Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

request for simple computer speed video

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 12, 2008 11:40:08 PM

can someone with either an e8400 (3ghz) or something close please create a video of just booting up and performing simple file operations (opening, copying, deselecting, etc.) because ive had trouble with the speed of my computer and i need to gage if its performing like it should be. i will compare my computer performance to the video's. thanks.

my specs (all stock):
e8400 (c1e, eist off)
780i
2gb 800mhz ram
7200.10rpm 3gb/s 8mb cache 150gb SATA hdd
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2008 11:48:58 PM

Those sorts of operations are going to be more dependent on your harddrive and RAM than anything else. Your CPU could be playing thousands of games of Tic-Tac-Toe with itself (and not winning if you have seen Wargames) in between read/write operations by the hard drive.
October 12, 2008 11:53:03 PM

well any current-gen system build is fine with me. i just need something to compare my computer performance to.
Related resources
a c 127 à CPUs
October 13, 2008 1:09:35 AM

Whats the OS you are using?

That in what randomizer said is correct. To be honest the best performance will come from either 2 SATAII 7200s in RAID 0 or a Raptor drive. Personally I prefer the SATAII RAID0 because its cheaper for more space and will beat a single Raptor.

The OS might affect it. If you have Vista make sure to get SP1. It makes the boot faster and it would also help with the copying which was horribly slow due to a error with the system but was fixed with SP1.

Also if you are using Vista try to get 2GB more memory. That would help a lot. I went from 2GB to 4GB and saw a nice performance increase.
October 13, 2008 1:28:13 AM

I got a 4.05 e8400 and it is bottlenecked severly by my HDD. I have a Western Digital 500AAJS. The read and write speeds suck bad compared to some of the better drives.

I've built rigs with e2180s OC to 3.2 with faster HDDs and they were snappier then this thing.

When I get paid next week I'm gonna buy 2 Patriot SSDs and put them in raid 0 for OS and APPs, and use this 5oo for storage.

Right now my 4.05 CPU is being bottlenecked by this slow ass HDD.

If you cant afford SSDs or raid I suggest 1 seagate 7200.11. They make some pretty fast drives.


Run HD tune and post your results. If your average speed is 70 or less, you will want to get a better HD. This 500 I got has a 52 average. "JUNK"
October 13, 2008 1:31:19 AM

The Western Digital Black 1TB's are good as well from what I understand. Im also currently using crappy drives, got Vista on a 36gb Raptor made in 2005 :( , 250gb seagate and 320gb WD for games and programs/random files. All of them are preety slow, the WD drive is about 2 years old.
a c 127 à CPUs
October 13, 2008 2:10:32 AM

Thats weird. I have never seen a 7200.10 with 8MB cache. I haave 2 of the 500GB ones that have 16MB cache and the 7200.11s have 32MB cache.

It might be but depends on what your performance is like. Is it games or certain apps?
October 13, 2008 2:15:59 AM

well, just basic file processing speed-- some stuttering (which people tell me is HDD related) unbelievable, huh? i can run crysis on very high settings with no AA smoothly but then again I have an 8800gtx and run at 1024x768 (overkill, i know).
October 13, 2008 2:18:29 AM

If you want to bench your machine try Sandra Lite and for your HD try HDTune. IMO 70MB/sec. isn't so slow that you would be complaining. It is possible that you have the OS pigged up and it could be running slow as a result. The only real test for that is a fresh reinstall including format.
October 13, 2008 2:21:53 AM

Yup you need to use a free bench tool, to know for sure, but even @ 70 I think it is slow. 90+ or go home is my new motto.

70 would definately start makinging wounder whats up when things arent instantaneous.
October 13, 2008 2:24:32 AM

oh hi again. i dont think my OS is "pigged up", i did those HDD tests and i get 60mb/s. norton isnt installed and i get the stutters. and for some reason now, when i enter safe mode (network) it is only just as fast as it is in normal mode (which isnt as fast as it was before i reformatted)

"""Yup you need to use a free bench tool, to know for sure, but even @ 70 I think it is slow. 90+ or go home is my new motto.

70 would definately start makinging wounder whats up when things arent instantaneous. """

slow for an e8400 to operate off of you mean?
October 13, 2008 2:25:28 AM

60MB is bottlenecking you for sure.
October 13, 2008 2:26:34 AM

ok so you recommend i get a 90+mb/s?
October 13, 2008 2:27:22 AM

YUp! or another drive like you got and raid 0 them.
a c 127 à CPUs
October 13, 2008 2:45:22 AM

No the 60MB/s is how much data it can move per second. With a drive like you have, a SATAII @ 300MB/s, you should be hitting 100MB/s with one drive and up to 200MB/s for two drives in RAID 0.

So your HDD might be bad. You might also want to defrag it and see if that boosts the speed a bit too. But what you would want to do is get another 160GB HDD just like that one and RAID them. But you will have to reformat to do that.
October 13, 2008 2:46:40 AM

Go into startup and stop all nonessential programs, including virus etc. (they are nonessential). Go into services.msc and disable all non windows services. Reboot and let us know what you see.
October 13, 2008 2:52:02 AM

jimmysmitty said:
No the 60MB/s is how much data it can move per second. With a drive like you have, a SATAII @ 300MB/s, you should be hitting 100MB/s with one drive and up to 200MB/s for two drives in RAID 0.

So your HDD might be bad. You might also want to defrag it and see if that boosts the speed a bit too. But what you would want to do is get another 160GB HDD just like that one and RAID them. But you will have to reformat to do that.


so then what specifies the data transfer rate? i dont see anything in my link to my current HDD that tells me. i need a 90mb/s.

i just reformatted, so defragging will do nothing. my disk is clean. i dont want to mess with raid.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
October 13, 2008 3:00:44 AM

Transfer rate is something not provided by the manufacturer. Relies on too many things.

A. The amount left on the drive
B. SATA 1.5 or 3.0
C. fragmented files
D. running processes

All those things play a part in transfer speed. Keep in mind no drive is going to be 1.5gb/3.0gb speed, thats just the SATA standard speed cap or w/e. Bottom line is, dont expect a 160gb drive that was manufactured awhile ago to have blazing speeds, no matter if its full or empty. Higher capacity drives are usually quicker, also the Seagate 7200.11's are just as fast (if not faster) than the original Raptors, and the 1TB drives are very quick. I use a 36gb Raptor for Vista, and it sucks hard, dont know why I even bothered with it.
a c 127 à CPUs
October 13, 2008 3:01:51 AM

^The interface sped is 3.0GB/s. Its the link speed but its transfer rate is 300MB/s. All SATA II HDDs are 300MB/s. The next gen SATA III will be 6GB/s link speed with 600MB/s transfer rates per drive. SATA I is 1.5GB/s link speed with 150MB/s transfer rate.

Just get a second one of the same drive and set them up as a RAID 0.
October 13, 2008 3:09:55 AM

proto_prime said:
so then what specifies the data transfer rate? i dont see anything in my link to my current HDD that tells me. i need a 90mb/s.

i just reformatted, so defragging will do nothing. my disk is clean. i dont want to mess with raid.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


According to Seagates' specs for that drive, you should be getting about 76MB sustained xfer rates. The newer 7200.11 drives willvget around 120MS sustained. 60mbs might indicate some bad clusters / sectors, so download the seatools diagnostics and test it. Seatools might also be able to repair the damage, if any.

If bad and unrepairable, RMA it. Maybe Seagate will send a 7200.11 as a replacement.
October 13, 2008 3:24:08 AM

Just dosent seem to be worth the investment at $150 a piece, for 32gb each at that. Youd probably be better off getting a Velicoraptor. Not gonna judge though, dont really know too much about SSD's other that they are sorta slow at writing.
October 13, 2008 3:29:18 AM

SATA2 is a misnomer it's actually SATA 3Gb/sec., which roughly translates to 300GB/sec. It's also total BS, it's only the bandwidth of the interface. The speed of the drive is determined by the physical characteristics of the drive. Watch yourself with the 7200.11 drives, they are fast but many are also prone to failure. the WD640AAKS is a better drive IMO, I'm sure many disagree. The speed that HDTune gives is an average for the whole drive, you need to read the graph. Croc does have a point about the possibility of bad sectors. You need to run the full format to mark any bad sectors, unfortunately almost no one does. Bad sectors, assuming there are enough of them, will usually lead to crashes.

Have you checked the SMART tab in HDTune? SpeedFan also has a SMART feature, which includes comparison against other drives on the web.
a c 127 à CPUs
October 13, 2008 3:34:38 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
Ima get myself 2 of these on Friday. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... and drop in in Raid 0 for OS and APPs.


Why not wait for the newer Intel SSDs? I saw one that was sustaining almost 200MB/s and it wasn't even the top end model. 2 of those in RAID 0 would deffinately make Windows speedy as all get out.

Just a thought to the OP, did you install the Intel chipset drivers? Without them it might make things feel slower than they should be.
October 13, 2008 3:37:44 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Just a thought to the OP, did you install the Intel chipset drivers? Without them it might make things feel slower than they should be.


you mean the motherboard drivers? i installed the newest motherboard drivers as well as the latest bios
October 13, 2008 4:00:15 AM

spathotan said:
Just dosent seem to be worth the investment at $150 a piece, for 32gb each at that. Youd probably be better off getting a Velicoraptor. Not gonna judge though, dont really know too much about SSD's other that they are sorta slow at writing.



Ya I wish I had the money before the 15th, but I'm hoping they will redo the rebate, Newegg does that alot. Or I might get a similar drive with a rebate. A raptor would be nice but I hear they are loud.

The PC they are going in is my 8year old sons new PC. He is disabled and he is getting trained to communicate via a computer. A infra red camera follows his pupils and moves the mouse to whatever he is looking at, then when he blinks it will click. I need his stuff to be pretty much instantaneous. If he blinks and it takes 4 seconds it wont work very good.
October 13, 2008 4:03:17 AM

Ahh, thats some preety nifty technology there. Also, sorry about your son.
October 13, 2008 4:05:08 AM

The camera and software is $26,000 thank god for medicade.

He is a very happy boy and very smart he just cant walk or talk, I am excited to get him talking with the PC.
October 13, 2008 4:07:30 AM

proto_prime said:
btw: using HD tach, i got 16.7ms random access, isnt that slow?
Yes, that is very slow.

Download and run Windows Sysinternals Process Explorer v11.21. Click on the CPU column header, take a screen shot and post it.
a c 133 à CPUs
October 13, 2008 5:01:28 AM

Well, there's some A-O-Hell and Google crap there. Turn them off and see what happens.
October 13, 2008 5:09:32 AM

Well it looks like nothing is stealing cycles, including interrupt conflicts.

I like the WD640AAKS, but it's not perfect either, based on the reviews. It appears it's catch as catch can with both drives. Newegg isn't really the place to get quality reviews, but I don't like to see a lot of failures either.
October 13, 2008 5:11:58 AM

Onus said:
Well, there's some A-O-Hell and Google crap there. Turn them off and see what happens.
Probably eating some RAM, but I doubt they are his problem. I agree all that crap should go though.

AOL gives me the shivers.
a c 127 à CPUs
October 13, 2008 5:20:14 AM

AOL is even harder to get rid of, at least their browser software was. Took me a hour once to clean up a friends PC of about 20 versions onf it. Annoying as hell.
October 13, 2008 5:25:52 AM

How the he!! do they get all the tons of crapola in the machine. You really have to try IMO.

I was dealing with an attorney probably 6 months ago that was a new tenant of another attorney I do phone work for. I asked him for his email address and it was xxx@aol.com. Doesn't he have any self-esteem?
October 13, 2008 5:47:39 AM

It should definately give performance. I wouldn't say huge but it will help your stutter.
a c 127 à CPUs
October 13, 2008 6:09:34 AM

Zorg said:
How the he!! do they get all the tons of crapola in the machine. You really have to try IMO.

I was dealing with an attorney probably 6 months ago that was a new tenant of another attorney I do phone work for. I asked him for his email address and it was xxx@aol.com. Doesn't he have any self-esteem?


They do it on their own. I had a friend whos PC had so much junk running in the background that it took 20 minutes to get to a useable state after boot.

Another friend had problems and I was scanning his PC for spyware/adaware and it had over 1.5 million files to go through. It had over 1K spyware/adware and Spybot S&D took over 8 hours to complete. Yea those scane go faster with a better CPU but also depend on the amount of files andHDD too and man that was one hell of a cleaning I did.

proto_prime said:
so thats a yes to http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... ? hope i get a huge performance boost with this


Yes that will deffinately boost your performance. It has 4x the cache which will help and is a newer model so its improved on its read/write and transfer times compared to your current drive. I would say get 2 of them and put them in a RAID 0 and you will really notice the difference. I did the first time I used RAID 0. It would only take 15 minutes to install XP and XP would boot in under 7 seconds after a fresh install, about 10 after I got drivers and programs loaded.
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2008 8:26:22 AM

If 16.7ms is a slow access time, then what is an average/typical access time? I get 13.7ms on my 7200.10.
a c 127 à CPUs
October 13, 2008 10:42:22 AM

Well the standard for all Seagate drives I have had since my first SATA I drive was 8.5MS. 16.7MS is 2x what it should be and 13.7MS is quite high too.

But that might come with age.
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2008 10:45:29 AM

Hmmm.... the drive is abot 9 months old so...

Maybe it has something to do with the sound of the drive. :eek:  (Note, it sounds like that from the other side of the room now, this was recorded in front of the PC at the time)

EDIT: Here's a HDTach run from a few months ago:

October 13, 2008 12:40:33 PM

LOL. That sucker sounds like its gonna take off. I'd say if you got important data, back it up now. It would be wise to send it in under warranty after you back it up.
October 13, 2008 1:51:18 PM

Actually, speaking of Seagate 160gb drives. When you installed the drive did you remove the little speed limiter jumper on the little pins on the rear of the drive? If you didn't the drive is being throttled to SATA I speeds.

7200.10's shouldn't be that slow. They were pretty close to top of the line drives during their generation. Even the 160gb 7200.9 I had wasn't that slow, well at least not after I figured out that jumper thing.

I myself need to find something around the 640gb flavor to put with these two 320gb 7200.10s so i can run in either raid 1+0 or raid 5.

Good god Randomizer, I haven't heard a sound like that coming from a hard drive since my old Seagate Medalist drives started to go back in the day.
October 13, 2008 2:00:14 PM

yup, i removed it
October 13, 2008 6:20:36 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Well the standard for all Seagate drives I have had since my first SATA I drive was 8.5MS. 16.7MS is 2x what it should be and 13.7MS is quite high too.

But that might come with age.
You must have had magically fast Seagate drives. ~13ms random access is about the average for a decent HD. ~8.5ms is Raptor times. The 7100.11 has a random access of ~12ms, and the 7200.10 is ~13.2ms

Charts, benchmarks 3.5" Hard Drive Charts, Random Access Time

Raptor 74GB


Old WD160GB


!