Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

My Intel dual Xeon 3 2 processors are too slow

Last response: in Components
Share
February 7, 2010 6:39:16 AM

Ihave this beast HP with duel Xenon 3.2 processors and 4gb of ram and it doesn't scream and often I have to wait watching that damn hour glass. i thought this machine was a workhorse. Any suggestions? I'm not a gamer, I use Photoshop occationally and some music recording but every little thin i do is too slow.
February 7, 2010 12:22:06 PM

Need more info.

What operating system? Only a few versions of windows support more than one physical processor.

3.2 GHZ Xeon what? Dual cores, quads, single cores?
Score
0
a b α HP
February 7, 2010 12:48:07 PM

tomcat33618 said:
Ihave this beast HP with duel Xenon 3.2 processors and 4gb of ram and it doesn't scream and often I have to wait watching that damn hour glass. i thought this machine was a workhorse. Any suggestions? I'm not a gamer, I use Photoshop occationally and some music recording but every little thin i do is too slow.

What model and options? If it's a BX80546KG3200FA (single core), then it really is slow by current standards. What OS are you using?
Score
0
Related resources
August 28, 2011 12:16:52 AM

boonality said:
Need more info.

What operating system? Only a few versions of windows support more than one physical processor.

3.2 GHZ Xeon what? Dual cores, quads, single cores?


I'm using XP Pro
Score
0
September 10, 2011 2:27:03 AM

My beast is an HP xw8200 with 4gb mem, 250 gb sata/7200rpm (8mb cache) HD, dual 3.2GHZ Xeonon (800 MHZ frontside bus) processors. I am using XP Pro. It so often can't get out of it's own way and I bought it because it is supposed to be a great work horse. Here are further specs
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11976_div...
Anybody else with this problem? Any help suggestions beyond shooting this thing?
Score
0
a b α HP
September 10, 2011 3:19:39 AM

How many CPUs are shown in Task Manager? 2 or 4?

Your system was a workhorse when it was released, but it doesn't compare to a current workstation or desktop PC. Your workstation is configured with processors that were released in 2004 and the hard disk is slow by current standards. Most if not all $500 PCs will be much faster.

Edit: How many years ago did you buy it?
Score
0
November 19, 2011 12:24:30 PM

something not right here. i've got a xw8200 with two xeon 3.6 cpu's, 5 gig of memory and two 15000 rpm hard drives. running an outdated geforce 9500 on windows 7 and it will push all the performance number on w-7 rating to 6.0 or better out of a 7.9 max. scsi hard drives are a lot faster than sata. you need to run a performance chk. through your system and you will find out your problem, almost all this old systems had 10 or 15000 rpm hard drives...good luck
Score
0
a b α HP
November 19, 2011 12:52:28 PM

buckgrosshart said:
something not right here. i've got a xw8200 with two xeon 3.6 cpu's, 5 gig of memory and two 15000 rpm hard drives. running an outdated geforce 9500 on windows 7 and it will push all the performance number on w-7 rating to 6.0 or better out of a 7.9 max. scsi hard drives are a lot faster than sata. you need to run a performance chk. through your system and you will find out your problem, almost all this old systems had 10 or 15000 rpm hard drives...good luck

The OP posted this info: "My beast is an HP xw8200 with 4gb mem, 250 gb sata/7200rpm (8mb cache) HD, dual 3.2GHZ Xeonon (800 MHZ frontside bus) processors." I agree that 15K SCSI drives are much faster, but they also are somewhat expensive.
Score
0
!