Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Intel Core 2 Duo 45nm


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 fleamour

fleamour

  • Members
  • 297 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Local time:11:13 AM

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:14 PM

I have recently installed a new 3GHz processor E8400. Intel claim blistering responsiveness & multi tasking. I am somewhat underwhelmed. It will surf the net when running a virus scan, but slowly. When moving "My Documents" to another partition both cores show up as very little activity as low as 2-3%, but invoking Firefox from the quick launch is anything but speedy. Does this sound familiar?

Some things are quicker like at start up all the items load very fast into the system tray. I guess it's reality versus Intel's hype, but I'd hate to run Vista on this computer.
ASRock Conroe (micro ATX) - Ubuntu 12.04/Win 7 Ultimate (x86)
Intel C2D E8400 3.0GHz/low profile Noctua (single fan)
4GB OCZ DDR2 RAM, GeForce GT220 1024MB

Vintage IBM-T21 laptop, Xubuntu Lucid LTS
512MB KingSpec RAM, 1GHz CPU [T22 Fan], Wireless-G PCMCIA, 7200RPM HDD

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Budapest

Budapest

    Bleepin' Cynic


  • Moderator
  • 23,579 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:13 PM

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:18 PM

Computer speed is often very dependent on the amount of RAM you have, as well as the processor speed.

Running virus scans and moving documents is probably very dependent on the performance of your hard drive.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it.

—George Bernard Shaw

#3 fleamour

fleamour
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 297 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Local time:11:13 AM

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:29 PM

While I was at it I also installed 4GB of OCZ DDR2 667 running in dual channel mode. Oh for a solid state drive!
ASRock Conroe (micro ATX) - Ubuntu 12.04/Win 7 Ultimate (x86)
Intel C2D E8400 3.0GHz/low profile Noctua (single fan)
4GB OCZ DDR2 RAM, GeForce GT220 1024MB

Vintage IBM-T21 laptop, Xubuntu Lucid LTS
512MB KingSpec RAM, 1GHz CPU [T22 Fan], Wireless-G PCMCIA, 7200RPM HDD

#4 dpunisher

dpunisher

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,234 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South TX
  • Local time:05:13 AM

Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:41 PM

That was going to be my observation, well, as far as a faster drive. I can't tell the difference in system "responsiveness" from a lowly 2.5ghz C2D to a 3.6ghz C2D. Gaming/encoding is a different matter.

I am a retired Ford tech. Next to Fords, any computer is a piece of cake. (The cake, its not a lie)

3770K @4.5, Corsair H100, GTX780, 16gig Samsung, Obsidian 700 (yes there is a 700)


#5 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,127 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:05:13 AM

Posted 03 December 2008 - 01:31 PM

As I understand it...multi-core systems are faster...in situations where they are asked to do more in the same amount of time...as a non-multicore system would.

If the system is not multitasked, it seems improbable that a typical user will truly experience much gain over using earlier processors/systems.

The fact of having two or more cores to do mundane, routine tasks...will probably not be perceptible to any but engineers and programmers or those running benchmarks.

I think we sometimes forget how relative all of these "speed increases" are and that they are not likely to be perceptible without tools not normally used by consumers.

I know that my modest dual-core system is more effective/faster at rendering than my old system...but part of that is accounted for by the fact that I have more RAM installed/employed.

Louis

#6 figgis41

figgis41

  • Members
  • 801 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hull England
  • Local time:11:13 AM

Posted 03 December 2008 - 04:09 PM

hi,,,, just another point,,, surfing the net is all about the speed of your internet connection rather than your processor,,,, the larger the connection speeds the more data is transferd and the faster pages are loaded,,, if your downloading at say at 6336 kbps like mine, then this will be the same if your using a 3Ghz processor or a 1.8Ghz one,, the bottle neck is the internet connection as both processors can handle a lot more than 6336 kbps. :thumbsup:
Figgis,,,, LUFC

#7 fleamour

fleamour
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 297 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Local time:11:13 AM

Posted 11 December 2008 - 04:59 PM

Yeh only have 10/100 connection, seems adequate, no need to reinstall XP to recognise the 2nd core then? Read something in Micro Mart. I guess not as can see two windows in CPU usage history under task manager. Actually I could, ah this is a different computer! Lol thought one core had switched of then!
ASRock Conroe (micro ATX) - Ubuntu 12.04/Win 7 Ultimate (x86)
Intel C2D E8400 3.0GHz/low profile Noctua (single fan)
4GB OCZ DDR2 RAM, GeForce GT220 1024MB

Vintage IBM-T21 laptop, Xubuntu Lucid LTS
512MB KingSpec RAM, 1GHz CPU [T22 Fan], Wireless-G PCMCIA, 7200RPM HDD




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users