Mike Raiford wrote:

> Heh... I'm saying that about my 2.4ghz p4, now.. :/

Sorry.... 2.6ghz

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example, this flash game runs slowly enough that it's unplayable on 
> my home PC, but my office PC, which has the same CPU speed, but is a 
> Core 2 Duo runs it fine. I can't figure out why my processor seems to be 
> slowing down, though.

  Which OS are you using? If Windows, what kind of maintenance do you
perform on it? For example, have you checked what programs start themselves
at startup? Have you tried defragmenters, registry and disk clenup, and
other such things? (And of course virus and adware scanning should be
rather obvious.)

  Have you checked your CPU temperature? Does the CPU fan tend to run much
faster nowadays than years ago? Assuming it's working properly, of course.
(A relatively remote, although plausible, explanation for real, rather than
perceived, slowdowns is that the P4 and newer processors actually decrease
their own clockrate if they become dangerously overheated. However, usually
you should notice this long before it happens, as the CPU fan will start
spinning like mad. Assuming it's working properly, of course.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> 
>   Which OS are you using? If Windows, what kind of maintenance do you
> perform on it? For example, have you checked what programs start themselves
> at startup? Have you tried defragmenters, registry and disk clenup, and
> other such things? (And of course virus and adware scanning should be
> rather obvious.)
> 

Vista ... and yeah, I'm pretty anal about system maintenance. I watch 
CPU usage very closely. I do have an errant task from the printer 
sometimes that I have to kill. My startup apps are generally things I 
want running/ need running.

>   Have you checked your CPU temperature? Does the CPU fan tend to run much
> faster nowadays than years ago? Assuming it's working properly, of course.
> (A relatively remote, although plausible, explanation for real, rather than
> perceived, slowdowns is that the P4 and newer processors actually decrease
> their own clockrate if they become dangerously overheated. However, usually
> you should notice this long before it happens, as the CPU fan will start
> spinning like mad. Assuming it's working properly, of course.)
> 

I did this last night, in fact, while running a CPU intensive program, 

throttling. The fan is running fine, though the heatsink was clogged 
with dust, cleaned that out, No change in temp. I'm wondering if I need 
new heatsink goop at this point

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh... I'm saying that about my 2.4ghz p4, now.. :/

....

> but my office PC, which has the same CPU speed, but is a
> Core 2 Duo runs it fine.

A single core from the Core 2 architecture (Core 2 Solo?) is significantly
faster than a single core from the P4 architecture, even at the same clock
speed.

....Chambers

Post a reply to this message

> I did this last night, in fact, while running a CPU intensive program, and 

> throttling. The fan is running fine, though the heatsink was clogged with 
> dust, cleaned that out, No change in temp. I'm wondering if I need new 
> heatsink goop at this point

Check in Control Panel -> System for the clock rate, it should say something 
like "E8500 @ 3.16 GHz 3.17 GHz".  One of those numbers is the "name" of the 
processor, the other is the actual clock speed at that instant.  If the CPU 
is throttling then one of the numbers will be lower.

Post a reply to this message

> A single core from the Core 2 architecture (Core 2 Solo?) is significantly
> faster than a single core from the P4 architecture, even at the same clock
> speed.

Yes, by a long way IIRC.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> A single core from the Core 2 architecture (Core 2 Solo?) is 
>> significantly
>> faster than a single core from the P4 architecture, even at the same 
>> clock
>> speed.
> 
> Yes, by a long way IIRC.
> 
> 

Interesting ... I figured it was multiple cores giving it its speed. 
But, I suppose as technology improves ..

In that case a Core2 Quad should be a screamer. Then I can sit back and 
impatiently wait for 3.7 to become a final release :-D


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

> Interesting ... I figured it was multiple cores giving it its speed. 
> But, I suppose as technology improves ..

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

Post a reply to this message

>>> A single core from the Core 2 architecture (Core 2 Solo?) is 
>>> significantly
>>> faster than a single core from the P4 architecture, even at the same 
>>> clock
>>> speed.
>>
>> Yes, by a long way IIRC.
> 
> Interesting ... I figured it was multiple cores giving it its speed. 
> But, I suppose as technology improves ..

According to PassMark, a 3.00 GHz Pentium IV is rated at about 479 "pass 
marks", while an Intel Core 2 Duo at only 1.86 GHz is rated at 1,220 
pass marks. In other words, 2.563x faster. Now, it's 2x faster because 
it's dual-core, but what about the other 56%?

The Core 2 architecture has a faster FSB (so the CPU spends less time 
waiting around for data to arrive from RAM), bigger caches (so there's 
fewer cache misses => less time waiting around for data), better branch 
prediction (=> fewer pipeline stalls), more execution units (=> it can 
execute more instructions simultaneously - assuming the program in 
question is amenable to it)... it all adds up.

> In that case a Core2 Quad should be a screamer. Then I can sit back and 
> impatiently wait for 3.7 to become a final release :-D

What do you have? Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83 GHz? That's rated at 4,160 pass 
marks.

(Bearing in mind that Pass Mark is a synthetic benchmark which measures 
CPU performance under idellic conditions... But even if you assume all 
your programs are single-threaded, divide pass marks by 4 gives you 
1,040 pass marks, which is still 2.17x the Pentium IV above.)

Source:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> 
> I did this last night, in fact, while running a CPU intensive program, 

> throttling. The fan is running fine, though the heatsink was clogged 
> with dust, cleaned that out, No change in temp. I'm wondering if I need 
> new heatsink goop at this point
> 

So, I bought a new heatsink from the local computer shop. It took the 
guy 15 minutes of rummaging around in the back to find one to fit my 
ancient system. Installed it.



CRAP.

I was poking around my PC last night, and noticed the air from the case 
was pretty hot. (Seriously, I could use this thing in the winter to keep 


Wonder what would change if I ran the case open. I lose the fan in the 
case side, but maybe it'll give me adequate ventilation.

If I can just keep this thing from driving me bonkers (or possibly 
failing due to thermal stress) until I build the new one (BTW, I think 
I'm going to start with 4GB of DDR3 instead of 2GB... Might as 
well....Memory is cheap)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message