Perplexing comparison of two computers

Gustavus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,840
0
0
I have two main computers. Briefly a three year old machine and a relatively new one. Both are used for math research and document and figure preparation

Gigabyte GA-H55M-UD2H motherboard Dual core Intel i3-540 overclocked to 4 GHz running Windows XP with SP3 4 GB DDR3-1333 two 2GB Ripjaws RAM 9 cl Western Digital 2 TB HD

EVGA Z77 FTW motherboard quad core Intel i5-2500K overclocked to 4.4 Ghz running Windows 8.1 16 GB DDR3 two 8 GB Ripjaws RAM 9 cl SanDisk 240 GB boot SSD

Wordperfect opens in 3 seconds on the old machine with only a hard drive. Same version of Word Perfect takes 7 seconds to open on the machine running from an SSD

I can set both machines to run a very computationally intensive backtracking routine and the old machine will finish before the new machine

To get best possible memory speed each machine has only two RAM modules -- two 2GB modules in the old machine and two 8GB modules in the new one. Both are Ripjaws -- same series 9 cl timing.

Can't fathom how the new machine can be slower to load or run programs than the old one. I have checked settings in the BIOS with EVGA recommended ones and am properly set up for the overclock I have.

Anyone have any ideas of what could be the problem? Both machines are stable and pass all sorts of tests. I run them, and a couple of others, for day long computations, but I should be getting better from the new machine in question

Both machines have large coolers and do not get hot even under load. Both have way oversized Seasonic PS so voltages do not dip or vary
 
Last edited:

dbcooper1

Senior member
May 22, 2008
594
0
76
Benchmark your SSD and see if it's within reasonable read/write rates? Try a different SATA cable on the SSD or try a different port? Change things until something makes a difference. Take notes as you go, so you don't lose track of what's been done and result.
 

Gustavus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,840
0
0
dbcooper1
I don't have a screen capture software on the new machine -- the one with the SSD -- but the ATTA benchmark software ver. 3.05 shows from 64K through 64 Meg the write speed is nominally 430 MB/sec and the read mostly over 460 MB/sec.
 

Gustavus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,840
0
0
Same AV on both. Eset Smart Security 6.0.308.0 which updates definitions automatically every few hours
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Is the 64bit machine running the same 32bit version of the programs as the 32bit machine?

Maybe they run slower with a 64bit OS?

Just a wild shot.
 

Fardringle

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2000
9,188
753
126
It could be an unstable overclock on the 2500K (or the RAM). Not necessarily enough to crash the system, but enough to cause calculation errors that slow the system down while it has to run the calculations again. Try lowering the overclock a bit to see if it starts performing better.
 

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,545
236
106
It could be an unstable overclock on the 2500K (or the RAM). Not necessarily enough to crash the system, but enough to cause calculation errors that slow the system down while it has to run the calculations again. Try lowering the overclock a bit to see if it starts performing better.

To go along with this, Intel chips will clock down when hitting a max temp (so that they don't overheat). So if you are hitting the top temp for the 2500k (90 C) when running the program, your CPU is throttling down.
 

Gustavus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,840
0
0
I know Intel CPU's will throttle if they get hot. The cooler on the 2500K is a Cooler Master V6 GT -- the size of a toaster -- with two fans working in push-pull.

I hadn't thought about the fact that one machine is running 32 bits and the other 64. I will have to check to see if there is a 64 bit version of Word Perfect. I just installed from the same CD.

I have tested machine stability with Prime 95 and Pi whatever so was pretty confident it was stable. Will back off the overclock though to see if that makes a difference.

Thanks for the suggestions.
 

Gustavus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,840
0
0
Corel shows as system requirements for Word Perfect

•Microsoft Windows 10, Microsoft Windows 8/8.1, Windows 7 (32-bit or 64-bit editions), Windows XP (32-bit edition) with the latest service packs and updates installed

so I think it is compatible with both machines. That doesn't say it may not be slower on the 64 bit machine

Added:
It is only the time to open that is different on Word Perfect. I have no way of measuring the responsiveness of the program once it is open. And the few seconds is completely immaterial. I was just puzzled that a machine booting from a SSD would be slower in opening than one with a HD. The backtracking computations run for many hours -- sometimes for over a day -- so there I do have a measure of the running time and the 32 bit machine is faster
 
Last edited:

lakedude

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2009
2,549
262
126
Is the SSD properly aligned?

Is all the software in question installed on the SSD or might some bits be on a data drive?

XP was lighter and faster than W7 but I thought W8 was faster than W7. If you really want to know what the deal is you could try running XP on your new machine and see what happens...

There are some setting in BIOS that are pretty much automatic these days but in the old days these would get messed up. I don't remember exactly but DMA would be disabled or you might be running a much slower bus than the hardware could handle. I haven't seen problems like this for years but something like this could happen?

I don't know, best of luck to you!
 

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,545
236
106
Windows XP with SP3 <-------winner every time

I think it does come down to this, personally. Windows XP just doesn't have that much to take care of on the back end (compared to later MS operating systems), so it is no surprise that it is going to have the quicker feel. I know my Windows XP VMs, while lacking in some capabilities and security, have always had a faster feel to them.
 

Gustavus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,840
0
0
lakeduke

Boy is my face red! The Corel software is not on the SSD. I just checked what is on the SSD in the programs folder and it isn't there. Problem solved

Thanks

I have a big computation running on both machines this morning, but will make the change over as soon as it finishes

Added:

There are two program folders on the SSD drive -- Program Files and Program Files (x86). A folder Corel with WordPerfect Office X7 is in Program Files (x86). So I am back to a mystery again. I will check with Corel to see if there is a way to install to Program files on a 64 bit machine
 
Last edited:

fralexandr

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2007
2,244
188
106
www.flickr.com
There are two program folders on the SSD drive -- Program Files and Program Files (x86). A folder Corel with WordPerfect Office X7 is in Program Files (x86). So I am back to a mystery again. I will check with Corel to see if there is a way to install to Program files on a 64 bit machine

32-bit programs install to the x86 folder. The majority of programs on my windows 64-bit computers are still 32-bit. Over half of the items in my 64-bit program files folder are for windows programs.
For reference Office 2010 has some files in the 64-bit folder, but most of it is in the x86 folder. It opens in <1 second on SSD.
Office 2003 has 0 files in the 64-bit folder and also opens in <1 second on an SSD.

Did you try opening task manager > performance tab and viewing what gets loaded heavily when opening corel or the back tracking routine (resource monitor under the performance tab will provide a list of running services and their relevant usage)?
Have you tried running another virus scanner like malwarebytes or kaspersky free virus scan?
Is trim working?

https://social.technet.microsoft.co...rim-in-win-7-is-working?forum=w7itprohardware
run [command prompt] (as admin)

fsutil behavior query DisableDeleteNotify

If the result is '0' TRIM is enabled.
 
Last edited:

Gustavus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,840
0
0
Yes, I have run Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.1.6. Clean bill of health -- nothing found.

Speed seems good -- one million digits of Pi in 8.5 seconds

Of course the real overclockers are getting under 6 seconds
 
Last edited:

lakedude

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2009
2,549
262
126
Is it possible that even if the program is on the SSD, the data the program needs is on a mechanical?

I bet the maths you are doing are single threaded if the old machine is finishing first. No way an i3 dual beats a similar i5 quad if all 4 cores can be utilized.

I know you said you had a huge cooler, are we sure it is making good contact?

How full are the drives, when a drive gets full it slows down...

Once again, I don't know, just tossing some ideas out there.
 

Gustavus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,840
0
0
lakedude
The EVGA Z77 FTW motherboard has an onboard temperature monitor which I can see since no computer case ever gets closed here. I am running one of the half day backtracking routines right now and the temperature is varying up to 52 or 53.

The harddrive -- a Western Digital black is only 10% full.

But I think you may have put your finger on the problem. I wrote the backtracking program in Liberty Basic Booster which I will bet makes no use of multiple threads. It is very efficient -- I benchmarked it at nearly 10x the speed of the original Liberty Basic -- before opting to code the benchmarking program in it. The computer has 16 GB of cl 9 Ripjaws RAM and will abort with an error message of "Out of room" on graphs with around 50 vertices -- which means the active search tree has outgrown the memory. That is after several hours of running.
 
Last edited:

Gustavus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,840
0
0
lakedude

I wrote to the developer of LBB and just got back this reply

> > Does LBB take advantage of multiple threads?
>
> Yes, but not in the way I think you mean. The primary way in which LBB
> uses multiple threads is when drawing graphics: one thread draws the
> graphics onto an 'offscreen' (memory) bitmap, and another thread 'blits'
> the bitmap onto the screen. Using that strategy advantage can be taken
> of 'double buffering' without incurring a performance hit.

So in a sense both machines are playing on a level playing field and the main difference is the 4 GHz or 4.4 GHz CPU speed which explains why there is no great difference in how long they take to do the same computation.