Subject: Newly built comp is laggy and begins to hangs

Specs,



Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz

Motherboard: Asus P5E3 Deluxe with Intel X38 chipset

Ram: Mushkin Enhanced 2x1GB DDR3 1333MHz;

Graphics Card: Asus GeForce 9800GTX 512Mb

Sound Card: Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS

Harddisk: 2 x WD120GB and 1 x WD320GB

DVDRW: Pioneer 18X drive

PSU: CoolerMaster Extreme Power 650W



I just finished assembling my comp last weekend and have been using with no
hardware problems. The thing is that the system just does not seem that much
quicker or responsive than what I expected in comparison to my old P4
2.4GHz. I'm saying this happens when performing various task such as
starting of application, photo editing, running office or running games
(Counterstrike, Battlefield 2, Starcraft etc.). I was expecting the overall
system to be substantially faster considering the faster processor and ram
and also more responsive due more powerful graphics card and faster ram. But
this doestn't seem so, rather the system is mainly sluggish and every task
done seems to have some delay.



Another thing is the system would sometimes restart itself during bootup,
usually after the Windows logo while entering windows. And recently the
system started to hang when I launch graphics intensive application like my
Battelfield 2 game, Google Earth or my Sim Aquarium 2 screensaver.



I'm guessing this (the restarting and hanging), could be a problem with my
ram (CL 9,9,9,24) being faulty or it could be that there might be a problem
with the power as I'm using a 4pin ATX12V connector for my motherboard
whereas it comes with an 8pin EPS + 12V power plug for the EATX12V. But
coming to the system being sluggish and less responsive I'm still at a lost
or could it be due to the same causes.



Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.







Jerry

Jerry Chong wrote:

>
> I'm guessing this (the restarting and hanging), could be a problem with my
> ram (CL 9,9,9,24) being faulty or it could be that there might be a problem
> with the power as I'm using a 4pin ATX12V connector for my motherboard
> whereas it comes with an 8pin EPS + 12V power plug for the EATX12V. But
> coming to the system being sluggish and less responsive I'm still at a lost
> or could it be due to the same causes.

Run any common benchmark and see how your system fares compares with
others with the same CPU. It's hard to diagnose things using "feelings",
it's much easier with hard data :-)

"Jerry Chong" <kktime@streamyx.com> wrote in message
news:4825ea8a$1_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Specs,
>
>
>
> Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz
>
> Motherboard: Asus P5E3 Deluxe with Intel X38 chipset
>
> Ram: Mushkin Enhanced 2x1GB DDR3 1333MHz;
>
> Graphics Card: Asus GeForce 9800GTX 512Mb
>
> Sound Card: Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
>
> Harddisk: 2 x WD120GB and 1 x WD320GB
>
> DVDRW: Pioneer 18X drive
>
> PSU: CoolerMaster Extreme Power 650W
>
>
>
> I just finished assembling my comp last weekend and have been using with
> no hardware problems. The thing is that the system just does not seem that
> much quicker or responsive than what I expected in comparison to my old P4
> 2.4GHz.

(snip)

Nope, you built a more current system which should run slightly faster, but
not noticeably so. The problem is, your old system was right on the edge
where CPU manufacturers stopped competing on pure clock speed, and started
adding features, instead. Such as multiple cores. If your new CPU is
3.16GHz, that's pretty fast. But so is 2.4GHz. You'd have to bump up to
about 5GHz to really notice a difference, assuming that all other components
could keep up with that processor. -Dave

"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:g04vr3$uhc$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Jerry Chong" <kktime@streamyx.com> wrote in message
> news:4825ea8a$1_2@news.tm.net.my...
>> Specs,
>>
>>
>>
>> Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz
>>
>> Motherboard: Asus P5E3 Deluxe with Intel X38 chipset
>>
>> Ram: Mushkin Enhanced 2x1GB DDR3 1333MHz;
>>
>> Graphics Card: Asus GeForce 9800GTX 512Mb
>>
>> Sound Card: Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
>>
>> Harddisk: 2 x WD120GB and 1 x WD320GB
>>
>> DVDRW: Pioneer 18X drive
>>
>> PSU: CoolerMaster Extreme Power 650W
>>
>>
>>
>> I just finished assembling my comp last weekend and have been using with
>> no hardware problems. The thing is that the system just does not seem
>> that much quicker or responsive than what I expected in comparison to my
>> old P4 2.4GHz.
>
> (snip)
>
> Nope, you built a more current system which should run slightly faster,
> but not noticeably so. The problem is, your old system was right on the
> edge where CPU manufacturers stopped competing on pure clock speed, and
> started adding features, instead. Such as multiple cores. If your new
> CPU is 3.16GHz, that's pretty fast. But so is 2.4GHz. You'd have to bump
> up to about 5GHz to really notice a difference, assuming that all other
> components could keep up with that processor. -Dave
>
>
>


-----------


Where the new computers shine is at mult-tasking. However, I'm more
interested in running one application very quickly and reliably. I've gone
back to using my Dell 2.8 GHz computer for music recording and editing. I
can find a few computers that advertise they are as fast, or faster, but so
far no one has topped it running Sonar 4 or 5.

I bought a new Dell XPS with a 6550 and 4 GB of ram last year. It came with
Vista, unfortunately. I was told that it would easily cream my 2.8 GHz Dell
in speed. It had a 64 bit, dual channel chip running at 1.8 GHz. It was a
turtle. Furthermore, I couldn't get the hard drive to let me replace Visa
with Win XP Pro, no matter what I did. We talked about this before. One day
a Dell representative called to ask me if I was pleased with the XPS. I told
her that I was not happy. She offered to take it back. I accepted. I was
much happier after that. That was a $2000 computer in those days. Here I am
with a five year old Dell that dusts the new computers drawers with ease.
What's the world coming to?

Ed Cregger

"Ed Cregger" <ecregger@bellsouff.net> wrote:

....

> Where the new computers shine is at mult-tasking. However, I'm
> more interested in running one application very quickly and
> reliably. I've gone back to using my Dell 2.8 GHz computer

> I bought a new Dell XPS with a 6550 and 4 GB of ram last year. It
> came with Vista, unfortunately. I was told that it would easily
> cream my 2.8 GHz Dell in speed.

The E6850 would cream your 2.8 GHz Dell in speed, depending partly
on your applications.

> It had a 64 bit, dual channel chip running at 1.8 GHz. It was a
> turtle.

If an application is using only one core, then you may as well be
using a single core 1.8 GHz CPU. Naturally it's going to be slower.

> That was a $2000 computer in those days. Here I am with a five
> year old Dell that dusts the new computers drawers with ease.

Like somebody in the electronics design group said, it's the
gigaflops that matter (without other bottlenecks). If you have a
dual core chip running at 1.8 GHz, that's probably roughly
equivalent to a single core 3.6 GHz if it is fully utilizing both
cores. I had an Opteron 152 (2.6 GHz, 1 MB cache, 400 MHz bus) and
recently upgraded to an Intel E6850 (3.0 GHz, 4 MB cache, 1333 MHz
bus). Even running a single application, when both cores are being
fully utilized, preliminary results indicate that the new CPU is two
or three times faster. It's only the second upgrade I've been
impressed with, the first being the move from VESA to PCI a long
time ago. It makes little difference in ordinary everyday stuff, but
multitasking isn't required to benefit from multiple cores.

I wrote:

> [dual/multiple cores make] little difference in ordinary everyday
> stuff

However, multiple cores are making a big difference with speech
recognition that is constantly used. It's much more responsive
especially at times when it used to bog down, the CPU always has
time for it.

Jerry Chong wrote:
> Specs,
>
>
>
> Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz
>
> Motherboard: Asus P5E3 Deluxe with Intel X38 chipset
>
> Ram: Mushkin Enhanced 2x1GB DDR3 1333MHz;
>
> Graphics Card: Asus GeForce 9800GTX 512Mb
>
> Sound Card: Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
>
> Harddisk: 2 x WD120GB and 1 x WD320GB
>
> DVDRW: Pioneer 18X drive
>
> PSU: CoolerMaster Extreme Power 650W
>
>
>
> I just finished assembling my comp last weekend and have been using
> with no hardware problems. The thing is that the system just does not
> seem that much quicker or responsive than what I expected in
> comparison to my old P4 2.4GHz. I'm saying this happens when
> performing various task such as
> starting of application, photo editing, running office or running
> games (Counterstrike, Battlefield 2, Starcraft etc.). I was expecting
> the overall system to be substantially faster considering the faster
> processor and ram and also more responsive due more powerful graphics
> card and faster ram. But this doestn't seem so, rather the system is
> mainly sluggish and every task done seems to have some delay.
>
>
>
> Another thing is the system would sometimes restart itself during
> bootup, usually after the Windows logo while entering windows. And
> recently the system started to hang when I launch graphics intensive
> application like my Battelfield 2 game, Google Earth or my Sim
> Aquarium 2 screensaver.
>
>
> I'm guessing this (the restarting and hanging), could be a problem
> with my ram (CL 9,9,9,24) being faulty or it could be that there
> might be a problem with the power as I'm using a 4pin ATX12V
> connector for my motherboard whereas it comes with an 8pin EPS + 12V
> power plug for the EATX12V. But coming to the system being sluggish
> and less responsive I'm still at a lost or could it be due to the
> same causes.
>
>
> Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jerry

No matter what the perceived speed is, the system should not reboot at
any point, therefore you have to find and fix the problem causing that
before anything else.

Since it's happening when the system first starts Windows, it's more
likely a hardware problem. A lot of memory (at least DDR2, not sure
about DDR3) requires you to set the voltage manually, not leaving it to
the SPD chip. Find out the required voltage for your memory and make
sure it's set for that value, if not a little higher.

The lack of the extra connection to the CPU is possibly a problem, as
it's pulling highest voltage during Windows start and heavy use, such as
games. It's also possible the PSU is defective in some way, or does not
supply the current needed for your system (although a decent name brand
PSU at 650 watts should suffice).

I would start with the memory, checking the voltage and all the timings.
Get the free memtest86+ and run at least a few full passes with no
errors.
http://www.memtest.org/

Once that has been verified, get Orthos and run it. It should run for a
few hours at least and any error that stops it means you have a problem
with the system (almost certainly hardware).
This version should run each core at it's max for thorough testing.
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/385/

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:lioVj.3048$17.311@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net. ..

> "Ed Cregger" <ecregger@bellsouff.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Where the new computers shine is at mult-tasking. However, I'm
>> more interested in running one application very quickly and
>> reliably. I've gone back to using my Dell 2.8 GHz computer
>
>> I bought a new Dell XPS with a 6550 and 4 GB of ram last year. It
>> came with Vista, unfortunately. I was told that it would easily
>> cream my 2.8 GHz Dell in speed.
>
> The E6850 would cream your 2.8 GHz Dell in speed, depending partly
> on your applications.

***The 6550 didn't. I don't know diddily about the E6850. What is its clock
speed? Yeah, I know about more channels, faster bus, etc.

>
>> It had a 64 bit, dual channel chip running at 1.8 GHz. It was a
>> turtle.
>
> If an application is using only one core, then you may as well be
> using a single core 1.8 GHz CPU. Naturally it's going to be slower.

***I know that now, but the sales hype implied otherwise. At least they were
nice enough to take it back.

>> That was a $2000 computer in those days. Here I am with a five
>> year old Dell that dusts the new computers drawers with ease.

> Like somebody in the electronics design group said, it's the
> gigaflops that matter (without other bottlenecks). If you have a
> dual core chip running at 1.8 GHz, that's probably roughly
> equivalent to a single core 3.6 GHz if it is fully utilizing both
> cores.

***And there is the rub. I'm running expensive four year old software that I
am semi-competent with. The learning curve for new editions is so steep and
the old program so effective, I'm just going to stick with the old version
for a while. I'm not getting paid to do this. It took me nearly six months
to learn enough to make a simple recording with Sonar 3. Yeah, I'm probably
not the brightest bulb in the pack these days either. Bad vision doesn't
help.

> I had an Opteron 152 (2.6 GHz, 1 MB cache, 400 MHz bus) and
> recently upgraded to an Intel E6850 (3.0 GHz, 4 MB cache, 1333 MHz
> bus). Even running a single application, when both cores are being
> fully utilized, preliminary results indicate that the new CPU is two
> or three times faster. It's only the second upgrade I've been
> impressed with, the first being the move from VESA to PCI a long
> time ago. It makes little difference in ordinary everyday stuff, but
> multitasking isn't required to benefit from multiple cores.

I've been using computers/building/some programming since the early
Eighties, but I'm not a professional in the field. RF electronics is/was my
specialty. I do consider myself to be an experienced PC end-user, not an
expert. But even I can tell when something runs faster or slower. From what
I've seen a lot of the new consumer level stuff is really slow. Vista only
compounds the problem.

I would love to get my hands on an E6850 like yours.


Ed Cregger

If, by any chance, you were using XP with your old system, and you have
switched to Vista in your new system, then you have your answer. Vista is
MUCH slower in all tasks than XP. That is why MANY people such as myself
installed XP rather than Vista in our current systems.
--
--DaveW


"Jerry Chong" <kktime@streamyx.com> wrote in message
news:4825ea8a$1_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Specs,
>
>
>
> Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz
>
> Motherboard: Asus P5E3 Deluxe with Intel X38 chipset
>
> Ram: Mushkin Enhanced 2x1GB DDR3 1333MHz;
>
> Graphics Card: Asus GeForce 9800GTX 512Mb
>
> Sound Card: Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
>
> Harddisk: 2 x WD120GB and 1 x WD320GB
>
> DVDRW: Pioneer 18X drive
>
> PSU: CoolerMaster Extreme Power 650W
>
>
>
> I just finished assembling my comp last weekend and have been using with
> no hardware problems. The thing is that the system just does not seem that
> much quicker or responsive than what I expected in comparison to my old P4
> 2.4GHz. I'm saying this happens when performing various task such as
> starting of application, photo editing, running office or running games
> (Counterstrike, Battlefield 2, Starcraft etc.). I was expecting the
> overall system to be substantially faster considering the faster processor
> and ram and also more responsive due more powerful graphics card and
> faster ram. But this doestn't seem so, rather the system is mainly
> sluggish and every task done seems to have some delay.
>
>
>
> Another thing is the system would sometimes restart itself during bootup,
> usually after the Windows logo while entering windows. And recently the
> system started to hang when I launch graphics intensive application like
> my Battelfield 2 game, Google Earth or my Sim Aquarium 2 screensaver.
>
>
>
> I'm guessing this (the restarting and hanging), could be a problem with my
> ram (CL 9,9,9,24) being faulty or it could be that there might be a
> problem with the power as I'm using a 4pin ATX12V connector for my
> motherboard whereas it comes with an 8pin EPS + 12V power plug for the
> EATX12V. But coming to the system being sluggish and less responsive I'm
> still at a lost or could it be due to the same causes.
>
>
>
> Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jerry
>
>

"DaveW" <radiation@nuclear.org> wrote in message
news:JYWdnaJxtJ6kgrvVnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> If, by any chance, you were using XP with your old system, and you have
> switched to Vista in your new system, then you have your answer. Vista is
> MUCH slower in all tasks than XP. That is why MANY people such as myself
> installed XP rather than Vista in our current systems.
> --
> --DaveW
>

You're talking out your ***, DaveW. I triple-boot WinXP, Vista and linux on
the same system. Linux blows the doors off of both Microsoft Operating
Systems. But XP is NOT faster than Vista. For all normal tasks, XP and
Vista are the same speed. Running the same software with all the same
startup tasks, Vista actually boots significantly faster than XP. So while
you will be working at the same speed, you will start working faster with
Vista.

People really love to bad-mouth Vista, but I haven't found any significant
problems with it. And I'm very skeptical of ANY product that originates in
Redmond, so if there was a nit to pick with Vista believe me I would be the
FIRST to start picking! -Dave