New 2.4ghz C2D rig is sluggish

[imported_Jaden]

Hey guys, I just built a new C2D rig and it seems sluggish compared to my old 1.7ghz P4 setup. Here's a run down of the hardware:

-Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz
-BIOSTAR G965 Micro 775(Vista) LGA 775 Intel G965 Express Micro ATX Intel Motherboard
-Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit
-Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD3200AAKS 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
-Thermaltake TR2 W0070RUC ATX 430W Power Supply
-Windows XP SP2

I don't do much besides surf the internet and use basic office applications, so I'm using the Intel integrated graphics on the Biostar G965 motherboard.

My old rig was a P4 1.7ghz with 512mb of DDR233 ram and Windows XP SP2. I also used the Intel integrated graphics on my old rig.

The only thing I can think of that's slowing things down on my new system is the new monitor I bought. I was using a 17" CRT at 1024x768 and now I have a 22" LCD at 1680x1050. It's not that the rig is really slow... it's just not as snappy as I expected a C2D system with 2 gigs of ram would be. Do you think maybe the high resolution is the problem? Is there something else in my hardware setup that might be causing the hesitation. Thanks for the help.

 

[mushroomx]

did you install your drivers? b4 i installed my video drives, it would be very choppy

 

[imported_Jaden]

Yes, I even went out on the net and pulled the latest drivers down for the integrated graphics and the other motherboard components.

 

[imported_Jaden]

By the way, the graphics are not choppy at all. The combination of the 22" Samsung SyncMaster 226BW and integrated graphics is actually pretty decent. I'm just not getting the quick response from opening and closing programs and program windows. It seems to hang for several seconds whenever opening a program.

 

[jonmcc33]

What OS are you using?

 

[lxskllr]

Check your drives to make sure they're in DMA mode. Sometimes you'll get kicked down to PIO, and that makes the computer feel 10 years older.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33
What OS are you using?

:roll:

Originally posted by: Jaden
-Windows XP SP2

What a shame...
All that money on a WS format LCD only to run it with a QXGA (4:3) GPU.

 

[imported_Jaden]

Lxskllr, how do I go about checking that my drives are in DMA mode? My C: drive is connected via SATA and my old drive is connected via IDE.

Blain, I'm not sure what you mean? The Intel X3000 integrated graphics can handle the widescreen resolution required by my monitor.

Thanks for the help guys.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Jaden
Lxskllr, how do I go about checking that my drives are in DMA mode? My C: drive is connected via SATA and my old drive is connected via IDE.

Blain, I'm not sure what you mean? The Intel X3000 integrated graphics can handle the widescreen resolution required by my monitor.

Thanks for the help guys.

I didn't read your original post closely enough, and neglected to note that your main drive was SATA. PIO may still be a factor though if you're launching applications, or moving large amounts of data from your IDE drive. To check this, open up Device Manager, and expand the tree for IDE channels (I'm going from memory here, so you may need to play a bit) Right click on the primary IDE channel, select Properties, then Advanced and use the dropdown box to select DMA if Available. It may already be set to that, and in that case you know that isn't your problem. While you're in Device Manager though, do the same thing for the secondary channel to make sure that's set to DMA also.

 

[bamacre]

Did you install chipset drivers? Did you install them first?

 

[postmortemIA]

it comes down to hard drive, seems that neither are too impressive ones.

 

[oynaz]

Nothing wrong with the SATA drive at least, so do not think the HDDs are he problem.

I suspect a piece software might be your problem. Norton antivirus, Panda antivirus, some versions of Java, for instance, can all cause symptoms like you describe.

Bloatware or malware are other suspects.

 

[0roo0roo]

well something is certainly wrong. theres no way such a pc should be slow as a 1.7ghz p4.
you reinstalled windows right?
integrated graphics at that res is not a limiting factor unless you do heavy video or gaming. in multitasking/windows its not limiting in xp.

 

[imported_Jaden]

Thanks for the help guys.

Lxskllr, both my secondary HDD and DVD burner are set to DMA, so I'm good there.

Bamacre, I did install the chipset driver, but I don't remember if I installed it first.

Oynaz, you may right. I'm running Avast, PC Tools Spyware Doctor, and ZoneAlarm. My startup programs are WinColer.exe, Google Updater, Scheduler (not sure what this is), and SnagIt 8. I just built the computer, so I doubt I have any adware or malware yet.

OrooOroo, I'm with you. I really thought this thing would be blazing quick compared to my old pc, but it's not. In some instances it's slower, like when opening Firefox. It takes 21 seconds to open Firefox. Sometimes it takes 15 seconds for Windows Explorer to open and show me all of the folders on the hard drive.

 

[WildViper]

Check what processes are running that are resource hogs. The trick I do is to do Alt-Ctrl-Del and under Processes sort by CPU or MemUsage. Then check if the program that is slowing your computer is needed or what happens when you shut it off.

To give you an idea, my IE opens up in 5 secs. I have a C2D 7200..which I think is slower than yours. I have 1gig ram and loads of crapware loaded due to the amount of time(8months) usage.

 

[imported_Jaden]

WildViper, here's a list of the processes running on my PC. I have about 1.5 gigs of physical memory available.

Image Name User Name Session... CPU Mem Usage
OUTLOOK.EXE Dan 0 00 46,096 K
firefox.exe Dan 0 01 36,652 K
vsmon.exe SYSTEM 0 00 25,300 K
aawservice.exe SYSTEM 0 00 25,160 K
swdsvc.exe SYSTEM 0 00 24,576 K
RTHDCPL.exe Dan 0 00 23,764 K
svchost.exe SYSTEM 0 00 20,168 K
explorer.exe Dan 0 00 20,008 K
ashServ.exe SYSTEM 0 00 18,864 K
TscHelp.exe Dan 0 01 14,620 K
SnagIt32.exe Dan 0 05 14,212 K
iTunesHelper.exe Dan 0 00 12,980 K
Scheduler daemo... Dan 0 00 10,420 K
SDTrayApp.exe Dan 0 00 8,288 K
updclient.exe SYSTEM 0 00 7,904 K
zlclient.exe Dan 0 00 7,552 K
lsass.exe SYSTEM 0 00 7,512 K
ashWebSv.exe SYSTEM 0 00 7,084 K
spoolsv.exe SYSTEM 0 00 6,996 K
svchost.exe SYSTEM 0 00 6,804 K
GrooveMonitor.exe Dan 0 00 6,528 K
services.exe SYSTEM 0 00 6,488 K
iPodService.exe SYSTEM 0 00 5,752 K
SnagPriv.exe Dan 0 00 5,664 K
svchost.exe LOCAL SE... 0 00 5,512 K
svchost.exe NETWOR... 0 00 5,388 K
igfxsrvc.exe Dan 0 00 5,256 K
winlogon.exe SYSTEM 0 00 5,148 K
taskmgr.exe Dan 0 00 5,080 K
hkcmd.exe Dan 0 00 5,000 K
svchost.exe SYSTEM 0 00 4,884 K
igfxpers.exe Dan 0 00 4,876 K
alg.exe LOCAL SE... 0 00 4,568 K
ctfmon.exe Dan 0 00 4,504 K
GoogleUpdaterS... SYSTEM 0 00 4,348 K
svchost.exe NETWOR... 0 00 4,340 K
csrss.exe SYSTEM 0 00 4,212 K
jusched.exe Dan 0 00 3,392 K
AppleMobileDevic... SYSTEM 0 00 3,328 K
ALCFDRTM.EXE Dan 0 00 2,128 K
ashDisp.exe Dan 0 00 2,092 K
ashMaiSv.exe SYSTEM 0 00 1,412 K
svcntaux.exe SYSTEM 0 00 1,092 K
smss.exe SYSTEM 0 00 392 K
GoogleUpdater.exe Dan 0 00 388 K
aswUpdSv.exe SYSTEM 0 00 368 K
System SYSTEM 0 01 240 K
System Idle Proc... SYSTEM 0 93 28 K

 

[bamacre]

That's a lot of processes. :laugh:

End these tasks and see how it runs...

OUTLOOK.EXE Dan 0 00 46,096 K
firefox.exe Dan 0 01 36,652 K
aawservice.exe SYSTEM 0 00 25,160 K
swdsvc.exe SYSTEM 0 00 24,576 K
ashServ.exe SYSTEM 0 00 18,864 K
TscHelp.exe Dan 0 01 14,620 K
SnagIt32.exe Dan 0 05 14,212 K
iTunesHelper.exe Dan 0 00 12,980 K
Scheduler daemo... Dan 0 00 10,420 K
SDTrayApp.exe Dan 0 00 8,288 K
updclient.exe SYSTEM 0 00 7,904 K
zlclient.exe Dan 0 00 7,552 K
ashWebSv.exe SYSTEM 0 00 7,084 K
GrooveMonitor.exe Dan 0 00 6,528 K
iPodService.exe SYSTEM 0 00 5,752 K
SnagPriv.exe Dan 0 00 5,664 K
GoogleUpdaterS... SYSTEM 0 00 4,348 K
AppleMobileDevic... SYSTEM 0 00 3,328 K
ALCFDRTM.EXE Dan 0 00 2,128 K
ashDisp.exe Dan 0 00 2,092 K
ashMaiSv.exe SYSTEM 0 00 1,412 K
svcntaux.exe SYSTEM 0 00 1,092 K
GoogleUpdater.exe Dan 0 00 388 K
aswUpdSv.exe SYSTEM 0 00 368 K

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Jaden
I'm running Avast, PC Tools Spyware Doctor, and ZoneAlarm.

I built a very similar pc a few months ago - Gigabyte G965 mATX, Seagate320, 1680x1050 monitor, Vista32 - and it's very fast. I never thought I'd admit this but the x3000 IGP is adequate - 4.0 aero in vista perf w/latest intel driver - for most everything except gaming - looking into an ADD2 for DVI. It has very little 3rd party s/w installed. IE loads in <2 seconds after boot.

On another pc - amd4400x2 939, 2gb ram, raptor150, (2) 1600x1200 monitors, w2k - I just finished a two week trial of ZoneAlarm Pro and have mixed feelings about it. Among the pros are active spy/malware protection, some animated ad blocking using FireFox and conditionally blocking internet access by any s/w. The biggest con is that it is a huge resource hog - makes the pc hang for up to 30 seconds randomly. I'm pretty sure ZoneAlarm is the culprit since when disabled the pc runs normally.

So if the problem isn't resolved yet, here are a few things to try.
- run orthos to verify h/w stability - it'll reveal cpu/ram problems pretty quickly[http://www.techpowerup.com/dow...Stress_Prime_2004.html]
- and HDTune for the hard drive [http://www.hdtune.com/]
- if not already done, check eventViewer/deviceManager for unexplained problems
- disconnect the net cable to the pc and check browser load time
- does s/w that doesn't access the internet have slow load times? ex. computer management/disk management
- disable zonealarm temporarily (after re-enabling the XP firewall if it was disabled)
- disable the other spy/malware s/w individually
- start uninstalling other s/w individually that is a resource hog suspect
- worst case: reformat and reinstall XP and check responsiveness after each package is installed

I've been wrestling with the protection vs. performance issue and haven't found a good balance yet. The best scenario would be to off-load this work to a separate pc. A linux firewall can run on a 386 pc w/256mb ram and a 2gb disk but the free ones I've looked at don't have good spy/malware protection.

 

[crimson117]

Impressive first post, seemingly random

 

[crimson117]

Originally posted by: bamacre
That's a lot of processes. :laugh:

Yeah but nothing too bad or non-standard, and nothing really eating cycles or ram at the moment.

Originally posted by: Jaden
It takes 21 seconds to open Firefox. Sometimes it takes 15 seconds for Windows Explorer to open and show me all of the folders on the hard drive.

That does sound like overzealous security software.

I once had a client who had some anti-spyware installed along with mcafee and it just hung nearly forever when trying to open IE. Uninstalling the anti-spyware tool did the trick. You know as long as you stick with Firefox you really don't need active anti-spyware these days - just run a manual scan once in a while with spybot s&d or lavasoft ad-aware.

Personally, I use comodo firewall with avg free and have no performance complaints. (rig in my signature)

 

[imported_Jaden]

Great post Seemingly Random. You and Crimson117 were correct in that it was a s/w issue. It was Tenebril's Spy Catcher that was causing the problem. I was averaging about 25-30 seconds to open FireFox; now I'm at 5 seconds upon initial load and less than a second for additional sessions. Just to be on the safe side, I checked my Event Viewer and didn't see anything unusual, so I'm good there. I ran two sessions of Prime 95, one for each core, for 24 hours when I first built the rig and had not problems, so I'm good there also. I haven't tried the hdtune, but I'll give it a shot. Thanks again to all for the help.

 

[imported_Jaden]

Here are the HDTune results:

Transfer rate:
Min = 6.8mb/sec
Max = 80.1mb/sec
Average = 61.7mb/sec

Access Time = 15.8ms
Burst Rate = 124.9mb/sec
CPU Usage = 3.0%

Seems to be inline with results from other Wester Digital 320gb drives.

 

[seemingly random]

Glad things are running acceptably now. I believe that the general consensus is that orthos (using test:blend) is the best and easiest to use cpu/ram stability test currently - although tat causes the e6600 temps to go higher.

Did you disable the WindowsXP firewall with zonealarm installed? If additional firewalls chain to, instead of replacing an existing one, it seems like a waste if double the work is being done.

I removed zonealarm and installed comodo as mentioned by Crimson117. It hasn't been running long enough to have a full opinion but in general it gives more info about what it's doing. It also 'seems' faster - doesn't slow the pc down. The UI isn't as refined as zonealarm though.

 

[crimson117]

Comodo has a lot of notifications and gets more detailed about what it's doing (for better or for worsE). But yeah most importantly I never feel like it's slowing down the PC any more than necessary.

 

[Blain]

He's too freaked out about security. :laugh: