Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sluggish performance on i7-2600k

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 4, 2011 1:09:29 PM

My new build is feeling more sluggish than I expected. Part of the reason I built a new machine is my last system had slow response times (AMD Phenom 9950, 8GB memory). Even opening up Firefox takes several seconds. Here's what I'm running:

i7-2600K
ASUS P8Z68-V Pro (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131730)
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231468)
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 Quad (http://www.pcpower.com/power-supply/silencer-750-quad-black.html)
LIAN LI PC-7B plus II case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811112099)
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 SATA 3Gb/s 1-TB Hard Drive (http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=0732f141e7f43110VgnVCM100000f5ee0a0aRCRD)
COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 EVO (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099)
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit


The PSU, case, and hard drive were re-used from my last build. The drive was formatted, so Windows is a clean install. Are the Barracuda drives notoriously slow or something? Is there anything I can do to make it run more efficiently? No reason it should be sluggish, even before overclocking.

Thanks
December 4, 2011 1:24:31 PM

Quote:
Even opening up Firefox takes several seconds.


The "sluggishness" you seem to be referring to is the bottleneck caused by mechanical HD's.

If you want that to go away get yourself an SSD, its the only way.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
December 4, 2011 1:40:46 PM

You haven´t listed you graphic card, or you don´t have one?
m
0
l
Related resources
December 4, 2011 2:03:59 PM

The old build had a 1GB Radeon HD 4870 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...).

I'm temporarily using the onboard video until a new card arrives (still trying to determine if the 2GB GTX 560 Ti would be more efficient than the 1GB GTX 560 Ti 448 core for video editing).

Would a 6Gb/s 7200rpm drive help with the bottleneck? I'm currently using a 3Gb/s 7200rpm drive. SSD isn't very affordable/practical for me, yet. This is a video editing machine and storage space is essential. I have a few more drives I still need to install on this build.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 2:09:32 PM

jackbt said:


Would a 6Gb/s 7200rpm drive help with the bottleneck? I'm currently using a 3Gb/s 7200rpm drive. SSD isn't very affordable/practical for me, yet. This is a video editing machine and storage space is essential. I have a few more drives I still need to install on this build.


You will see no real discernible difference with the 2 drives you listed above. If you really want that lag when opening apps to go away your only option is an SSD. The best way to do that is grab a 120gb or 240gb SSD (the largest you can afford) and install windows and your most used applications on the SSD. Use your old mechanical drives for data storage and least used applications. Even a low end SSD is massively faster than the fastest HDD's. You really can't even compare the two.

Currently using on board video will also slow you down some, in applications that are already running. However it doesn't really impact how long it takes for applications to load up or files to open. That is all in the storage drive.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 2:10:59 PM

Energy96 said:
Quote:
Even opening up Firefox takes several seconds.


The "sluggishness" you seem to be referring to is the bottleneck caused by mechanical HD's.

If you want that to go away get yourself an SSD, its the only way.


+1

Put a 16 core something with a zillion gigs of RAM, will still be sluggish with a HDD...btw about the barracuda. What firmware are you using? Had a barracuda (before i fried its firmware) and firmware version CC49 was crappy...

Anyway, launching programs is more or less entirely dependant on your HDD...

EDIT:
GPU is irrelevant here, and agree with Energy96's second post as well.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 2:21:12 PM

Thanks for the info, everyone. Sounds like SSD is the ultimate way to go. Might have to wait out the prices for a while, though. I think I'd run out of room on a 120GB drive fast (already at 65GB on the computer I built yesterday).

ojas, I'm using firmware SD15. I remember the big firmware incident at Seagate when I bought these drives in 2009. I know I had to update the firmware on my 1.5TB drive. Don't remember doing that to the current 1TB drive.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
December 4, 2011 2:25:14 PM

The Seagate -11 drive is ONE HDD that I've avoided, primarily from a reliaility standpoint.
Prior to the -11, Seagate was my HDD choice. Currently my choice is the Samsung F3 or WD black drives. HOWEVER, they are not the normal price (ie Samsung F3 1 TB use to be about $50-$60 on sale. Prices should drop back to normal mid 2012.

I would down load a benchmark program and check the HDD performance (compare it to published reviews for your drive). It may have developed bad sectors. Also make sure you are using the latest Intel RST drivers (10.6 or later). Your HDD should be on the Intel Sata II ports. (I use AS SSD as a benchmark performance tool, but is primarily for SSDs, but is OK for HDD.)
You should also download from Seagate their HDD diagnostic tools and check your HDD>

I'm using IE, but load performance should be very simular. My IE will normally load in less than 1 Sec. Same load time as opening a speadsheet (But I'm using an SSD).
Check connection time. Open a dos window and from the prompt enter ping www.foxnews.com My min = 23 mS, max = 24 mSec and avg = 23 mSec. This does not rely on HDD.




m
0
l
December 4, 2011 2:39:46 PM

Ah...my drives didn't use the SDxx series firmware...and my drive was a 7200.12...didn't work bad but their FW sucks...original was fine, then i decided to upgrade...CC46 was really good, then they destroyed it with CC49. Tries to force flash it back to CC46, and resulted in a fry.

Are you referring to CC-fry by any chance?? I remember reading about that...my PC was built in sept. 09 so...
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
December 4, 2011 2:44:39 PM

The 7200.11 had firmware issues and as said above was one model best avoided. The 10s and 12's were free of this issue. SSD's are great benchmarkers. Depending upon how you approach your work, subjectively, you may or may not notice the addition. For example, on a box upstairs with a tier 3 SSD (fastest 120GB available today), windows boots in 15.6 seconds..... going into BIOS and switching boot order I can bot off the Barracuda XT, the system boots in 21.1 seconds.

Is 21.2 secs slugggish and 15.6 secs not ?

On a side note, your 7200.1q's are now several years old..... that means you're approaching failure age. Ya might consider either a HD or HD and SSD replacement.....or another option....a hybrid

The Moments 750 GB hybrid HD boots to Windows in 17 seconds....the SSD in their tests (Vertex 3) did it in 16 .... the WD Black does it in 23.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

Quote:
When we switched to real-world tests, such as the Windows boot time, file transfer, and PCMark 7 tests, Seagate FAST Factor firmware and Adaptive Memory Technology really helped Momentus XT shine. In these tests, especially Windows boot time and file transfer, the second-generation Momentus XT SSHD outperformed the PCI-Express hybrid solution and surpassed hard disk performance....

Seagate has come a long way with the Momentus series, and the benchmarks show a maturity in hybrid technology. Judging by the pace of development, it won't be long before the Momentus XT matches SSD performance in every task - not just what's cached. I'll agree that 8GB is a solid start, but eventually this SSD cache will need to grow beyond 32GB to really achieve what solid state drives can already do.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
December 4, 2011 2:46:43 PM

Added to Post:
(1) On Sata III (6) HDDs on SATA III port - Only real advantage over a SATA II drive on a SATA II interface is in Burst performance. SATA III HHD is more a marketing tool!!!

For your system, This is what I would shoot for.
.. An SSD for OS and Programs. This only improves Boot time and Program loads.
.. Two HDDs in Raid0 configuration. In Most cases I do NOT recommend Raid0 anymore. However in your case it could be very anvantagous. OR a seperate (2nd) SSD as a "working" drive couples with a HDD for storage.

Raid0
.. Improves Sequencial read/writes, which is the LEAST important matrix for a OS + program drive as the small file 4K random (and access time) is the Most important.
.. Sequencial read/writes performance is very important For working with Large file types such as Video (DVD = 1 Gig and Blue ray can be upto 40 gig for a single file), Cad/Cam drawing files, and if working with large Jpeg Photos on a frequent basis.
.. More cost effective than a Large SSD

Jack
Would aggree with you that the Hybrid Drive is an exceelent choice as a compormise in most cases. It will provide near SSD performance for Boot and program loads. However it may be slower after program is loaded and working with video files. Reason is that if the video file is not in "cache" the system will first check cache and after not finding it there will then go to HDD and file load/writing is restricketed to HDD times.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
December 4, 2011 4:10:43 PM

After buying an SSD and installing Windows on it, I will never, ever go back to a mechanical drive for my OS. And when they come down in price a little one of these days, I am going to add a larger one for programs.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 4:18:57 PM

jitpublisher said:
After buying an SSD and installing Windows on it, I will never, ever go back to a mechanical drive for my OS. And when they come down in price a little one of these days, I am going to add a larger one for programs.


Agreed, I went with a 240gb Mushkin Chronos Deluxe and I can't wait to buy another. I don't care what benchmarks show, the experience is phenomenal. Looking back I don't know how I ever used a PC without one. When I go to work I want to throw the PC there out the window due to its HDD.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 4:56:15 PM

I've been going back and forth with firefox. Lately, it keeps crashing my system while browsing when I'm also running uTorrent. It very well could be some networking issue on my end... I'm not sure. I've just switched to the Chrome browser. Even IE didn't give me this much trouble.

I run firefox from the ocz vertex 3 max iops... its the system drive. It really does make all the difference. My firefox, and chrome, are set up with 5 tabs as homepage, and right away takes over 400mb of ram. It takes about 7 seconds from launching to having all 5 pages loaded completely (including automatically logging in with saved username/passwords).
m
0
l
!