Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why does my AMD Athlon II X4 630 seem slow to start applications?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 3, 2010 5:16:23 PM

Hi.

Something is puzzling me about my Athlon II X4 630. When I start applications such as the Sisoft Sandra installer and other .exe files, this processor seems to "lag" ie it takes some time for it to start, the mouse icon changes to a ring etc, whilst my former Intel C2D 2.13Ghz seems to start installers much quicker. When the progress bar is onscreen then it is obvious that the Athlon II is much quicker than my C2d but it's just when I first click the .exe file. Is this normal? Has anyone else noticed this or is it just my perception? I should have timed the whole process.

I am running Windows 7 32-bit with 2Gb DDR3 1333Mhz memory and have experienced this on both an ASUS M4A785TD-V Evo mobo and an MSI 785GM-E51 so I don't think it's the mobo.

Thanks.
a c 190 à CPUs
March 3, 2010 5:20:34 PM

How much ram did your C2D rig have? If it has 4GB of ram it didnt have to access the HDD for page files nearly as often. What hard drive do you have? Much of an application's lag on starting can be attributed to the slow speed of HDDs relative to the rest of the system especially when trying to find a file.
March 3, 2010 5:28:03 PM

My C2D had 2GB 667Mhz Ram and a Samsung 80Gb 2MB cache

My Athlon II X4 630 has a Samsung F3 500Gb 16mb cache
Related resources
March 3, 2010 5:59:16 PM

Is your hard drive set to power down when idle?
a c 131 à CPUs
March 3, 2010 6:00:59 PM

Hmm. The Samsung F3 should be faster. You were using windows 7 32-bit on your other computer too right?
March 3, 2010 7:56:52 PM

Yes, Windows 7 RC
March 3, 2010 8:00:20 PM

How can I tell if the HDD is set to power down when idle?
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2010 8:36:39 PM


Control panel > Hardware > Power Management

Take a look at the settings for your current power management profile.
March 4, 2010 7:07:58 AM

OK Thanks
March 4, 2010 12:22:33 PM

I've run the ES-Tool Samsung Diagnostic and everything checks out OK with the disk. The spin up and spin down time is about 5 or 6 seconds which seems long to me but it passed OK.

Perhaps I am just being too harsh and expecting too much. Could it be the memory? I bought it off ebay and it is a branded (Hynix DDR3 1333Mhz) but perhaps it is slow. The memory passed the ES-Tool test too but I haven't done much more with it.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2010 12:27:02 PM


You could use CPU-Z to not only check what speed you are currently running the memory at, but also what type it is as well as its SPD settings.
March 4, 2010 6:55:59 PM

Yes, thanks.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2010 7:28:36 PM

I use that processor on Win7 and I experience little to no lag for apps starting up. I do have 4GB DDR3 1333MHz though so that could be the difference (click the link in my sig for specs). Like the first replier mentioned it could be down to the HDD but then it should be faster than your previous.

I would put my money on there not being enough RAM and Windows having to to use the swap file which is a lot slower. How many apps do you have running at startup and at any one time?
March 23, 2010 10:14:33 AM

Check out the video on this page to see exactly what I mean.

http://www.golem.de/showhigh2.php?file=/1003/73484.html...

At 48 seconds a video file is opened and it takes more than a second to open Media Player and start playing the file. I am using an Intel Core 2 Duo (E4500) at the mo and it takes less time than that to start playing a video file. This is the "lag" that I am talking about and it doesn't seem to happen with my Intel chip although as I have stated previously, when the install programme has started etc. it is clear that the AMD chip is faster.

The video is clear evidence of the anomaly I am experiencing. I must conclude that AMD chips are slow to start applications/programmes because even AMD's six-core chip exhibits what I am saying.
March 23, 2010 1:10:01 PM

What virus software are you using? I was running Kaspersky Internet Security 2010 and it caused long boot ups, long log ins and apps like Firefox were slow to launch (sometimes 5 seconds or more).

When I dumped it and went to Avast, my boot up, login and application launch times have been really fast now. Time to boot and login to a desktop is about 50 seconds total. Firefox launches instantly now and so do my other programs.
March 23, 2010 2:19:03 PM

Free Avast Home. Whe I first built the Athlon II 630 PC it wasn't running anti-virus and not connected to the internet.
March 23, 2010 2:20:15 PM

How about defragging your hard drive, cleaning up old temp files, etc?


Also, when was the last time you did a clean install of the OS? In fact, when you replaced the mother board, did you reinstall the OS or just allow the drivers to update? because if you did, you really need to uninstall all drivers from your previous motherboard first, shut down, install the new motherboard and then reboot and allow Windows to find and install the new motherboard's drivers.

It might be time for a clean install.
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2010 2:21:59 PM

What Hunter said above - My vote is that the reason it takes a few seconds to load apps is that your system is limited by Hard Drive I/O. It can help a little bit to run in AHCI mode and enable NCQ in the bios. Best done on a fresh install, but it's possible to enable that after the fact in Vista and 7 if you're comfortable altering the system registry.
March 23, 2010 5:01:02 PM

It's a new build. The video in the link shows quite clearly that AMD CPUs are crap at starting applications. I won't fall for the hype again. It's not my hard disk or anti-virus or anything else, it's the CPU, and I'll stick with Intel for now even though they're dearer.
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2010 6:00:14 PM

AMD chips are not crap starting applications
March 23, 2010 7:33:55 PM

@doive1231

There's something else wrong. It's not the AMD. I was running an AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ before I upgraded, and application start up was slower than what I have now with my Phenom, but not that much slower. But the real issues like what you report only were occurring when I was running Kaspersky Internet Security 2010. When I switched to Avast, the problem went away. There is something else and the video link you provided is from someone we don't even know. Heck, I know some German, but who knows what the heck they're talking about. Besides, when he started a video, it started up pretty quick from what I saw.

AMDs are not crap. They may not be as fast as i7s, but they definitely are no slouches. Now, in your case, your running an Athlon II. Those ARE slower than a Phenom due to not having the third cache like the Phenom II do, but even then, they still are not crap CPUs. There is something else wrong with your set up.

As for it being a new build, you could still have a severely fragged hard drive. Did you even attempt to see if it's fragmented? Even with installing software, that can frag up a hard drive pretty quick.

March 24, 2010 9:21:31 AM

Sorry, but the evidence is there in front of your eyes.

AMD's flagship processor, the six-core Thuban is slow even starting up Media Player. I would expect Media Player to start almost immediately with such a chip. I am seeing the same results with my Athlon II 630 on the applications I start.

This is AMD at Cebit on an amazing rig. Babelfish translation:

"While in Hanover at many conditions still one screws, AMD developed its highlight for the Cebit already 2010 in a discussion area of the Green IT conditions of the federation Bitkom. For the first time the chip manufacturer shows there its 6-Kern-Prozessor " Thuban" in enterprise."

If you can't explain the video and I'm telling you it's not anti-virus or a fragged drive, then I must have a point.
March 24, 2010 9:32:29 AM

I don't speak german...
March 24, 2010 12:13:22 PM

Well, then I wish I knew why Media Player starts playing a video for me within 3-4 seconds on my AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition whether it's overclocked or not, with or without the 4th core unlocked?

I've been using AMDs for the past 10+ years and have always been pleased with their performance.
March 25, 2010 7:30:19 AM

As soon as I started using the Athlon the lag was obvious compared to an Intel chip.

Delusion is rife on these forums.
a c 133 à CPUs
March 25, 2010 7:35:29 AM

Your lags are from the litlle L2 cache and the non existent L3. Also IMO the memory controller on the Athlons are very weak. Now the Phenom IIs are nice cheap processors. The Athlons IMO are a joke.
March 25, 2010 9:17:00 AM

doive1231 said:
As soon as I started using the Athlon the lag was obvious compared to an Intel chip.

Delusion is rife on these forums.


I pointed to your issue. You have smaller cache on the Athlon II's. The Phenom II's are much better due to the 3rd cache which is non-existent in the Athlon's. There is no delusion here. But, if you just wish to insult rather than actually read what we've posted in our attempts to help you, then by all means, do as you wish.

What you've now done is bring this post down to the levels of the PC vs. Console argument. It's petty and useless here. Sorry we tried to explain some things to you.




a c 133 à CPUs
March 25, 2010 11:41:55 AM

isamuelson said:
I pointed to your issue. You have smaller cache on the Athlon II's. The Phenom II's are much better due to the 3rd cache which is non-existent in the Athlon's. There is no delusion here. But, if you just wish to insult rather than actually read what we've posted in our attempts to help you, then by all means, do as you wish.

What you've now done is bring this post down to the levels of the PC vs. Console argument. It's petty and useless here. Sorry we tried to explain some things to you.


Some people will just never get it no matter how hard we try it just will never seep in.
March 25, 2010 2:12:52 PM

SAAIELLO says "The Athlons IMO are a joke. " This is some of what I said and yet I get shot down.

isamuelson, the 6-core Thuban will have both L2 and L3 cache and yet it is slow to start Media Player in the video. If you haven't used an Intel chip in 10+ years, how can you be so sure?

Nobody has refuted my claims, only attempted diversion.
March 25, 2010 3:00:50 PM

Read my post! I said Phenom II. They are different, I repeat, DIFFERENT from the Athlon. You apparently are either choosing to ignore what I said or else you're not comprehending what I'm saying.

The Phenom II's have a 6mb level 3 cache. The Athlon's only have level 1 and 2 cache.

You, sir, are running an Athlon. I am running a Phenom. There is an architectural difference there that makes your CPU slower and less efficient than mine.

BTW, how come you are now throwing in the Thuron which has never been in our discussion? Again, I watched the video and I saw his video launch almost immediately. Maybe if you would post a video where the guy speaks in english, we could really understand what he said because I don't see where it takes forever and if it does, we don't know why and maybe the guy is explaining it.

Maybe you would care to interpret the video for those of us that don't speak German? Until then, I take the video you've linked to with a grain of salt and assume you are just bashing the AMDs to bash them.


March 25, 2010 7:51:52 PM

I know german but i cant watch that vid on my iphone. Ill let u know when i get home... But someone plz post something so that it shows up in my new treads box or else i might forget...
March 25, 2010 8:53:00 PM

shovenose said:
I know german but i cant watch that vid on my iphone. Ill let u know when i get home... But someone plz post something so that it shows up in my new treads box or else i might forget...


Thanks Shovenose! It will be interesting to know exactly what the guy was talking about.

March 26, 2010 2:31:27 AM

1st of all, i noticed that, in the beginning, that it says in system information, only 3.5gb of ram is usable, so its a 32-bit version...
socket am3...
stable under high load...
2.8ghz...
when they open the video, yes theres a tiny bit of lag, but really thats probably even present in the best intel system out there. i believe it is due the hard drive...
going to be released 2nd quarter 2010...

not a very interesting video...
it seems stupid they used an x86/32-bit version of wondows 7...

hope this helps!
March 26, 2010 2:36:27 AM

shovenose said:
1st of all, i noticed that, in the beginning, that it says in system information, only 3.5gb of ram is usable, so its a 32-bit version...
socket am3...
stable under high load...
2.8ghz...
when they open the video, yes theres a tiny bit of lag, but really thats probably even present in the best intel system out there. i believe it is due the hard drive...
going to be released 2nd quarter 2010...

not a very interesting video...
it seems stupid they used an x86/32-bit version of wondows 7...

hope this helps!


Well, with the way the OP is acting, he's stating the AMD takes forever to launch and play a media file and is throwing such a hissy fit about it. I mean, he acts like he's aged three or four years waiting for the file to launch.

I really wonder how much of it is his system? I have no problems with videos launching within 3 seconds on my system. I mean, does he expect the file to launch within microseconds? No Intel CPU machine can do that! [:isamuelson]

What was the video about anyways? The OP is stating it was proof of AMD chips being slow. I didn't see that at all in the video.



March 26, 2010 2:41:13 AM

what was it about? he didint actually say anything usufel, exept that itll work on esiting mobos as long as u update the bios to the latest version..basically, NOTHING!
March 26, 2010 2:56:10 AM

He was just crying about non-existent issues, even without the L3 cache Athlon II's don't have any application start-up problems, look back at Core 2 Duos, Quads, they had no L2 cache either.
A SSD would save you 50% on start-up time, a Core i7 vs Athlon II? About 0.1 sec at the most over a 5 sec start-up.
March 26, 2010 9:21:28 AM

shovenose said:
what was it about? he didint actually say anything usufel, exept that itll work on esiting mobos as long as u update the bios to the latest version..basically, NOTHING!


Thanks! I guess your avatar applies to the OP then. Basically, he's spreading FUD. I really think at this point his issue is operator error.
March 26, 2010 12:01:38 PM

I can only tell you what I am experiencing. You say you have a Phenom with L3 cache and so does the Thuban in the video. Therefore you can compare.

The fact that the video is in German is irrelevant. You can watch for yourself. I even translated that it is a genuine AMD setup at CEBIT.

If you have used AMD chips for 10+ years, how can you be so sure?

I'm telling you, the Athlon II is slow to start applications compared to an Intel Core 2 Duo, as I've also shown from a legitimate source. It's up to you to decide either it's not or present some evidence to the contrary if you wish to contribute here.

The delusion occurs when people, including review sites, say how quick or otherwise one CPU or piece of hardware is compared to another but miss out important facts such as application start-up, compatability issues, saying hardware is supported but only with additional expenditure etc. in an overall effort to get more money from us the consumer and keep themselves in employment.

My conclusion is that I won't buy an AMD CPU again whilst I'm uncertain as to it performance vis-a-vis this issue.
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2010 1:28:27 PM

doive1231 said:
I can only tell you what I am experiencing. You say you have a Phenom with L3 cache and so does the Thuban in the video. Therefore you can compare.

The fact that the video is in German is irrelevant. You can watch for yourself. I even translated that it is a genuine AMD setup at CEBIT.

If you have used AMD chips for 10+ years, how can you be so sure?

I'm telling you, the Athlon II is slow to start applications compared to an Intel Core 2 Duo, as I've also shown from a legitimate source. It's up to you to decide either it's not or present some evidence to the contrary if you wish to contribute here.

The delusion occurs when people, including review sites, say how quick or otherwise one CPU or piece of hardware is compared to another but miss out important facts such as application start-up, compatability issues, saying hardware is supported but only with additional expenditure etc. in an overall effort to get more money from us the consumer and keep themselves in employment.

My conclusion is that I won't buy an AMD CPU again whilst I'm uncertain as to it performance vis-a-vis this issue.


Wait what? :heink: 

The only way a cpu would cause lagging would be due to it under powered for the times. Which a Athlon II more than powerful enough to use for most people. If my pentium 4 HT cpu at 2.6 (under clocked from 2.8Ghz) doesn't lag using current software, then athlon II shouldn't be able to.

Do you see 1 or more of your cores running 100% when opening an application? If not, then it isn't the cpu causing the lag.

I would more guess the HDD is causing slow start ups applications. Yes you have a fairly modern HDD but what is it access/seek time?

That the one thing i see some people overlooking when getting a HDD. Just because HDDs has a fast read speed doesn't mean it will feel fast.

March 26, 2010 1:32:01 PM

I dont really want to argue with you, however, though i do not prefer one cpu brand over another, amds are NOT worse than intels. Sure intel currently has the fastest desktop cpu out there currently (i7 980x), but that doesnt mean amd sucks! My core 2 duo e6600 is slower than my athlon 64 3500+ single core setup, so no intels arent neccesarily better. And yes i have have the c2d oced 200mhz! Just because u are using an overall setup that does not open stuff instantaneously, that doeant mean amd sucks!

If u want to claim amd crappy, go to the amd and intel general dis ussions sticky in the top of the cpu forum category and fight if out with somwone there!
I will not post on thisxthread anymore.
March 27, 2010 2:54:39 PM

Please read my posts properly. I didn't say AMD are crap. I said they are crap at starting applications because IMO they take longer than a less specified Intel chip to start up the various applications that I have tried it with (an E4500 v Athlon II 630). I would time this to prove it to you but I have sold the Athlon and am getting an Intel. Nobody has proved me otherwise so I am entitled to my opinion.
March 27, 2010 5:20:02 PM

doive1231 said:
Please read my posts properly. I didn't say AMD are crap. I said they are crap at starting applications because IMO they take longer than a less specified Intel chip to start up the various applications that I have tried it with (an E4500 v Athlon II 630). I would time this to prove it to you but I have sold the Athlon and am getting an Intel. Nobody has proved me otherwise so I am entitled to my opinion.


If this problem is so pervasive, why not find some more sources showing evidence of it?
March 27, 2010 6:19:53 PM

quite frankly the op is an idiot. There i said it.
a c 133 à CPUs
March 27, 2010 7:43:49 PM

yannifb said:
quite frankly the op is an idiot. There i said it.

:lol: 
March 27, 2010 9:17:00 PM

yannifb said:
quite frankly the op is an idiot. There i said it.


No man, you have an AMD cpu, so you wouldn't know.

(sarcasm)
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2010 2:01:17 PM

doive1231 said:
Please read my posts properly. I didn't say AMD are crap. I said they are crap at starting applications because IMO they take longer than a less specified Intel chip to start up the various applications that I have tried it with (an E4500 v Athlon II 630). I would time this to prove it to you but I have sold the Athlon and am getting an Intel. Nobody has proved me otherwise so I am entitled to my opinion.


:pfff: 

Well if you not wantting to read what i said, I'll just show a video of an SSD with an AMD cpu.



While i this guy doesn't say what cpu he has (either that or i missed it), you can at least see motherboard box. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

As for the point of the video, All im saying is seek/access time it the cause of your problem of slow program start up (if there really is any). As you can see, With an SSD, program are either nearly or are opening instantly. So it was never the cpu to being with.


*for a different point, if you guys watch the video, there reason why we shouldn't buy computer stuff off of ebay. :lol: *
March 28, 2010 2:24:58 PM

format your hdd and re-install windows
!