i3 poor performer

[SanDiegoPC]

I am wondering why this particular computer I built a couple weeks ago seems to be such a mutt. I was replacing a Pentium D 3.0 which actually seemed to run better.

Here's the CPU-Z validator: Does it look normal?



I used a cheap 256mb ATI card and an Intel board in this one, because it needed to be quick and reliable. But I'd sure like it to run better.

One of my other machines on the network is my old reliable Q6600 overclocked to 3.4 - and it runs just about as good as my main computer (below) that I am typing on. The i3 machine is a very distant third place...

 

[alyarb]

looks fine to me. you should have enough experience with EIST and turbo to understand that the clock speed at idle has nothing to do with how it performs. be more specific about what is slow for you and we'll narrow it down.

 

[SanDiegoPC]

looks fine to me. you should have enough experience with EIST and turbo to understand that the clock speed at idle has nothing to do with how it performs. be more specific about what is slow for you and we'll narrow it down.

That particular computer runs a telescope. That, in itself is not a particularly demanding ordeal but the associated applictions that run with the telescope are. At the same time the computer is monitoring 'scope positions in the sky it is also running a planetarium program called The Sky 6 Pro. This program identifies objects in the night sky and sends commands to the telescope to move it where it is needed. Then there is a third program running which displays objects in the sky to choose from.

These programs use Direct X & who knows what else for displaying the constantly moving night sky. The screen refreshes are very slow. I'd think that a PCI express card running a 16 channel bus, using 256MB of RAM would be enough for this. That being said, the other computers on other telescopes I have all have 512MB Nvidia cards ... none of them are ATI like I used in the i3 build.

There is plenty of RAM in this computer for XP Pro and the programs I run. It does seem slower than necessary on boot up and using the Internet Exploder too.

So I guess my Q is: Shouldn't that i3 machine at the very least run as good as my other one that has the same software on it (The Overclocked Q6600)?

 

[alyarb]

the i3 has a built-in video processor that is very slow and only intended for basic 2D applications. If there are no other video cards lying around (or one that you'd have put in one of the unoccupied PCI express slots), then this is the GPU your planetarium is rendering on. your CPU performance is fine, but you're going to need to upgrade to a discrete GPU to get your planetarium rendering smoothly. if you can give me more details on the nvidia cards that your other machines are running we can approximate the amount of GPU horsepower for the job.

i'm also a little curious where on earth you found a 256MB stick of DDR3. i3 systems were intended to have a minimum of eight times that amount. do you mean you have 256MB allocated to the integrated video?

 

[SanDiegoPC]

the i3 has a built-in video processor that is very slow and only intended for basic 2D applications. If there are no other video cards lying around (or one that you'd have put in one of the unoccupied PCI express slots), then this is the GPU your planetarium is rendering on. your CPU performance is fine, but you're going to need to upgrade to a discrete GPU to get your planetarium rendering smoothly. if you can give me more details on the nvidia cards that your other machines are running we can approximate the amount of GPU horsepower for the job.

Thanks for the feedback. The i3 is using the Radian 256mb ATI Card, and NOT the on board video. The other two computers are using 512 Nvidia cards all bought together with the one in this PC that I am typing on. They are factory superclocked 8600 GT cards....nothing really fancy though.

I do appreciate your time...perhaps I am just expecting too much from it. From now on, I am definitely going to stick with the i7 processors in the various builds I seem to have to do every year. I absolutely LOVE this one!

 

[alyarb]

be more specific about your Radeon. you will need a radeon 4650 (ideally a 5670), which typically comes with 512MB of memory to get >8600 GT performance.

this is a good deal too though

http://www.amazon.com/TurboCache-GeForce-128-bit-Graphics-ZT-96SES3P-FDL/dp/B0037W6BOC

 

[SanDiegoPC]

be more specific about your Radeon. you will need a radeon 4650, which typically comes with 512MB of memory to get >8600 GT performance.

It's an X550 so that may be the big bottleneck. I do know from experience that the video card can litterally provide a whole new FEEL for the computer and perhaps thats what I need to do.

I could donate this GeForce 8600GT to that other computer, and buy a better/newer one for this i7/Windows7 build here.

 

[alyarb]

I could donate this GeForce 8600GT to that other computer, and buy a better/newer one for this i7/Windows7 build here.

that's what I would do. the X550 architecture is about 4 years older than the 8600 GT, so that can sort of tell you how much slower it is.

 

[Phynaz]

What is the CPU load like? (perf mon)
What is the GPU load like? (GPU-Z)

I really don't think that a GPU is bogging down an astronomy program.

But, the i3 GPU isn't terrible, for example at can run Hawx at > 50fps. I would guess it can handle what you are doing. It may even be better than the x550 you have in there now.

 

[SanDiegoPC]

What is the CPU load like? (perf mon)
What is the GPU load like? (GPU-Z)

I really don't think that a GPU is bogging down an astronomy program.

But, the i3 GPU isn't terrible, for example at can run Hawx at > 50fps. I would guess it can handle what you are doing. It may even be better than the x550 you have in there now.

Now there's an interesting idea ... just pull the ATI 256 and try the built-in. Will do that & let you know. Sky is clear so the telescope will be in use tonight.

 

[jthunderloc]

I had an i3 540 I compared to a slightly OC'd Q6600 (matched clock speeds) and in single threaded apps or 2 app multitasking it was about the same speed, but once you start running 3+ apps the Q6600 starts pulling away quickly.

It sounds like your running 3 demanding programs on a dual core chip and hoping it performs as well as an OC'd Quad core. I just dont see it happening. I'm a big fan of the i3 chips, but they just cant compare to a good quad core. I upgraded from the i3 to an i5-750 and this thing performs like a champ! I'd sell/return the i3 and up it to a i5-750 for what your doing.

-Wes

 

[nyker96]

I had an i3 540 I compared to a slightly OC'd Q6600 (matched clock speeds) and in single threaded apps or 2 app multitasking it was about the same speed, but once you start running 3+ apps the Q6600 starts pulling away quickly.

It sounds like your running 3 demanding programs on a dual core chip and hoping it performs as well as an OC'd Quad core. I just dont see it happening. I'm a big fan of the i3 chips, but they just cant compare to a good quad core. I upgraded from the i3 to an i5-750 and this thing performs like a champ! I'd sell/return the i3 and up it to a i5-750 for what your doing.

-Wes

I second this recommendation, just get the i5 750 to replace your current i3 I bet most of your speed problem should go away. It's not an expensive upgrade but will give you a great deal more in multitasking, it also overclocks pretty well.

 

[tweakboy]

How about the i5 , does it seperate itself from i3 . Or is i5 just simply a budget CPU as well.

 

[IntelUser2000]

The graphics in the i3 is more than 2x faster than the Radeon X550. Of course, the program you are running doesn't look GPU intensive. I think there's a possibility that Nvidia cards work better with the particular program. Something about driver optimizations.

Now I don't know about how Intel would work with that program. But try it out anyway.

CPU-wise, you have your quad-cores overclocked, at speeds higher than even the i3. Don't know if the program would be well-threaded, but doesn't look like it.

 

[Silenus]

I'm going to third the suggestion you pull the ATI and just try the built in Intel graphics of the i3. You may find it runs better than the old ATI card. If it's not a 3d app it will be way more than enough GPU power. Be sure you have latest drivers loaded for the Intel graphics!

 

[Zap]

One of my other machines on the network is my old reliable Q6600 overclocked to 3.4 - and it runs just about as good as my main computer (below) that I am typing on. The i3 machine is a very distant third place...

Faster CPU is faster.

You are triple tasking on a dual core.

Core i5 750 is a true quad core. You can also go Core i7 on socket 1156 which would give quad cores with hyperthreading.

 

[Blastman]

At stock speeds, the i3-530 was slightly faster overall than a Q6600 in a suite of benchmarks. Even against an overclocked Q6600 there shouldn't be much difference. See … behardware 146 processor roundup

How much DDR3 ram is in the i3-530 machine?

Also, that X550 is basically slower than a X600 pro from 6 years ago. A 8600GT will be at least 6x faster or more. This is probably the problem. Try switching out the graphics card to the 8600GT and see how things run

 

[jthunderloc]

At stock speeds, the i3-530 was slightly faster overall than a Q6600 in a suite of benchmarks. Even against an overclocked Q6600 there shouldn't be much difference. See … behardware 146 processor roundup

How much DDR3 ram is in the i3-530 machine?

Also, that X550 is basically slower than a X600 pro from 6 years ago. A 8600GT will be at least 6x faster or more. This is probably the problem. Try switching out the graphics card to the 8600GT and see how things run

Every benchmark I've read has shown the i3 to be slightly better, but I found it to be slightly worse or on par with the Q6600 in real world use, especially gaming and multitasking.

The GPU is more then likely a big part of the bottleneck, but 3 threads on a dual core chip is going to perform worse then 3 threads on a quad core chip. I wouldn't be surprised if adding in the i3 GPU made things worse as its all on the CPU then. Admittedly, I don't know if the GPU is totally independent or if it would impact the logic cores at all.

The way I've come to see it is the i3 and dual core i5s are the upgrade path for dual core users, with the addition of Hyper Threading and Turbo boost on the i5s it gives a nice boost in performance. For us quad core users the i5 750 and i7 series is the ideal upgrade path. I've got my 750 OC'd with Turbo boost on to 3.2/3.4/3.8 with almost no voltage increase and it performs like a beast!

-Wes

 

[AzN]

Pentium D runs better? There might be something wrong with your system.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Pentium D runs better? There might be something wrong with your system.

This. Must not be CPU then.