Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Why my core i3 is so slow?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 11, 2011 5:14:04 AM

Hello,
I previously had ..
Dg41-RQ
Dual core E5300
3GB ram
250 GB harddisk.
..... I was able to run many apps at a time in dual core..
But now i have sold Dual core ,ram and motherboard.
and have bought
Corei3 540
2 GB Ram
And DH55TC
..
But the performance is so much low...as compared to my dual core :( 
I can run only ONE App at a time :@
And even my pc is responding so slow.. !!!!
apps are opened after a wait....which was not in DUal core.!!!!
SO what is the problem??:(  i cant figure it out !!
........................
M using windows 7 64bit !!
After purchasing he PC
I installed windows in C drive ,,by formatting it ..
as the old windows was not booting because of hardware change...
I didnt change the harddisk .. This is the old one!!!
Which i bought it with Dual core..!!!!
What seems to be the problem???:( 
(Sorry for the English)
..
And yah.. last thing
I have ATI HD 4670 too ..
In dual core i was getting approx 30fps ..on 1024*768 with low GFX
but with this core i3 i m only getting 40 -45 fps with 1024*768 on high ,,,, on very high it lags so much !! :@
PLs help!!!!!!!!!!!
I tried everyything ..!
XP... wins 7 and both 32 bit and 64 bit .. !!!
Nothing improves :( 
Using antivirus Esset smart security from 6 years i gues ..!! ahh .. i just dnt know what to do ....

More about : core slow

a c 102 à CPUs
March 11, 2011 9:57:49 AM

Its most likely because you went from 3Gb RAM to 2Gb
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2011 10:04:47 AM

Exactly what i was thinking, add a stick of 2gb RAM and your multitasking performance should improve.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 113 à CPUs
March 11, 2011 12:14:29 PM

Quote:
And yah.. last thing
I have ATI HD 4670 too ..
In dual core i was getting approx 30fps ..on 1024*768 with low GFX
but with this core i3 i m only getting 40 -45 fps with 1024*768 on high ,,,, on very high it lags so much !! :@
What GFX was installed in your old system? A 4670 isn't a good gaming card.
m
0
l
a c 120 à CPUs
March 11, 2011 3:41:01 PM

I agree more ram would help.
Also a corrupted or damaged hdd will not help gaming performance.
A clean install of Win7 usually yeilds very good results.
I'd do a sfc/scannow of the hdd in safemode for piece of mind.
m
0
l
March 11, 2011 4:29:04 PM

simon12 said:
Its most likely because you went from 3Gb RAM to 2Gb

Yeah i have ..but old one was DDR2 ...this one is DDR3 !!!
It shuld perfom faster i guess .. :/ 
m
0
l
March 11, 2011 4:31:28 PM

GhislainG said:
Quote:
And yah.. last thing
I have ATI HD 4670 too ..
In dual core i was getting approx 30fps ..on 1024*768 with low GFX
but with this core i3 i m only getting 40 -45 fps with 1024*768 on high ,,,, on very high it lags so much !! :@
What GFX was installed in your old system? A 4670 isn't a good gaming card.

Same with Dual core HD 4670!!
Yeah i know this isnt high end gaming card. but works fine too .!!!
I dont play games that much ..
I do lots of renders !!!!
The point was that ... i shuld get muchhh mmore fps than dual core??? shuldnt i??:/
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2011 4:52:41 PM

Having 45 fps on high compared to 30 fps on low is still a pretty nice upgrade, altough it depends on the game [ it would be nice if you tell us what is the game, we cant compare CS to Metro 2033, altough a PC must srsly suck to have 30 fps on CS :D  ;)  ] . And dont expect awesome gaming performance with an i3 540 and an ati 4670.With that config i would play games on `medium`graphics to get good fps. If that configuration gave good gaming why would people waste money for i7s and SLI 580s ? :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2011 5:54:34 PM

Yes, your bottleneck could still be the ram. You did not specify the "speed" of your ram. DDR3, triple channel, vs DDR2 daul channel. Just some comments to chew on.
(1) 3 sticks of DDR2 is probably runing slower than it could because you were runing single channel mode - Dual channel requires 2 sticks (or 4 sticks) preferably matched. DDR3 will only run in triple channel mode when 3 sticks are used. If two sticks are used then it will be daul channel mode P/H/M55 or 57 is always daul channel, and one stick will be back to single channel mode. IS your 2 Gigs of Ram one module, or two modules. If one module then add a 2nd 2 gig module (MATCH brand/speed/cl ratings). If 2 modules you can buy a 2nd PAIR, or ditch the 2 sticks and buy 2 x 2 gig sticks - Your choice.

(2) Total memory - dropping from 3 gigs to 2 gigs will impact your performance more than the "speed" diff. The OLD 2 gigs Min and 4 gigs recommend is NOW 4 gigs min and 8 gigs recommended. Main reason for the 4 gig min, not 3 gig min is to maintain the memory in daul channel mode.
m
0
l
March 12, 2011 9:48:15 AM

Did you install the drivers that came with your motherboard? Better yet go to intel's site and install the latest chipset drivers. Most likely the lack of drivers is slowing down hard disk access.

BTW forget about dual or single channel ram. ddr2 800MHz CL5 is actually slightly faster than DDR3 1333MHz CL9 and dual or single channel ram makes negligible difference. Quantity of ram matters more than anything else. But I doubt your problems are due to 1GB less memory. They sound too severe to be caused by that.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
March 12, 2011 3:02:11 PM

Concur with Psycho - it is recommended that when changing MBs, it is best to do a clean install. Insures that correct drivers are installed and it cleans the registry. This may be a pain in the rear, but often is worth it!.

On memory quanity - the diff between 2 and 3 gigs is more pronounced in Win 7 than in XP. Increased bloat in Win 7. Alot depends on memory -> HDD swappes, If the swap file gets accessed alot, then performance hit can be considerable.
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2011 7:15:46 AM

Whatever just tell the guy the truth your INTEL i3 Sucks is a low end trash your e5300 also sucked was low end get a e6800 or e7500 er better yet a AMD athlon x3 3.3mhz dual they kick the *** out of the i3 cpus.

Dont argue INTEL boys you know this is true.
m
0
l
April 6, 2011 7:40:54 AM

Yeah, I have the same problem with you!Thanks for sharing!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2011 1:16:26 PM

@ Nukleyi
"get a e6800 or e7500 er better yet a AMD athlon x3 3.3mhz dual they kick the *** out of the i3 cpus."
Constructive suggestions would be more beneficial.
(A) He has already bought the system - A e6800 or e7500 is NOT an option as they would not fit in his MB.
(B) A AMD CPU would require that he buy a new MB in addition to a New Processor.
(C) Compared to (B) above - An upgrade to an I5-760 (and OCed to 3.8 GHz) would be cheaper and would AS YOU put it "Kick the *** out of the" x3 AMD CPU.

Not an Intel Fanboy, just stating the facts.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2011 2:11:52 PM

Hassam, that was quite possibly the dumbest "upgrade" ever.

If your using Vista or Win7, use Microsoft Security Essentials, it's free. Forget ESET.
m
0
l
April 17, 2011 2:52:41 PM

Best answer selected by Hassam Tariq.
m
0
l
April 17, 2011 2:55:59 PM

RetiredChief said:
Concur with Psycho - it is recommended that when changing MBs, it is best to do a clean install. Insures that correct drivers are installed and it cleans the registry. This may be a pain in the rear, but often is worth it!.

On memory quanity - the diff between 2 and 3 gigs is more pronounced in Win 7 than in XP. Increased bloat in Win 7. Alot depends on memory -> HDD swappes, If the swap file gets accessed alot, then performance hit can be considerable.

Hey You are right man!:)  ..a clean install was required ..!!
thats was really painful :/ 
Even i backup all the data ..and then Repartitioned the harddisk .!
Now PC is working cool now!;)
Doing Heavy renders ..!!
Mucch faster than my stupid dual core:p 
Thanks!!
m
0
l
April 17, 2011 2:58:24 PM

Thanks all of of u guys!!
Helping me out .
But all that needed was a clean install ..!!!
Thank you all !!
m
0
l
!