Where did I go wrong: Better parts, slower PC

[beavereater]

I had

Windows XP (Sp2)
AMD 8450 Triple Core 2.0 Ghz
2GB RAM

250GB Hard-drive
200GB Hard-drive

THEN I went and got a 2GB more RAM
AMD X4 945 Quad-core 3.0GHz CPU
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 1GB on board memory

And a new tower to make things cooler running during the summer months (When they get here).
The process of transfering everything from 1 tower to another was fun/nerve racking. However, it got done without a problem...I think.

I took the old video card out, sold it, put the new one in before removing any drivers. In doing so I turned on my new tower with a new card in there and old drivers. I then uninstalled the drivers, used driver cleaner to get rid of anything else reset and installed new drivers. I then reset again.

Things don't feel faster, they feel slower. I must be missing something. I have a PSU of 500W and I'm wondering if that's enough or if my comp would slow down due to insufficient power? Is this possible? Likely? What other ideas could I try.

I did a benchmark test before adding the new stuff and after...no big change.

[poisondeathray]

No, If you didn't have enough "juice" it wouldn't start, or you'd get BSOD

Did you do a clean install of OS? or is this a disc image? It's better to do clean install with new drivers

Do you have power savings features enabled in OS or in BIOS?

You won't notice any difference between triple vs. quad at the same clock speed, unless you utilize apps that can use the extra core.

There could also be other bottlenecks

What apps are you running? What "feels slower"?

[beavereater]

I didn't format my HD. I just upgraded some parts.

Not sure about the power savings features. How would I check and what should I do?

I'm using Premier CS3, After Effects CS4 (HD rendering)

General startup and shutdown feel slow(er) as well as applications opening up.

[poisondeathray]

Startup / shutdown and app loading are usually more disc limited. Get a ssd if you want faster. The bottleneck usually isn't cpu

You should notice a difference with render times in AE. If not, make sure the options are set correctly to use all cores and memory

On the desktop properties, there should be power modes, make sure you're not using some power savings features. Also if you enter the bios, there might be some low power modes.

Also check your temps. If you overheat, most will downclock to save your cpu

[Baldrick]

beavereater: Fix your signature, it's HUUUUGE ( http://xs512.xs.to/xs512/07055/mere_noel.gif )

[redwudz]

You can check the CPU speed easily with a program like CPU-Z: http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php If you aren't seeing 3Ghz, the PC may have a wrong BIOS setting or maybe power saving is on. But power saving usually turns off when you run a CPU intensive program and you should get full speed. You can also check that with CPU-Z by running it during an encode. Also take a look at Task Manager/Performance to see if all cores are working when using a multithreaded application. H.264 encoding is one good test.

[beavereater]

While idle

[redwudz]

That looks OK. You should be seeing a fair increase in encoding speed going from a 2Ghz CPU. You could try graysky's benchmark program and see how it performs compared to similar computers: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic347859.html

[lordsmurf]

Welcome to AMD quad-core --- where your system gets slower. I learned about this myself back in May, and I've been warning people ever since. It encodes H.264 nice and fast, but goes slower on everything else.

[Nelson37]

You do not FEEL speed. You measure it with actual numbers. Unless you just want to guess.

Startup and shutdown "speed" is about as totally irrelevant as it gets, and quite possibly could be caused by old, unneeded drivers. This would be like measuring a car's performance by how long it takes to turn the key, rather than top speed or quarter-mile times.

Different apps will give different results. But without actual numbers to measure by, it's meaningless. One major problem is that there is a natural expectation of a significant, major increase in speed, such that a speedup that is anything less than dramatic is perceived as slower than expected. Once again, the need for actual numbers to measure by.

[johns0]

Welcome to AMD quad-core --- where your system gets slower. I learned about this myself back in May, and I've been warning people ever since. It encodes H.264 nice and fast, but goes slower on everything else.

My amd quadcore goes faster on everthing compared to my amd dualcore 6400,unless its happening to everybody around you i dont see why you need to warn people.

[ocgw]

Welcome to AMD quad-core --- where your system gets slower. I learned about this myself back in May, and I've been warning people ever since. It encodes H.264 nice and fast, but goes slower on everything else.

My amd quadcore goes faster on everthing compared to my amd dualcore 6400,unless its happening to everybody around you i dont see why you need to warn people.

LS got a "bad taste in his mouth" from one of the original Phenom quad cores, but the new Athlon II's, and Phenom II's are a whole different animal, holding their own $ for $ w/ their Intel counterparts stock or clock'd

LS, we "feel your pain" bro'

ocgw

peace

[lordsmurf]

My quad tests great in benchmarks -- the only time it goes fast, side from H.264 encoding.

[beavereater]

I'm dl the benchmark as I type.

Feel speed...maybe see speed is better. When I drag windows across my screen, there is a trail that follows each window. That's one example.

[lordsmurf]

That sounds more like a display driver issue.

[beavereater]

Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 60.92 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 62.99 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 62.95 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 63.25 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.43 fps, 3971.80 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.47 fps, 3971.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.49 fps, 3971.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.42 fps, 3971.68 kb/s

[ocgw]

Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 60.92 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 62.99 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 62.95 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 63.25 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.43 fps, 3971.80 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.47 fps, 3971.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.49 fps, 3971.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.42 fps, 3971.68 kb/s

That"s about right for a stock clock Phenom II 945

ocgw

peace

[poisondeathray]

When I drag windows across my screen, there is a trail that follows each window. That's one example.

Check your video card and monitor refresh rates

If you are using a mouse with batteries, check they are fully charged or new

This sounds like a driver issue. I would do a clean install of OS