times wasnt noticable at all for me... but as ive now seen it definately does exist lol!
!