Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Jud Hendrix, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. Jud Hendrix

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:41:47 -0700, "Clayton" <>
    wrote:

    >And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed
    >roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset does.


    How do you know? Have you run some serious benchmarks to back this up? "I
    can not really tell the differences" is not good enough ;-)
    Just have a look at tomshardware or pcstats or similar websites what kind
    of benchmarks they run, and let us know your results, because we're all
    curious anyhow :)

    jud
    Jud Hendrix, Sep 4, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Clayton:
    The performance rating in Vista is determined by the lowest performing
    susbsystem in your PC.
    The only significant item you have not changed is your HD.
    Maybe that is the item determining that your Performance Rating is not going
    up.
    The other parts have been upgraded but this one not.
    Just a guess.
    Carlos

    "Clayton" wrote:

    > last week my system was running the following
    >
    > 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU
    > 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card
    > 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory
    > 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD
    > Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT
    >
    > Now I am running the following
    >
    > i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU
    > 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card
    > 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory
    > 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD
    > Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT
    >
    > And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed
    > roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset does.
    >
    > Go Figure
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=, Sep 4, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jud Hendrix

    Mark Guest

    I think the point is...
    If you have to run serious benchmarks to tell the difference, then there
    is no difference at the user level.


    "Jud Hendrix" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:41:47 -0700, "Clayton" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed
    >>roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset
    >>does.

    >
    > How do you know? Have you run some serious benchmarks to back this up? "I
    > can not really tell the differences" is not good enough ;-)
    > Just have a look at tomshardware or pcstats or similar websites what kind
    > of benchmarks they run, and let us know your results, because we're all
    > curious anyhow :)
    >
    > jud
    Mark, Sep 4, 2007
    #3
  4. I agree - only the memory too, ECC memory is slightly slower than non-ECC
    and the resulting performance benefit may not be very big. Also, the
    performance rating is no benchmark, it is just a rating of Hardware that is
    compared from a list that is itself updated over time. It doesn't mean one
    machine wouldn't push more real work through the internals than the other.
    Just that you are not likely to see any difference by looking at the screen.

    Not to criticize, among my machinery there is one that was partly upgraded
    that I am very happy with, performancewise. But benchmarks does not rate it
    very high - your upgrade, Clayton, does seem to be a
    'bottleneck-balancing-act' in much the same way. You decide if you like it,
    benchmarks are little more than entertainment.


    Tony. . .


    "Carlos" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Clayton:
    > The performance rating in Vista is determined by the lowest performing
    > susbsystem in your PC.
    > The only significant item you have not changed is your HD.
    > Maybe that is the item determining that your Performance Rating is not

    going
    > up.
    > The other parts have been upgraded but this one not.
    > Just a guess.
    > Carlos
    >
    > "Clayton" wrote:
    >
    > > last week my system was running the following
    > >
    > > 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU
    > > 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card
    > > 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory
    > > 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD
    > > Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT
    > >
    > > Now I am running the following
    > >
    > > i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU
    > > 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card
    > > 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory
    > > 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD
    > > Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT
    > >
    > > And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system

    showed
    > > roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset

    does.
    > >
    > > Go Figure
    > >
    > >
    > >
    Tony Sperling, Sep 4, 2007
    #4
  5. Jud Hendrix

    John Barnes Guest

    You have reduced the speed that any single process can perform from 3.4 to
    2.4GHz. Multi processing should work better as most system processes should
    be distributed to other cores, but unless a program is written so that it
    can parallel process on multiple cores, which is very rare except in
    specialty programs, the only difference is a program not having to multiplex
    a cpu with as many other tasks. Programs that are memory intensive should
    work faster because of the memory upgrade, but a single task cpu intensive
    that just calculates instructions per second is limited by the GHz of one
    core unless written otherwise. With your upgrade of the graphics card and
    memory you should have a better user experience, especially when you are
    multi-tasking.

    "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > last week my system was running the following
    >
    > 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU
    > 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card
    > 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory
    > 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD
    > Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT
    >
    > Now I am running the following
    >
    > i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU
    > 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card
    > 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory
    > 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD
    > Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT
    >
    > And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed
    > roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset
    > does.
    >
    > Go Figure
    >
    John Barnes, Sep 4, 2007
    #5
  6. Jud Hendrix

    Mark Guest

    You've been duped by the "mult-core myth."

    Imagine you have four single-core desktop computers sitting next to each
    other running separate applications. How much more efficient are you at
    running all four at the same time? Probably not much because you can't
    really work that way.

    Now connect the four computers to a common network so that you can access
    any of them from the same keyboard and screen. Is it more efficient now?

    Now create one application that creates sub-programs to send out to each of
    those desktops across this closed network to perform calculations
    independantly and then sends the results back to the one you are using to
    assemble the information into something displayable. This is efficiency!
    But, timing and loading becomes important. If one computer finishes first,
    then the results may be meaningless when assembled for viewing. Very few
    home users ever see programs of this caliber.

    Instead, we run one application at a time and make very little use of our
    multi-core processor. And, since you went from one processor at 3.4 GHz to
    essentially one processor at 2.4 GHz, you may have actually seen a decrease
    in performance based on how most home users actually use their computer.

    The good news is that your operating system is smart enough to run on one of
    the other processors giving the application you are using full reign of
    another processor. Your video card will claim another, but must fight the
    other three for the single, slower data bus and the same RAM. And lets not
    forget! It's all running hyper-threaded making it act like eight processors
    (still running one application designed for one processor.)


    "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > last week my system was running the following
    >
    > 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU
    > 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card
    > 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory
    > 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD
    > Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT
    >
    > Now I am running the following
    >
    > i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU
    > 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card
    > 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory
    > 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD
    > Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT
    >
    > And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed
    > roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset

    does.
    >
    > Go Figure
    >
    >
    Mark, Sep 4, 2007
    #6
  7. Jud Hendrix

    John Barnes Guest

    And for me, unlike XP64, Vista64 doesn't distribute multiple processes
    efficiently and to avoid the problem of having too many on one core, causing
    it to hit the 100% usage level (causing hangs) while the other core runs at
    30%, I have to manually assign 8 tasks each morning when I start my computer
    if my work is to run efficiently.

    "Mark" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > You've been duped by the "mult-core myth."
    >
    > Imagine you have four single-core desktop computers sitting next to each
    > other running separate applications. How much more efficient are you at
    > running all four at the same time? Probably not much because you can't
    > really work that way.
    >
    > Now connect the four computers to a common network so that you can access
    > any of them from the same keyboard and screen. Is it more efficient now?
    >
    > Now create one application that creates sub-programs to send out to each
    > of
    > those desktops across this closed network to perform calculations
    > independantly and then sends the results back to the one you are using to
    > assemble the information into something displayable. This is efficiency!
    > But, timing and loading becomes important. If one computer finishes first,
    > then the results may be meaningless when assembled for viewing. Very few
    > home users ever see programs of this caliber.
    >
    > Instead, we run one application at a time and make very little use of our
    > multi-core processor. And, since you went from one processor at 3.4 GHz to
    > essentially one processor at 2.4 GHz, you may have actually seen a
    > decrease
    > in performance based on how most home users actually use their computer.
    >
    > The good news is that your operating system is smart enough to run on one
    > of
    > the other processors giving the application you are using full reign of
    > another processor. Your video card will claim another, but must fight the
    > other three for the single, slower data bus and the same RAM. And lets not
    > forget! It's all running hyper-threaded making it act like eight
    > processors
    > (still running one application designed for one processor.)
    >
    >
    > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> last week my system was running the following
    >>
    >> 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU
    >> 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card
    >> 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory
    >> 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD
    >> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT
    >>
    >> Now I am running the following
    >>
    >> i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU
    >> 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card
    >> 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory
    >> 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD
    >> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT
    >>
    >> And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system
    >> showed
    >> roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset

    > does.
    >>
    >> Go Figure
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    John Barnes, Sep 4, 2007
    #7
  8. Jud Hendrix

    John Barnes Guest

    I should have added that architecture of the components of the CPU can make
    functions for which it was optimised help offset the slower clock cycles.

    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You have reduced the speed that any single process can perform from 3.4 to
    > 2.4GHz. Multi processing should work better as most system processes
    > should be distributed to other cores, but unless a program is written so
    > that it can parallel process on multiple cores, which is very rare except
    > in specialty programs, the only difference is a program not having to
    > multiplex a cpu with as many other tasks. Programs that are memory
    > intensive should work faster because of the memory upgrade, but a single
    > task cpu intensive that just calculates instructions per second is limited
    > by the GHz of one core unless written otherwise. With your upgrade of the
    > graphics card and memory you should have a better user experience,
    > especially when you are multi-tasking.
    >
    > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> last week my system was running the following
    >>
    >> 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU
    >> 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card
    >> 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory
    >> 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD
    >> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT
    >>
    >> Now I am running the following
    >>
    >> i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU
    >> 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card
    >> 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory
    >> 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD
    >> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT
    >>
    >> And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system
    >> showed roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X
    >> Chipset does.
    >>
    >> Go Figure
    >>

    >
    John Barnes, Sep 4, 2007
    #8
  9. Hi,
    i give you a hint :
    run both maschines, start word and let both wait for your keystrokes ...
    ;-)

    jk
    PS: i guess your quadcore runs not that hot
    Juergen Kluth, Sep 4, 2007
    #9
  10. Jud Hendrix

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:51:52 +0200, "Juergen Kluth" <>
    wrote:

    >i give you a hint :
    >run both maschines, start word and let both wait for your keystrokes ...
    >;-)


    Not impressed ;-)

    jh
    Jud Hendrix, Sep 4, 2007
    #10
  11. >>i give you a hint :
    >>run both maschines, start word and let both wait for your keystrokes ...
    >>;-)

    >
    > Not impressed ;-)


    This is a case of "my PC waits faster than your PC", right? :eek:)
    Homer J. Simpson, Sep 4, 2007
    #11
  12. Jud Hendrix

    Clayton Guest

    last week my system was running the following

    875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU
    256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card
    2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory
    500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD
    Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT

    Now I am running the following

    i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU
    256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card
    2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory
    500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD
    Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT

    And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed
    roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset does.

    Go Figure
    Clayton, Sep 5, 2007
    #12
  13. Jud Hendrix

    Clayton Guest

    Well ... yeh, the lowest score was 4.0 and that was the 3D business
    graphics, so I upgraded from a Quadro FX 550 to a Quardo FX 4500 and now 3D
    is 5.7. now it is 5.3 and the lowest is for the memory.


    "Homer J. Simpson" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>i give you a hint :
    >>>run both maschines, start word and let both wait for your keystrokes ...
    >>>;-)

    >>
    >> Not impressed ;-)

    >
    > This is a case of "my PC waits faster than your PC", right? :eek:)
    >
    Clayton, Sep 7, 2007
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. a.metselaar

    speed speed speed

    a.metselaar, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    980
    BuffNET Tech Support - MichaelJ
    Dec 30, 2003
  2. Marc
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    918
  3. Thaqalain

    Want to upgarde 80486 or Sale/Exchange

    Thaqalain, Jun 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    947
    Scraggy
    Jun 29, 2005
  4. Hans Beck

    w2k3: 70-292 upgarde test

    Hans Beck, Jul 18, 2005, in forum: MCSA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    311
    Hans Beck
    Jul 18, 2005
  5. rajmhn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,071
    rajmhn
    Sep 26, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page