trying to boost performance XP pro 64

[Guest Larry]

I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over

250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load max

avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program install or

even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only went up

to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost system

speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD and

NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up todate.

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

 

 

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

news:12380796-46D4-4BF7-8584-AC6482666C8C@microsoft.com...

>I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over

> 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load max

> avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program install

> or

> even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only went

> up

> to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost

> system

> speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD and

> NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up todate.

[Guest Larry]

Re: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the

install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the other

stayed at almost 0%.

 

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?

>

> --

> Charlie.

> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>

>

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

> news:12380796-46D4-4BF7-8584-AC6482666C8C@microsoft.com...

> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over

> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load max

> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program install

> > or

> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only went

> > up

> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost

> > system

> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD and

> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up todate.

>

[Guest Clayton]

Re: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

That is quite normal isn't it?

 

 

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

news:781F1755-D34E-44E7-B6CE-51F265C493DC@microsoft.com...

> That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the

> install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the other

> stayed at almost 0%.

>

> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

>

>> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?

>>

>> --

>> Charlie.

>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>>

>>

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

>> news:12380796-46D4-4BF7-8584-AC6482666C8C@microsoft.com...

>> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over

>> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load

>> > max

>> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program

>> > install

>> > or

>> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only

>> > went

>> > up

>> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost

>> > system

>> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD

>> > and

>> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up

>> > todate.

>>

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

Yeah, what I'd expect. When single tasking, a dual core isn't better than a

single core, in fact usually worse.

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

 

 

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

news:%23waJGQBJIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> That is quite normal isn't it?

>

>

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

> news:781F1755-D34E-44E7-B6CE-51F265C493DC@microsoft.com...

>> That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the

>> install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the

>> other

>> stayed at almost 0%.

>>

>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

>>

>>> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?

>>>

>>> --

>>> Charlie.

>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>>>

>>>

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

>>> news:12380796-46D4-4BF7-8584-AC6482666C8C@microsoft.com...

>>> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and

>>> >over

>>> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load

>>> > max

>>> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program

>>> > install

>>> > or

>>> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only

>>> > went

>>> > up

>>> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost

>>> > system

>>> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD

>>> > and

>>> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up

>>> > todate.

>>>

>

[Guest Larry]

Re: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

No!! A system using dual core wheather Intel or Amd 64 should work about the

same

the difference should be only the 32 vs 64, and the data transfer rate. I

worked with many systems using multi-processors before dual core. They need

to work together to do the the job.

 

"Clayton" wrote:

> That is quite normal isn't it?

>

>

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

> news:781F1755-D34E-44E7-B6CE-51F265C493DC@microsoft.com...

> > That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the

> > install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the other

> > stayed at almost 0%.

> >

> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> >

> >> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?

> >>

> >> --

> >> Charlie.

> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

> >>

> >>

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

> >> news:12380796-46D4-4BF7-8584-AC6482666C8C@microsoft.com...

> >> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over

> >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load

> >> > max

> >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program

> >> > install

> >> > or

> >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only

> >> > went

> >> > up

> >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost

> >> > system

> >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD

> >> > and

> >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up

> >> > todate.

> >>

>

>

[Guest Larry]

RE: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

Maybe being an older technician. I may be expecting more and demanding more

from any or both MS and any computer Manufactures Tech Support Systems or

level 3 as their best engineers are known. I do not want to bump heads just

get logical questions answered.

 

"Larry" wrote:

> I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over

> 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load max

> avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program install or

> even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only went up

> to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost system

> speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD and

> NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up todate.

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

As far as I know - mostly for caching reasons - a process (or parts of it)

will not be split up or transfered away at relatively low usage. Try and

start another process that will use around 50% and it is my experience that

the Windows Scheduler handles these things very well.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood, but 2x25% wouldn't perform any differently from

1x50%. Just beacause you see one core being idle, doesn't mean you'll get

more performance by splitting up the process. If you have good reasons to

want this handled differently, you have to use software that is written to

do this on it's own. If you leave it to the system, this is what the system

does.

 

I have a Athlon FX 62 and a ASUS motherboard (nv590) and all of this is

indeed normal.

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

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

news:EF6D73EE-F94F-44C4-9876-76912C7A46D8@microsoft.com...

> No!! A system using dual core wheather Intel or Amd 64 should work about

> the

> same

> the difference should be only the 32 vs 64, and the data transfer rate. I

> worked with many systems using multi-processors before dual core. They

> need

> to work together to do the the job.

>

> "Clayton" wrote:

>

>> That is quite normal isn't it?

>>

>>

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

>> news:781F1755-D34E-44E7-B6CE-51F265C493DC@microsoft.com...

>> > That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the

>> > install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the

>> > other

>> > stayed at almost 0%.

>> >

>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

>> >

>> >> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?

>> >>

>> >> --

>> >> Charlie.

>> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>> >>

>> >>

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

>> >> news:12380796-46D4-4BF7-8584-AC6482666C8C@microsoft.com...

>> >> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and

>> >> >over

>> >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU

>> >> > load

>> >> > max

>> >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program

>> >> > install

>> >> > or

>> >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only

>> >> > went

>> >> > up

>> >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost

>> >> > system

>> >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially

>> >> > HD

>> >> > and

>> >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up

>> >> > todate.

>> >>

>>

>>

[Guest John Barnes]

Re: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

I'm with Charlie. A single task will only use one core. While if the

system splits tasks properly, the system processes can process on the other

core making the overall more efficient, the speed of each core is usually

slower than many of the single processors. To split a program to two or

more cores it must be written specifically for that purpose, and processes

ahead discarding any processing based on a false branch. Only programs that

do not have branching (or much) can efficiently use all cores. Not the type

of program a consumer is likely to use. More likely written for a

supercomputer.

 

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

news:EF6D73EE-F94F-44C4-9876-76912C7A46D8@microsoft.com...

> No!! A system using dual core wheather Intel or Amd 64 should work about

> the

> same

> the difference should be only the 32 vs 64, and the data transfer rate. I

> worked with many systems using multi-processors before dual core. They

> need

> to work together to do the the job.

>

> "Clayton" wrote:

>

>> That is quite normal isn't it?

>>

>>

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

>> news:781F1755-D34E-44E7-B6CE-51F265C493DC@microsoft.com...

>> > That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the

>> > install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the

>> > other

>> > stayed at almost 0%.

>> >

>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

>> >

>> >> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?

>> >>

>> >> --

>> >> Charlie.

>> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>> >>

>> >>

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

>> >> news:12380796-46D4-4BF7-8584-AC6482666C8C@microsoft.com...

>> >> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and

>> >> >over

>> >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU

>> >> > load

>> >> > max

>> >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program

>> >> > install

>> >> > or

>> >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only

>> >> > went

>> >> > up

>> >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost

>> >> > system

>> >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially

>> >> > HD

>> >> > and

>> >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up

>> >> > todate.

>> >>

>>

>>

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

This is a misunderstanding of multi-processors, whether multi-core or

multi-socket, it's the same dynamic. If I start MS Word, it uses one

processor. It doesn't know anything about multiple CPUs and doesn't know how

to take advantage of them. Now if it spawns a print job, the OS should

generally assign that to a different CPU, IF that makes sense in the overall

scheme of the load. If I start Excel, it would generally go to a different

CPU. Again, assuming other CPUs aren't already loaded. But if all I'm

running is a single application (game, business app, browser, whatever),

then that application will NOT split across CPUs unless it was explicitly

written to do so. And only applications designed to run in mulltiprocessor

or compute cluster environments will be designed to do so.

 

At the same price point, I can have a processor with a single core, two

cores or four cores. That single core processor will have a faster clock

speed than the 2 core, and the 2 core will have a faster clock speed than

the 4 core. Now, add on to that the partitioning of memory, and the overhead

of managing the extra cores and trying to distribute any work loads, and the

interprocess communication (IPC) that now must cross CPU boundaries (and

thus use slower mechanisms than internal CPU registers), and you begin to

see why multiple cores is not a panacea. Add to that the serious limitations

of the Intel memory transport links and off-chip memory controller, and you

can even end up with issues when you have multiple cores running multiple

processes if they're using enough memory to saturate that buss. On my dual

Xeon 5130 server (4 cores) with 16 GB of fbDIMM RAM, I can't realistically

use more than about 12 - 12.5 GB of RAM before that memory buss saturates

and the whole machine grinds to a crawl. On my quad core server, that's not

an issue. It has 16 GB of RAM and I routinely push up to 15 GB and a bit

over without an issue. (neither of the servers is CPU bound, even running

nearly a dozen Virtual Machines.)

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

 

 

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

news:EF6D73EE-F94F-44C4-9876-76912C7A46D8@microsoft.com...

> No!! A system using dual core wheather Intel or Amd 64 should work about

> the

> same

> the difference should be only the 32 vs 64, and the data transfer rate. I

> worked with many systems using multi-processors before dual core. They

> need

> to work together to do the the job.

>

> "Clayton" wrote:

>

>> That is quite normal isn't it?

>>

>>

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

>> news:781F1755-D34E-44E7-B6CE-51F265C493DC@microsoft.com...

>> > That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the

>> > install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the

>> > other

>> > stayed at almost 0%.

>> >

>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

>> >

>> >> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?

>> >>

>> >> --

>> >> Charlie.

>> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

>> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>> >>

>> >>

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

>> >> news:12380796-46D4-4BF7-8584-AC6482666C8C@microsoft.com...

>> >> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and

>> >> >over

>> >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU

>> >> > load

>> >> > max

>> >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program

>> >> > install

>> >> > or

>> >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only

>> >> > went

>> >> > up

>> >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost

>> >> > system

>> >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially

>> >> > HD

>> >> > and

>> >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up

>> >> > todate.

>> >>

>>

>>

[Guest Juergen Kluth]

Re: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

Hi,

i can believe, that you would feel more satisfied if a program install would

have a load only of 3 %.

 

In this case with 97% of the cpu capacity (other than the 50 % mentioned by

you), the cpu makes the display looking at you and exermines

whether you feel good or not.

May be 50 % is quiet enough for that job.

 

On the graphics : where do you encounter problems ?

If you hit a key on your keyboard, how long does it take until the key is

displayed on your screen ?

Is it more minutes (or hours ) than seconds ?

 

SCNR jk

[Guest Larry]

RE: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

Thank you for all your responses, I agree that it is the programs

responsibility to utilize the machines ability. Whether running a single,

dual, or Quad core processor and having multiple individual processors for

other functions. That said, I do run high-end programs which are supposed to

use those dual core functions, but maybe not 64 bits that’s were MS OS x64

comes in. But I am not a programmer , I only try to understand the

processing. There’s no playbook just new tools which you use trying to

understand what you try to understand. If there are no ways to increase

performance even after you get so called dual processor updates from the

manufacturer and the programs you are trying to run, you just have to expect

it. Thank you for all your feedback.

 

"Larry" wrote:

> Maybe being an older technician. I may be expecting more and demanding more

> from any or both MS and any computer Manufactures Tech Support Systems or

> level 3 as their best engineers are known. I do not want to bump heads just

> get logical questions answered.

>

> "Larry" wrote:

>

> > I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and over

> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load max

> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program install or

> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only went up

> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost system

> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD and

> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up todate.

[Guest Rabbitt]

Re: trying to boost performance XP pro 64

 

 

 

If you really need higher efficiency and performance, maybe the latest Intel

or AMD chips would help, they do sound like they will make enough difference

for some to warrant the cost and effort. Or wait for both to mature and get

the next revision a year from now.

 

Compilers need to help tweak both the OS and 3rd party applications.

Even "smart" cpu's that can take on some of the scheduling.

There can be good reasons even now to put your page file on a separate, fast

drive.

Separate the OS from any data on separate drives, not just partitioned.

It may not be faster, but it should - and run smoother.

And the latest 750-1TB drives offer better performance level.

 

30 yrs ago, I'd have the page file for each system partition on its own disk

drive so there wasn't any fighting or contention between them. With some

changes, that still is how I look at configuring a system today.

 

Greg

 

 

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

news:F9CC1B8D-1C53-4CAB-8E3F-72CFBD9A9E62@microsoft.com...

> Thank you for all your responses, I agree that it is the programs

> responsibility to utilize the machines ability. Whether running a single,

> dual, or Quad core processor and having multiple individual processors for

> other functions. That said, I do run high-end programs which are supposed

> to

> use those dual core functions, but maybe not 64 bits that’s were MS OS x64

> comes in. But I am not a programmer , I only try to understand the

> processing. There’s no playbook just new tools which you use trying to

> understand what you try to understand. If there are no ways to increase

> performance even after you get so called dual processor updates from the

> manufacturer and the programs you are trying to run, you just have to

> expect

> it. Thank you for all your feedback.

>

> "Larry" wrote:

>

>> Maybe being an older technician. I may be expecting more and demanding

>> more

>> from any or both MS and any computer Manufactures Tech Support Systems or

>> level 3 as their best engineers are known. I do not want to bump heads

>> just

>> get logical questions answered.

>>

>> "Larry" wrote:

>>

>> > I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and

>> > over

>> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU load

>> > max

>> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program

>> > install or

>> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only

>> > went up

>> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost

>> > system

>> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially HD

>> > and

>> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up

>> > todate.