Quad core slower on windows startup than dual core

[GeezerMan]

I have upgraded two AMD HTPC rigs. Different motherboards. Both from a 2.8GHz dual core to a 2.8GHz quad core . Why is Windows 7 startup slower with the quad cores?

 

[Yuriman]

Which dual core to which quad core?

 

[GeezerMan]

Athlon II X2 240 to a Phenom II X4 830.

IIRC, my old E6300 started faster than my Q6600

 

[Puppies04]

A lot of the "windows" startup time is actually down to how long the board takes to post. I would guess the new boards take longer to post.

 

[GeezerMan]

Let me clarify here. it's different motherboards in two rigs. Both motherboards had X2 240 that upgraded to X4 830. Both boards are slower in Windows 7 startup.

 

[Yuriman]

Which part? Post? The actual loading screen? Or from welcome to usability?

 

[GeezerMan]

I'm counting from when I see "Starting Windows"

 

[ShintaiDK]

More memory also makes boot slower due to the locking. But with dual to quad, are we talking 1 second? had you expected faster?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Windows boot times conform to no known system of logic.

Why can I do this on my 6 year old Dell with an X2 5200+ and a hard drive that barely pulls 50MB/s outer track:

This with a 9 year old Dell with a 2.4GHz Northwood Celeron and only 512MB RAM:

Yet nothing I do will get my BIL's X4 945 with a Spinpoint F3 to under 25 seconds post-NTLDR?

 

[sm625]

Since it has more threads available then it must be attempting to start more services and load more drivers at once. It must be coming across a device driver or whatnot that is dependent upon the starting of another, and then timing out waiting for the dependent service or driver to be loaded. The timeout is probably stupidly long.