bottleneck / slowest link

MowyTone

MowyTone

MowyTone

Soldato
Joined
4 May 2009
Posts
3,370
Location
Southampton
Hi Guys,

Does anyone know if there is a way of identifying the slowest piece of hardware on the bus?

Vista x64 untimate
Q6600
OCZ 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2 800MHz/PC2-6400 X 2
Asus P5N-E SLI 650i Socket 775 PCI-E
ASUS NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTX
Western Digital WD5000AAKS 500GB SATA II 7200RPM 16MB Cache - OEM

Edit: sorry 95th forgot to say X 2 for the ram set
 
Last edited:
hiya mate

well you really should be running more RAM, ditch that and stick a new 4 gig kit in, that will help massively. If youre referring to gaming itll be the gfx card, but that aint too bad still, its pretty much your RAM holding you back, get this stuff, if your mobo supports 1066 good, if not get it anyway, itll just run slower (800) and should run with tighter timings
 
GuRkHa//$PIMP$ said:
Liking the look of these: OCZ Reaper HPC Edition 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 PC2-8500C5 1066MHz Dual Channel (OCZ2RPR10664GK)


They worth getting?
Click to expand...

No.

1066Mhz memory is not much faster than 800Mhz in the real world. It only helps when highly overclocking or trying to get higher benchmarks.

A few suggestions to increase speed:

-If at stock, try overclocking your cpu to 3Ghz.
-Buy a faster hard disk/another one of the same and RAID0 them
-Reformat and install only what you use/reformat and use 7 over vista (or xp, but most people see that as an "old os" meh :()
-Buy a new graphics card.

Try one or more of those (prefferably all) and you should have a faster system :)
 
cpu is clocked to 2.6 a core atm....Its not a major problem as I can still run games full spec and get no lag. Its just sitting round waiting for steam to load sometimes that got me thinking.
 
Limited by either processor or hard drive depending on application. Bottlenecks are in terms of use, not absolutes. My 8800GT is the quickest thing in my system for what I use it for, but most people would consider it the bottleneck.

Overclock the processor, at least to 3ghz. That'll help absolutely everything it ever does. Raid 0 or an ssd is the next step, the former if you *need* a massive os drive, the latter if you don't. I've got 3 operating systems on a 30gb ssd with no problems
 
Yeah I agree with the posters.
Your ram definitely needs replacing. 2GB is not enough.
You are using a 64bit operating system right? because it will not recognise any additional rams otherwise (32bit OS recognises up to 3GB of ram only).
Next I would consider raiding your harddrive, you will notice a significant boost to your pc boot times and application load speed etc. They are very cheap nowadays. What I would also suggest is have a seperate hard drive for storage only, this way you won't clutter up you pc with too many junk that would ultimately reduce your pc performance.
You graphics card is fine, but I would consider upgrading that as you last priority. The price for a decent card is about £150 these days, but for that price you can easily upgrade several other components first... that's my suggestion anyway :)
 
LinktoInsanity said:
Higher rpm will help the most, but the only ones you can get are WD Raptors, but then there's SSDs...
Click to expand...

SSDs are quite cheap nowadays, and you can just get say a 30GB one to run your OS, and the other one for storage. It makes it so much faster.

But nothing's really the slowest part, it's a very well balanced machine. When you get a new HDD, the next thing i'd say would be the CPU... or of course the OS, Linux would be faster :p
 
There's quite a difference between the 25ish cd install of debian and DSL. Windows is not always bloated, XP is faster out of the box than ubuntu in my experience. it even stays faster if properly maintained. Rip it down with nlite and you're laughing

I'm going to ignore the video, but thanks for the link. Ubuntu is quite user friendly / restrictive enough for me without going as far as Mint. Strange that you didn't list gentoo, arch or slackware as examples of fast operating systems.
 
Well, DSL and Puppy are probably the lightest. Then there's Feather and Arch, and then you have tons of mid range ones and then some bloated ones *Cough*Red Hat*Cough*.
 
So offtopic and I just don't care... it's still kind of about bottlenecks

I'm unsure about that. I tend to run debian minimal, with X, xdm, fluxbox, nano and a browser when using old hardware. Seems to run well on anything, not convinced puppy would do a better job of it.

Quickest should always be one compiled for your hardware, with a monolithic kernel similarly compiled for your hardware. I think this points towards gentoo being the quickest option (in use, not to install :) ), especially if you want gnome or the like

Any thoughts on nlite xp vs ubuntu? Its astonishing just how well window's 2003 effort runs on dual cores
 
Oh DSL is far lighter than anything else. It doesn't even need a hard drive, it can exist entirely in RAM. It has been demonstrated with something like 300MHz and 16MB RAM.
 
PakJai said:
2GB is not enough.
You are using a 64bit operating system right? because it will not recognise any additional rams otherwise (32bit OS recognises up to 3GB of ram only).
Click to expand...

theres a patch to fix it on x64 vista. so my 4GB is recognised. I think the main bulk of the problem is its been the same install since I first built it and its getting a bit clogged up. Going to format the drive and then raid it as this seems to be a quick and cheapish option. In terms of clocking the cpu I have clocked it to 2.48 as 2.7 and 2.8 were not stable and crashed out. Anyone know a way of working out / finding a way to push it and keep it stable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom