I miss my Quad

[Skurge]

Ok so I looked at the CPU usage again (on the x4) and when I'm not playing any music on WMP it hovers at 1-3% usage. Once I start playing some music (which I always do) The usage jumps up to over 15%, I usually play FLAC files and not MP3's.

Since FLAC files are larger do they use up more resources?

EDIT: WTF is svchost and whay are there 2 processes using 200mb and 100mb of RAM each?

 

[Munky]

It might sound snotty, because SSDs are elite hardware. At least they were a few years ago, today, they are the norm, hence my changing of attitude that even the everyman's PC needs to have one.

I would shift funds from the CPU side to SSD anyday. SSD>GPU>CPU in order of importance in my book. Hence my reliance in recent years on Phenom IIs for builds, CPUs that do the job done without detriment, and (ultimate cost being equal), when paired with a Crucial M4 will murder Intel's most elite i7 HDD rig in usability.

That doesn't mean you're right and others are wrong. Maybe in my case a computer is not a computer unless it can keep my room hot in the middle of winter? Maybe I feel that a car is not a car unless it does 1/4 mile at over 100mph and under 14seconds? No need to proliferate snobby comments, we have enough of those already. Especially considering that SSD still cost a ridiculous amount of money compared to HDD, money that could be spent on things like a bigger monitor, a nice dinner, or even a vacation.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

So, data centers aside, my 10 computers that never power down are not computers, since you think that SSD's are the only way to go. That's still way too single-sided. You are right, and the world is wrong, even if they have a valid argument.

And that's not baiting.....

I don't think he was baiting.

I think he was just using hyperbole to express the idea that for many desktop users, an SSD is the single greatest speed booster in recent memory.

The jump from single core to dual core was not as significant. The jump from 5400 to 7200 was not as significant.

SSDs, at least for multi-tasking desktop users, is a HUGE improvement, and they are pretty cheap now. I also no longer recommend that any of my friends build or buy a computer without adding an SSD.

 

[Idontcare]

EDIT: WTF is svchost and whay are there 2 processes using 200mb and 100mb of RAM each?

Those are usually auto-update services. Windows updates and so on.

 

[beginner99]

Those are usually auto-update services. Windows updates and so on.

those are just some of the possibilities. svchost runs any services packed in dlls. so it can also run malware.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I don't think he was baiting.

I think he was just using hyperbole to express the idea that for many desktop users, an SSD is the single greatest speed booster in recent memory.

The jump from single core to dual core was not as significant. The jump from 5400 to 7200 was not as significant.

SSDs, at least for multi-tasking desktop users, is a HUGE improvement, and they are pretty cheap now. I also no longer recommend that any of my friends build or buy a computer without adding an SSD.

So you are saying that I could put an SSD in my old athlon 2600 plus and play BF3?
I have not used an SSD, but I think it is only beneficial if you have the basic performance CPU, GPU, and RAM first. I think that saying that using a SSD is a bigger jump than the move from single to dual core is a bit of an overstatement to put it mildly.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

So you are saying that I could put an SSD in my old athlon 2600 plus and play BF3?
I have not used an SSD, but I think it is only beneficial if you have the basic performance CPU, GPU, and RAM first. I think that saying that using a SSD is a bigger jump than the move from single to dual core is a bit of an overstatement to put it mildly.

In my experience a SSD was a far larger improvement than going from a E2180 dual core to a Phenom II x4 955. Even my old Atom N270 powered netbook saw a massive improvement in performance when I upgraded it with a OCZ Vertex 2.

After using a SSD I will never own another system without one.

 

[Idontcare]

The relative "value" of every component in a PC is entirely dependent on the computing profile of the user.

Some people value dual screens whereas others want just one larger one. Some people need 8GB (or more) where some people won't see a benefit from anything over 4GB.

The story is the same for every component, from the LCD's to the ram to the keyboard and mouse (or trackball, or touchpad) to the hard-drives and number of cores in their CPU.

Its a fool's errand to attempt to argue that any one given component is universally more relevant and important than any other component in the absence of taking the user's computing profile into account.

Folders have different needs than gamers than coders than accountants, etc etc.

 

[kdubbs]

The SSD is a huge improvement in day-to-day computing tasks. My stock-clocked, five year old E6400 @ 2.13GHz system w/ 40GB 1st gen kingston SSD is much snappier than my main work machine (2010 macbook pro w/ P8600 @ 2.4GHz). In fact, I frequently use a workstation with dual xeon x5670s and even that system can be slightly slower than my E6400+SSD system when launching program like firefox and MS Office apps. Nothing revitalizes an old system like an SSD. I am reminded of this each time I boot my E6400 system in XP, which resides on a 7200 RPM mechanical drive. It is absolutely painful!

As others have said, there are certainly legitimate usage patterns that do not benefit much at all from SSDs, but I would think that for a majority of non-mission critical PCs, it's hard to go wrong with a SSD OS drive coupled with traditional storage for data.

 

[Munky]

The SSD is a huge improvement in day-to-day computing tasks. My stock-clocked, five year old E6400 @ 2.13GHz system w/ 40GB 1st gen kingston SSD is much snappier than my main work machine (2010 macbook pro w/ P8600 @ 2.4GHz). In fact, I frequently use a workstation with dual xeon x5670s and even that system can be slightly slower than my E6400+SSD system when launching program like firefox and MS Office apps. Nothing revitalizes an old system like an SSD. I am reminded of this each time I boot my E6400 system in XP, which resides on a 7200 RPM mechanical drive. It is absolutely painful!

As others have said, there are certainly legitimate usage patterns that do not benefit much at all from SSDs, but I would think that for a majority of non-mission critical PCs, it's hard to go wrong with a SSD OS drive coupled with traditional storage for data.

There's one of the reasons SSD's don't look appealing to me. All my apps, data files and games will still be stored on a traditional HDD, so other than saving a few seconds at boot time, what does it really bring? My games will still take just as long to load, my photos, movies and music will still take just a long to load and process. If the price of SSD's came down to a reasonable level that I could use a 1 TB SSD for all my storage uses, then I could see a viable reason to switch. Until then, I'll stick with the much more affordable HDD's.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Yeah with a smaller SSD, you've got to fiddle around... moving data back and forth, in order to take advantage of it. It's easier to build up a conventional RAID with plenty of storage. Works best for a desktop.

 

[kdubbs]

There's one of the reasons SSD's don't look appealing to me. All my apps, data files and games will still be stored on a traditional HDD, so other than saving a few seconds at boot time, what does it really bring? My games will still take just as long to load, my photos, movies and music will still take just a long to load and process. If the price of SSD's came down to a reasonable level that I could use a 1 TB SSD for all my storage uses, then I could see a viable reason to switch. Until then, I'll stick with the much more affordable HDD's.

Granted, SSDs probably aren't the best investment for people that mostly game on their computers. But for most other common tasks, there is potential for big benefits. I think it is key that you get an SSD that is big enough for your commonly used apps as well. 120 GB drives can be had for ~1/GB on sale. If you can have those apps on your SSD, coupled with some space for files that you are actively editing, multitasking and content creation are remarkably smooth. I remember when I was working on my thesis a few years ago, image insertion into Word and Powerpoint would often take 5-10 seconds/image on my old mechanical drive. Repeat over and over (and combine with Word's penchant for teleporting your images to the random spots in the document) and the experience is not pleasant. With the addition of the SSD, these operations became instantaneous, and I could focus on writing and not being mad at my slow-ass computer.

I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet that there are very few users who have tried SSDs, said "meh", and then happily went back to using traditional drives.

 

[Vic Vega]

The relative "value" of every component in a PC is entirely dependent on the computing profile of the user.

Some people value dual screens whereas others want just one larger one. Some people need 8GB (or more) where some people won't see a benefit from anything over 4GB.

The story is the same for every component, from the LCD's to the ram to the keyboard and mouse (or trackball, or touchpad) to the hard-drives and number of cores in their CPU.

Its a fool's errand to attempt to argue that any one given component is universally more relevant and important than any other component in the absence of taking the user's computing profile into account.

Folders have different needs than gamers than coders than accountants, etc etc.

Well said.

 

[zlejedi]

I find OP message interesting. Somehow at home i can't notice difference in office tasks and even more so swiching of them beetween core 2 duo @1,7 Ghz and 2500K @ 4,5 but then again both are running from intel G2 SSDs

 

[tulx]

Its a fool's errand to attempt to argue that any one given component is universally more relevant and important than any other component in the absence of taking the user's computing profile into account.

No.
Apples > all, proven fact. Trololollolollol :awe:

On a more serious note, an SSD would really prove quite beneficial in the case which OP mentioned - day to day desktop operations, like internet browsing etc. For gamers, an SSD can be useful in some games which stream large amounts of data from the HDD, like ArmA II, for example. Other than that, it would just improve level loading times. I personally will take two Spinpoint F3 drives in RAID0 and use a RAM drive for the very needy games (like the mentioned ArmA II).
Someone mentioned using a RAM drive as a boot drive. Is that even possible? I thought that RAM drives are virtualised by special software, which in turn needs an OS in the background. Aren't RAM drives stored in the HDD when the PC powers down and then re-loaded? How can one boot from a RAM drive?

 

[nyker96]

I gone from a E7200/3,5 to a x4 620/3,25 I would say it definitely feels faster on everyday tasks due to the extra cores esp. when u have a virus scan going on, the E7200 just start to studder while x4 I don't even know it's doing it or when it's done.

but I don't get that night and day feeling like the OP does. I can definitely feel it's much more responsive tho.

 

[Skurge]

I gone from a E7200/3,5 to a x4 620/3,25 I would say it definitely feels faster on everyday tasks due to the extra cores esp. when u have a virus scan going on, the E7200 just start to studder while x4 I don't even know it's doing it or when it's done.

but I don't get that night and day feeling like the OP does. I can definitely feel it's much more responsive tho.

Well I never said it was night and day, just that when I would have music playing with a bunch of tabs open and installing something. The song would stutter for a second. I never get that on the X4.

 

[Kaekae]

yeah man SSD speeds everything up not just boot time. Everyone needs to get one!

 

[Vdubchaos]

I have a stock E6600 that I use as a spare and it's an absolute dog! I thought C2D was fast enough for basic tasks such as Internet browsing, watching 1080P content on the Internet and just having 20-30 tabs open. I have it paired with another 60GB OCZ Vertex that I have. It doesn't help. The CPU is unbearably slow. After using Q6600 @ 3.4ghz, then i7 860 @3.9 and now a 2500k as my main system, I finally realized just how inadequate E6600 2.4ghz is.

Flash is killer in a browser.

So I can attest 100% that an E6600 even when paired with an SSD is paintfully slow for someone who does the bare minimum (which to me is having 20-30 tabs open, listening to music, having some excel/word documents open and a 24/7 anti-virus scanning software). SSD helps to a certain extent but not enough.

20-30 tabs though?

 

[tweakboy]

Unlock the two extra cores from the E600.

LMAO NOT!


I still dont get why you had to give away your amd quadcore for a dual core.

OC the chip you have. 3.6 with air cooling is possible.

sorry,, :|

 

[exar333]

In my experience a SSD was a far larger improvement than going from a E2180 dual core to a Phenom II x4 955. Even my old Atom N270 powered netbook saw a massive improvement in performance when I upgraded it with a OCZ Vertex 2.

After using a SSD I will never own another system without one.

To me, the change from 1C to 2+ was huge, as was moving to an SSD. I agree with IDC though, that differences will really depend on personal usage.

 

[Ketchup]

Back on topic (sorry to be a buzzkill) your CPU usage is pretty high, and if you're not doing anything (and that includes playing music, etc) then something is using up your resources.

Are you running AVG by any chance? AVG hides its memory usage in an instance of svchost.exe, so that might account for some. AVG also isn't obvious when it does an auto scan.

How much memory do you have? How much does task manager say you're using? Excessive paging will exaggerate the slowness of the hard drive.

Your hard drive makes a HUGE difference. That alone could be the issue. It's like going from a desktop to a standard laptop.

I'll give you an example. My home desktop (see sig) is a good bit snappier than my work laptop, a Lenovo with a 4-core Core i5/7200 RPM drive/4 GB of RAM. This is due the programs always running that consume more RAM and a slightly slower drive (the desktop has a WD Black Edition).

Anyway, hope some of that info helps.

 

[Idontcare]

20-30 tabs though?

Are you saying 20-30 tabs should not cause that much cpu usage or that you don't understand why a person would have 20-30 tabs open in their browser?

When I am, ahem, "researching" the field of acts of human recreation of the close and personal kind I tend to find myself in the positon of having a browser session open with 20-30 tabs...and yes all those flash ads really do hog up the CPU usage :hmm:

Am I the only one who has noticed this? :sneaky:

 

[wahdangun]

No.
Apples > all, proven fact. Trololollolollol :awe:

On a more serious note, an SSD would really prove quite beneficial in the case which OP mentioned - day to day desktop operations, like internet browsing etc. For gamers, an SSD can be useful in some games which stream large amounts of data from the HDD, like ArmA II, for example. Other than that, it would just improve level loading times. I personally will take two Spinpoint F3 drives in RAID0 and use a RAM drive for the very needy games (like the mentioned ArmA II).
Someone mentioned using a RAM drive as a boot drive. Is that even possible? I thought that RAM drives are virtualised by special software, which in turn needs an OS in the background. Aren't RAM drives stored in the HDD when the PC powers down and then re-loaded? How can one boot from a RAM drive?

yeah I'm totally want to know that too, if it need special hardware or not

 

[Barfo]

Are you saying 20-30 tabs should not cause that much cpu usage or that you don't understand why a person would have 20-30 tabs open in their browser?

When I am, ahem, "researching" the field of acts of human recreation of the close and personal kind I tend to find myself in the positon of having a browser session open with 20-30 tabs...and yes all those flash ads really do hog up the CPU usage :hmm:

Am I the only one who has noticed this? :sneaky:

30 tabs of porn at the same time? that's crazy man.