trying to boost performance XP pro 64

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=, Nov 11, 2007.

  1. I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over
    250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load max
    avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program install or
    even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only went up
    to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost system
    speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD and
    NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up todate.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=, Nov 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


    "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over
    > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load max
    > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program install
    > or
    > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only went
    > up
    > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost
    > system
    > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD and
    > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up todate.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the
    install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the other
    stayed at almost 0%.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

    > 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >
    >
    > "Larry" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over
    > > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load max
    > > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program install
    > > or
    > > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only went
    > > up
    > > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost
    > > system
    > > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD and
    > > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up todate.

    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=, Nov 11, 2007
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=

    Clayton Guest

    That is quite normal isn't it?


    "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the
    > install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the other
    > stayed at almost 0%.
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    >
    >> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >>
    >>
    >> "Larry" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over
    >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load
    >> > max
    >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program
    >> > install
    >> > or
    >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only
    >> > went
    >> > up
    >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost
    >> > system
    >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD
    >> > and
    >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up
    >> > todate.

    >>
     
    Clayton, Nov 11, 2007
    #4
  5. Yeah, what I'd expect. When single tasking, a dual core isn't better than a
    single core, in fact usually worse.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


    "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > That is quite normal isn't it?
    >
    >
    > "Larry" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the
    >> install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the
    >> other
    >> stayed at almost 0%.
    >>
    >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    >>
    >>> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Charlie.
    >>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Larry" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and
    >>> >over
    >>> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load
    >>> > max
    >>> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program
    >>> > install
    >>> > or
    >>> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only
    >>> > went
    >>> > up
    >>> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost
    >>> > system
    >>> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD
    >>> > and
    >>> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up
    >>> > todate.
    >>>

    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 11, 2007
    #5
  6. No!! A system using dual core wheather Intel or Amd 64 should work about the
    same
    the difference should be only the 32 vs 64, and the data transfer rate. I
    worked with many systems using multi-processors before dual core. They need
    to work together to do the the job.

    "Clayton" wrote:

    > That is quite normal isn't it?
    >
    >
    > "Larry" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the
    > > install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the other
    > > stayed at almost 0%.
    > >
    > > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    > >
    > >> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Charlie.
    > >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    > >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Larry" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over
    > >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load
    > >> > max
    > >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program
    > >> > install
    > >> > or
    > >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only
    > >> > went
    > >> > up
    > >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost
    > >> > system
    > >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD
    > >> > and
    > >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up
    > >> > todate.
    > >>

    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=, Nov 11, 2007
    #6
  7. Maybe being an older technician. I may be expecting more and demanding more
    from any or both MS and any computer Manufactures Tech Support Systems or
    level 3 as their best engineers are known. I do not want to bump heads just
    get logical questions answered.

    "Larry" wrote:

    > I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over
    > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load max
    > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program install or
    > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only went up
    > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost system
    > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD and
    > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up todate.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=, Nov 11, 2007
    #7
  8. As far as I know - mostly for caching reasons - a process (or parts of it)
    will not be split up or transfered away at relatively low usage. Try and
    start another process that will use around 50% and it is my experience that
    the Windows Scheduler handles these things very well.

    Perhaps I misunderstood, but 2x25% wouldn't perform any differently from
    1x50%. Just beacause you see one core being idle, doesn't mean you'll get
    more performance by splitting up the process. If you have good reasons to
    want this handled differently, you have to use software that is written to
    do this on it's own. If you leave it to the system, this is what the system
    does.

    I have a Athlon FX 62 and a ASUS motherboard (nv590) and all of this is
    indeed normal.


    Tony. . .


    "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > No!! A system using dual core wheather Intel or Amd 64 should work about
    > the
    > same
    > the difference should be only the 32 vs 64, and the data transfer rate. I
    > worked with many systems using multi-processors before dual core. They
    > need
    > to work together to do the the job.
    >
    > "Clayton" wrote:
    >
    >> That is quite normal isn't it?
    >>
    >>
    >> "Larry" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the
    >> > install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the
    >> > other
    >> > stayed at almost 0%.
    >> >
    >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?
    >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >> Charlie.
    >> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> "Larry" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and
    >> >> >over
    >> >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU
    >> >> > load
    >> >> > max
    >> >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program
    >> >> > install
    >> >> > or
    >> >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only
    >> >> > went
    >> >> > up
    >> >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost
    >> >> > system
    >> >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially
    >> >> > HD
    >> >> > and
    >> >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up
    >> >> > todate.
    >> >>

    >>
    >>
     
    Tony Sperling, Nov 11, 2007
    #8
  9. =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    I'm with Charlie. A single task will only use one core. While if the
    system splits tasks properly, the system processes can process on the other
    core making the overall more efficient, the speed of each core is usually
    slower than many of the single processors. To split a program to two or
    more cores it must be written specifically for that purpose, and processes
    ahead discarding any processing based on a false branch. Only programs that
    do not have branching (or much) can efficiently use all cores. Not the type
    of program a consumer is likely to use. More likely written for a
    supercomputer.

    "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > No!! A system using dual core wheather Intel or Amd 64 should work about
    > the
    > same
    > the difference should be only the 32 vs 64, and the data transfer rate. I
    > worked with many systems using multi-processors before dual core. They
    > need
    > to work together to do the the job.
    >
    > "Clayton" wrote:
    >
    >> That is quite normal isn't it?
    >>
    >>
    >> "Larry" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the
    >> > install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the
    >> > other
    >> > stayed at almost 0%.
    >> >
    >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?
    >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >> Charlie.
    >> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> "Larry" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and
    >> >> >over
    >> >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU
    >> >> > load
    >> >> > max
    >> >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program
    >> >> > install
    >> >> > or
    >> >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only
    >> >> > went
    >> >> > up
    >> >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost
    >> >> > system
    >> >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially
    >> >> > HD
    >> >> > and
    >> >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up
    >> >> > todate.
    >> >>

    >>
    >>
     
    John Barnes, Nov 11, 2007
    #9
  10. This is a misunderstanding of multi-processors, whether multi-core or
    multi-socket, it's the same dynamic. If I start MS Word, it uses one
    processor. It doesn't know anything about multiple CPUs and doesn't know how
    to take advantage of them. Now if it spawns a print job, the OS should
    generally assign that to a different CPU, IF that makes sense in the overall
    scheme of the load. If I start Excel, it would generally go to a different
    CPU. Again, assuming other CPUs aren't already loaded. But if all I'm
    running is a single application (game, business app, browser, whatever),
    then that application will NOT split across CPUs unless it was explicitly
    written to do so. And only applications designed to run in mulltiprocessor
    or compute cluster environments will be designed to do so.

    At the same price point, I can have a processor with a single core, two
    cores or four cores. That single core processor will have a faster clock
    speed than the 2 core, and the 2 core will have a faster clock speed than
    the 4 core. Now, add on to that the partitioning of memory, and the overhead
    of managing the extra cores and trying to distribute any work loads, and the
    interprocess communication (IPC) that now must cross CPU boundaries (and
    thus use slower mechanisms than internal CPU registers), and you begin to
    see why multiple cores is not a panacea. Add to that the serious limitations
    of the Intel memory transport links and off-chip memory controller, and you
    can even end up with issues when you have multiple cores running multiple
    processes if they're using enough memory to saturate that buss. On my dual
    Xeon 5130 server (4 cores) with 16 GB of fbDIMM RAM, I can't realistically
    use more than about 12 - 12.5 GB of RAM before that memory buss saturates
    and the whole machine grinds to a crawl. On my quad core server, that's not
    an issue. It has 16 GB of RAM and I routinely push up to 15 GB and a bit
    over without an issue. (neither of the servers is CPU bound, even running
    nearly a dozen Virtual Machines.)

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


    "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > No!! A system using dual core wheather Intel or Amd 64 should work about
    > the
    > same
    > the difference should be only the 32 vs 64, and the data transfer rate. I
    > worked with many systems using multi-processors before dual core. They
    > need
    > to work together to do the the job.
    >
    > "Clayton" wrote:
    >
    >> That is quite normal isn't it?
    >>
    >>
    >> "Larry" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the
    >> > install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the
    >> > other
    >> > stayed at almost 0%.
    >> >
    >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?
    >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >> Charlie.
    >> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> "Larry" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and
    >> >> >over
    >> >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU
    >> >> > load
    >> >> > max
    >> >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program
    >> >> > install
    >> >> > or
    >> >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only
    >> >> > went
    >> >> > up
    >> >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost
    >> >> > system
    >> >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially
    >> >> > HD
    >> >> > and
    >> >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up
    >> >> > todate.
    >> >>

    >>
    >>
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 11, 2007
    #10
  11. Hi,
    i can believe, that you would feel more satisfied if a program install would
    have a load only of 3 %.

    In this case with 97% of the cpu capacity (other than the 50 % mentioned by
    you), the cpu makes the display looking at you and exermines
    whether you feel good or not.
    May be 50 % is quiet enough for that job.

    On the graphics : where do you encounter problems ?
    If you hit a key on your keyboard, how long does it take until the key is
    displayed on your screen ?
    Is it more minutes (or hours ) than seconds ?

    SCNR jk
     
    Juergen Kluth, Nov 11, 2007
    #11
  12. Thank you for all your responses, I agree that it is the programs
    responsibility to utilize the machines ability. Whether running a single,
    dual, or Quad core processor and having multiple individual processors for
    other functions. That said, I do run high-end programs which are supposed to
    use those dual core functions, but maybe not 64 bits that’s were MS OS x64
    comes in. But I am not a programmer , I only try to understand the
    processing. There’s no playbook just new tools which you use trying to
    understand what you try to understand. If there are no ways to increase
    performance even after you get so called dual processor updates from the
    manufacturer and the programs you are trying to run, you just have to expect
    it. Thank you for all your feedback.

    "Larry" wrote:

    > Maybe being an older technician. I may be expecting more and demanding more
    > from any or both MS and any computer Manufactures Tech Support Systems or
    > level 3 as their best engineers are known. I do not want to bump heads just
    > get logical questions answered.
    >
    > "Larry" wrote:
    >
    > > I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over
    > > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load max
    > > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program install or
    > > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only went up
    > > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost system
    > > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD and
    > > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up todate.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=, Nov 12, 2007
    #12
  13. =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=

    Rabbitt Guest

    If you really need higher efficiency and performance, maybe the latest Intel
    or AMD chips would help, they do sound like they will make enough difference
    for some to warrant the cost and effort. Or wait for both to mature and get
    the next revision a year from now.

    Compilers need to help tweak both the OS and 3rd party applications.
    Even "smart" cpu's that can take on some of the scheduling.
    There can be good reasons even now to put your page file on a separate, fast
    drive.
    Separate the OS from any data on separate drives, not just partitioned.
    It may not be faster, but it should - and run smoother.
    And the latest 750-1TB drives offer better performance level.

    30 yrs ago, I'd have the page file for each system partition on its own disk
    drive so there wasn't any fighting or contention between them. With some
    changes, that still is how I look at configuring a system today.

    Greg


    "Larry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thank you for all your responses, I agree that it is the programs
    > responsibility to utilize the machines ability. Whether running a single,
    > dual, or Quad core processor and having multiple individual processors for
    > other functions. That said, I do run high-end programs which are supposed
    > to
    > use those dual core functions, but maybe not 64 bits that’s were MS OS x64
    > comes in. But I am not a programmer , I only try to understand the
    > processing. There’s no playbook just new tools which you use trying to
    > understand what you try to understand. If there are no ways to increase
    > performance even after you get so called dual processor updates from the
    > manufacturer and the programs you are trying to run, you just have to
    > expect
    > it. Thank you for all your feedback.
    >
    > "Larry" wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe being an older technician. I may be expecting more and demanding
    >> more
    >> from any or both MS and any computer Manufactures Tech Support Systems or
    >> level 3 as their best engineers are known. I do not want to bump heads
    >> just
    >> get logical questions answered.
    >>
    >> "Larry" wrote:
    >>
    >> > I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and
    >> > over
    >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load
    >> > max
    >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program
    >> > install or
    >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only
    >> > went up
    >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost
    >> > system
    >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD
    >> > and
    >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up
    >> > todate.
     
    Rabbitt, Nov 12, 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-DESIGN

    Boost the signal

    A-DESIGN, Aug 23, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    5,996
    A-DESIGN
    Aug 24, 2004
  2. Paul H

    How do I boost my Network range?

    Paul H, Sep 1, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    573
    Malke
    Sep 1, 2005
  3. JPG
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,657
  4. GCW

    Will Canon boost production?

    GCW, Aug 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    352
    Are you Nuts
    Aug 9, 2003
  5. obaidjee
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    460
    obaidjee
    Jul 22, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page