Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

[Guest Jud Hendrix]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:41:47 -0700, "Clayton" <claytonbNOSPAM@xtra.co.nz>

wrote:

>And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed

>roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset does.

 

How do you know? Have you run some serious benchmarks to back this up? "I

can not really tell the differences" is not good enough ;-)

Just have a look at tomshardware or pcstats or similar websites what kind

of benchmarks they run, and let us know your results, because we're all

curious anyhow :-)

 

jud

[Guest Carlos]

RE: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

Clayton:

The performance rating in Vista is determined by the lowest performing

susbsystem in your PC.

The only significant item you have not changed is your HD.

Maybe that is the item determining that your Performance Rating is not going

up.

The other parts have been upgraded but this one not.

Just a guess.

Carlos

 

"Clayton" wrote:

> last week my system was running the following

>

> 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU

> 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card

> 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory

> 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD

> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT

>

> Now I am running the following

>

> i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU

> 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card

> 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory

> 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD

> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT

>

> And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed

> roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset does.

>

> Go Figure

>

>

>

[Guest Mark]

Re: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

I think the point is...

If you have to run serious benchmarks to tell the difference, then there

is no difference at the user level.

 

 

"Jud Hendrix" <none@none.com> wrote in message

news:r9aqd3d0q8varo52foq3874gj1q3ic6akf@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:41:47 -0700, "Clayton" <claytonbNOSPAM@xtra.co.nz>

> wrote:

>

>>And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed

>>roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset

>>does.

>

> How do you know? Have you run some serious benchmarks to back this up? "I

> can not really tell the differences" is not good enough ;-)

> Just have a look at tomshardware or pcstats or similar websites what kind

> of benchmarks they run, and let us know your results, because we're all

> curious anyhow :-)

>

> jud

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

I agree - only the memory too, ECC memory is slightly slower than non-ECC

and the resulting performance benefit may not be very big. Also, the

performance rating is no benchmark, it is just a rating of Hardware that is

compared from a list that is itself updated over time. It doesn't mean one

machine wouldn't push more real work through the internals than the other.

Just that you are not likely to see any difference by looking at the screen.

 

Not to criticize, among my machinery there is one that was partly upgraded

that I am very happy with, performancewise. But benchmarks does not rate it

very high - your upgrade, Clayton, does seem to be a

'bottleneck-balancing-act' in much the same way. You decide if you like it,

benchmarks are little more than entertainment.

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

"Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:C99B3F2F-CEBC-4CD8-AAA1-F2F15D2C2377@microsoft.com...

> Clayton:

> The performance rating in Vista is determined by the lowest performing

> susbsystem in your PC.

> The only significant item you have not changed is your HD.

> Maybe that is the item determining that your Performance Rating is not

going

> up.

> The other parts have been upgraded but this one not.

> Just a guess.

> Carlos

>

> "Clayton" wrote:

>

> > last week my system was running the following

> >

> > 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU

> > 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card

> > 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory

> > 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD

> > Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT

> >

> > Now I am running the following

> >

> > i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU

> > 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card

> > 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory

> > 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD

> > Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT

> >

> > And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system

showed

> > roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset

does.

> >

> > Go Figure

> >

> >

> >

[Guest John Barnes]

Re: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

You have reduced the speed that any single process can perform from 3.4 to

2.4GHz. Multi processing should work better as most system processes should

be distributed to other cores, but unless a program is written so that it

can parallel process on multiple cores, which is very rare except in

specialty programs, the only difference is a program not having to multiplex

a cpu with as many other tasks. Programs that are memory intensive should

work faster because of the memory upgrade, but a single task cpu intensive

that just calculates instructions per second is limited by the GHz of one

core unless written otherwise. With your upgrade of the graphics card and

memory you should have a better user experience, especially when you are

multi-tasking.

 

"Clayton" <claytonbNOSPAM@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:O27Oy9s7HHA.5316@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> last week my system was running the following

>

> 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU

> 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card

> 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory

> 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD

> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT

>

> Now I am running the following

>

> i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU

> 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card

> 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory

> 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD

> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT

>

> And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed

> roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset

> does.

>

> Go Figure

>

[Guest Mark]

Re: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

You've been duped by the "mult-core myth."

 

Imagine you have four single-core desktop computers sitting next to each

other running separate applications. How much more efficient are you at

running all four at the same time? Probably not much because you can't

really work that way.

 

Now connect the four computers to a common network so that you can access

any of them from the same keyboard and screen. Is it more efficient now?

 

Now create one application that creates sub-programs to send out to each of

those desktops across this closed network to perform calculations

independantly and then sends the results back to the one you are using to

assemble the information into something displayable. This is efficiency!

But, timing and loading becomes important. If one computer finishes first,

then the results may be meaningless when assembled for viewing. Very few

home users ever see programs of this caliber.

 

Instead, we run one application at a time and make very little use of our

multi-core processor. And, since you went from one processor at 3.4 GHz to

essentially one processor at 2.4 GHz, you may have actually seen a decrease

in performance based on how most home users actually use their computer.

 

The good news is that your operating system is smart enough to run on one of

the other processors giving the application you are using full reign of

another processor. Your video card will claim another, but must fight the

other three for the single, slower data bus and the same RAM. And lets not

forget! It's all running hyper-threaded making it act like eight processors

(still running one application designed for one processor.)

 

 

"Clayton" <claytonbNOSPAM@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:O27Oy9s7HHA.5316@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> last week my system was running the following

>

> 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU

> 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card

> 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory

> 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD

> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT

>

> Now I am running the following

>

> i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU

> 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card

> 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory

> 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD

> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT

>

> And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed

> roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset

does.

>

> Go Figure

>

>

[Guest John Barnes]

Re: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

And for me, unlike XP64, Vista64 doesn't distribute multiple processes

efficiently and to avoid the problem of having too many on one core, causing

it to hit the 100% usage level (causing hangs) while the other core runs at

30%, I have to manually assign 8 tasks each morning when I start my computer

if my work is to run efficiently.

 

"Mark" <jmhonzell@nospam.insightbb.com> wrote in message

news:%23Wna9qu7HHA.5984@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> You've been duped by the "mult-core myth."

>

> Imagine you have four single-core desktop computers sitting next to each

> other running separate applications. How much more efficient are you at

> running all four at the same time? Probably not much because you can't

> really work that way.

>

> Now connect the four computers to a common network so that you can access

> any of them from the same keyboard and screen. Is it more efficient now?

>

> Now create one application that creates sub-programs to send out to each

> of

> those desktops across this closed network to perform calculations

> independantly and then sends the results back to the one you are using to

> assemble the information into something displayable. This is efficiency!

> But, timing and loading becomes important. If one computer finishes first,

> then the results may be meaningless when assembled for viewing. Very few

> home users ever see programs of this caliber.

>

> Instead, we run one application at a time and make very little use of our

> multi-core processor. And, since you went from one processor at 3.4 GHz to

> essentially one processor at 2.4 GHz, you may have actually seen a

> decrease

> in performance based on how most home users actually use their computer.

>

> The good news is that your operating system is smart enough to run on one

> of

> the other processors giving the application you are using full reign of

> another processor. Your video card will claim another, but must fight the

> other three for the single, slower data bus and the same RAM. And lets not

> forget! It's all running hyper-threaded making it act like eight

> processors

> (still running one application designed for one processor.)

>

>

> "Clayton" <claytonbNOSPAM@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

> news:O27Oy9s7HHA.5316@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> last week my system was running the following

>>

>> 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU

>> 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card

>> 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory

>> 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD

>> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT

>>

>> Now I am running the following

>>

>> i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU

>> 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card

>> 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory

>> 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD

>> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT

>>

>> And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system

>> showed

>> roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset

> does.

>>

>> Go Figure

>>

>>

>

>

[Guest John Barnes]

Re: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

I should have added that architecture of the components of the CPU can make

functions for which it was optimised help offset the slower clock cycles.

 

"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message

news:O9R0Kfu7HHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> You have reduced the speed that any single process can perform from 3.4 to

> 2.4GHz. Multi processing should work better as most system processes

> should be distributed to other cores, but unless a program is written so

> that it can parallel process on multiple cores, which is very rare except

> in specialty programs, the only difference is a program not having to

> multiplex a cpu with as many other tasks. Programs that are memory

> intensive should work faster because of the memory upgrade, but a single

> task cpu intensive that just calculates instructions per second is limited

> by the GHz of one core unless written otherwise. With your upgrade of the

> graphics card and memory you should have a better user experience,

> especially when you are multi-tasking.

>

> "Clayton" <claytonbNOSPAM@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

> news:O27Oy9s7HHA.5316@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> last week my system was running the following

>>

>> 875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU

>> 256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card

>> 2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory

>> 500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD

>> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT

>>

>> Now I am running the following

>>

>> i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU

>> 256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card

>> 2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory

>> 500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD

>> Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT

>>

>> And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system

>> showed roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X

>> Chipset does.

>>

>> Go Figure

>>

>

[Guest Juergen Kluth]

Re: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

Hi,

i give you a hint :

run both maschines, start word and let both wait for your keystrokes ...

;-)

 

jk

PS: i guess your quadcore runs not that hot

[Guest Jud Hendrix]

Re: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:51:52 +0200, "Juergen Kluth" <jkluth@t-onlinr.de>

wrote:

>i give you a hint :

>run both maschines, start word and let both wait for your keystrokes ...

>;-)

 

Not impressed ;-)

 

jh

[Guest Homer J. Simpson]

Re: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

>>i give you a hint :

>>run both maschines, start word and let both wait for your keystrokes ...

>>;-)

>

> Not impressed ;-)

 

This is a case of "my PC waits faster than your PC", right? :o)

[Guest Clayton]

Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

last week my system was running the following

 

875P Chipset with a 3.4GHz Extreme Edition Socket 478 CPU

256MB AGP 8X 7800GS Graphics Card

2 x 1GB DDR400 NON ECC Dual Channnel Memory

500GB SATA 7200RPM HDD

Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT

 

Now I am running the following

 

i975X Chipset with a 2.4GHz Quad Care Socket LGA775 CPU

256MB PCI-E X16 Quadro FX3450 Graphics Card

2 x 2GB DDR667 ECC Dual Channel Memory

500Gb SATA 7200PRM HDD

Windows XP/VISTA 32-BIT - XP/VISTA 64-BIT

 

And I can not really tell the differences!!! My 875P chipset system showed

roughly the same performance rating in Vista than my new i975X Chipset does.

 

Go Figure

[Guest Clayton]

Re: Speed Difference Hardware Upgarde

 

Well ... yeh, the lowest score was 4.0 and that was the 3D business

graphics, so I upgraded from a Quadro FX 550 to a Quardo FX 4500 and now 3D

is 5.7. now it is 5.3 and the lowest is for the memory.

 

 

"Homer J. Simpson" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message

news:uHSQGKz7HHA.2752@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>i give you a hint :

>>>run both maschines, start word and let both wait for your keystrokes ...

>>>;-)

>>

>> Not impressed ;-)

>

> This is a case of "my PC waits faster than your PC", right? :o)

>