[chirag1082]

Hi all,

 

I'd appreciate some advice on an issue with my PC.

 

I have an old pc, but it was high spec when i made it back in 2008!! It's got a 2.4ghz intel quad core processor (Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz) but only 4gig RAM. I am running Windows 7 64 Bit. My PC is pretty sluggish at times and I do lots of multi tasking and usually have 10-20-30 tabs open in Chrome, whilst also running Excel, Word, Music player, and other software. When doing lots of things my CPU does go up to 100% usage but I imagine that's normal as each CPU will use the maximum available to do what needs to be done. RAM usually sits around 3gig usage and idles at 1gig when only background programmes are running. 

 

My MOBO is: EVGA nForce 680i SLI --- this is limited to DDR2 RAM.

 

Right now, I have 26 tabs running in Chrome and Excel and Word running, and my CPU is idling at 1-4% but my RAM usage is at 2.96-3.2GB out of 4.

 

Question: Would adding extra RAM help overcome the sluggishness or is my CPU also a bottleneck? I am looking for a solution that will last another couple of years at least rather than only a very short-term improvement.

 

Some additional info - I am running windows on a 250gig HDD, which currently has 15% space free, but I know the disk has errors and needs replacing - could this also be causing sluggishness?

 

Thanks!

Edited by chirag1082, 20 January 2015 - 06:58 AM.

[Advertisements]

Gday chirag1082.

Your hard drive is where I would start.  You need aprox 20% free space for good performance, preferable contagious space as when you have defragged the drive.   Add a 1TB drive for Data storage (E)   Backup to that drive then do a clean install of windows to your existing © drive.  Restore you Date, >  Wipe the (E) drive, then move your folder, My Docs, music, photos, etc to the (E) drive. 

[iammykyl]

Gday chirag1082.

Your hard drive is where I would start.  You need aprox 20% free space for good performance, preferable contagious space as when you have defragged the drive.   Add a 1TB drive for Data storage (E)   Backup to that drive then do a clean install of windows to your existing © drive.  Restore you Date, >  Wipe the (E) drive, then move your folder, My Docs, music, photos, etc to the (E) drive. 

[Ztruker]

If you want performance, add a 250GB or larger SSD as your boot drive and use the existing HDD for data storage. You will be very happy booting and running from a SSD.

The way you use your system, I'd say also increase your RAM to 8GB.

Also take a good look at what is starting when you boot. If you can disable some of them it will help performance too.

[iammykyl]

If you want performance, add a 250GB or larger SSD as your boot drive and use the existing HDD for data storage. You will be very happy booting and running from a SSD.

The way you use your system, I'd say also increase your RAM to 8GB.

Also take a good look at what is starting when you boot. If you can disable some of them it will help performance too.

Did consider a SSD, but in this case with only SATA 3Gb/s, would the cost warrant the performance gain?

Would look at the RAM later it being DDR2.

I missed looking at startup programs, good one    We could also look at what is connecting/looking for updates.

[Aura]

Dropping by for a small post

chirag, since you are running a 64-bits version of Windows 7, I suggest you to uninstall Google Chrome if you're running the 32-bits version of it and to install the 64-bits version of it instead. 64-bits applications takes less resources than their 32-bits variants under 64-bits OS (at least, under Windows) and Google Chrome consuming a lot of resources already, running the 64-bits version of it will be better in your case. The download is available on the Google Chrome download page under "Other platforms", just select "Windows 7/8 64-bits". I guarantee that you'll notice a difference when it comes in CPU and RAM usage. Also, if you use any web extensions like Adblock or Adblock Plus, think about switching to other alternatives that take much less resources, like uBlock. My advice for Google Chrome applies for every other programs as well. If you have the chance to get the 64-bits version of a program, do it, since in the end, you'll end up saving resources everytime when running these programs and you'll appreciate it.

And I'm out!

[iammykyl]

Thanks Aura, very useful tips.

You can drop by any time you like.

[Ztruker]

Did consider a SSD, but in this case with only SATA 3Gb/s, would the cost warrant the performance gain?
Would look at the RAM later it being DDR2.
I missed looking at startup programs, good one  We could also look at what is connecting/looking for updates.

I think you will be amazed at the performance gain with an SSD. 250GB is normally large enough, especially with the large HDD you have where you can put data.

RAM may or may not make a difference but can't hurt.

[chirag1082]

Hi all

 

Thank you all for your replies and useful suggestions.

 

I had considered an SSD so I think I will try that as my first option, but will possibly go for a 64gig one and use it just for windows and software as I don't have that much software to install and then use a separate HDD for my data. 

 

I like the Chrome suggestions too - I hadn't considered how much resources the extensions would take up so will consider changing to the lower resource options. I think I already use 64-bit of Chrome, but will have to check, but all my software certainly is 64-bit.

 

I'll then see about whether RAM is needed or not.

 

Thanks again!

Chirag

[chirag1082]

Hello again, just one other question - for my data (media/documents) - is there any performance difference between having data stored on an internal HDD or an external HDD (caddy). is it purely the difference between the SATA 2 vs USB 2.0 speeds that are relevant for my PC?

 

Thanks

[Aura]

Not every applications are 64-bits based. You can identify the 32-bits applications and processes by looking at the processes name in Task Manager that have "*32" as a suffix. It means that the process is running in 32-bits mode Most application have a 32 and 64-bits download links available, some of them have a universal installer that will determinate which version of Windows you have installed and install the matching one and some just have 32-bits based applications (or 64-bits). If you want to see which applications you have that are 32-bits, take a look at your Program Files (x86) (which means 32-bits) folder and look at the programs installed there I'll let Ztruker and iammykyl answer your hardware related questions since it's not my domain

[Ztruker]

I would strongly recommend not going with that small a SSD. You are going to constantly fighting to keep enough free space for the OS to run well. Spend the extra bucks and get a minimum of 150GB but a 250GB would be much better.

Just my $.02 worth

 

Internal is much faster. I don't have numbers, just practical experience. On the other hand, if it's stuff you don't use often then external should be okay for the times you do use it.

 

I'd suggest doing both. Internal for current data you are working with and external for long term storage and occasional access.

[iammykyl]

 

Did consider a SSD, but in this case with only SATA 3Gb/s, would the cost warrant the performance gain?
Would look at the RAM later it being DDR2.
I missed looking at startup programs, good one  We could also look at what is connecting/looking for updates.

I think you will be amazed at the performance gain with an SSD. 250GB is normally large enough, especially with the large HDD you have where you can put data.

 

I would strongly recommend not going with that small a SSD. You are going to constantly fighting to keep enough free space for the OS to run well. Spend the extra bucks and get a minimum of 150GB but a 250GB would be much better.

Just my $.02 worth

 

Internal is much faster. I don't have numbers, just practical experience. On the other hand, if it's stuff you don't use often then external should be okay for the times you do use it.

 

I'd suggest doing both. Internal for current data you are working with and external for long term storage and occasional access.

 

1.   I looked at some benchmarks on real world applications and it is defiantly worth installing a SSD for the OS and programs.

2.   Agree that a 250GB SSD should be used, a good investment as it can be moved/used in a future build, > http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820148820

3.   Yes, internal SATA is much faster than external USB.   

Hello again, just one other question - for my data (media/documents) - is there any performance difference between having data stored on an internal HDD or an external HDD (caddy). is it purely the difference between the SATA 2 vs USB 2.0 speeds that are relevant for my PC?

 

Thanks

When you relocate the user folders, (my Docs, music, etc) to a different drive, windows treats it as part of the System, so an internal SATA attached drive should be used.   If an external USB attached drive is used, the system will constantly have to wait for read/writes to that drive.

An image should be taken of the OS drive, this can be used to replace the system in case of corruption.

The internal Data drive should be backed up on a regular basis using a backup program. 

 

Let us know what you intend next.

[chirag1082]

Aura, Ztruker and iammykyl - thank you all once again for your replies and useful advice.

 

I will go for the larger SSD (w7 and software) and will use both external (Media - mainly Films and Photos) and internal HDD (docs, and other files).

 

Thanks all - this is a great forum!

[Plastic Nev]

Just to add some further I hope helpful information, I recently spent some hard cash on a 500GB SSD to replace the original 500GB ordinary HDD. I just cloned the existing system onto the SSD using a USB docking station, which makes it ready to directly swap over inside the case.

The improvement in speeds was quite amazing, it now takes longer for the POST to happen than the Windows boot time, with an overall full boot up from pressing the start button in around 55 seconds or a little less. Programs launch much quicker and so does finding files.

 

I will though say that since Windows Vista and onwards defragmenting was automatic, the defragmenter needs to be turned fully off for the SSD drive, it isn't really required on anything like a regular basis and should only be done very rarely as defragmenting can shorten the life due to the continuous read and write cycles that defragmenting goes through. I have even heard of doing a defragmentation causing the SSD drive to fail, very rare but it can happen.

Defragmenting an SSD drive should only ever be done when it becomes painfully obvious that Windows is taking too long to find a requested file.

 

Nev.

[chirag1082]

Thanks Nev - useful to know, although I thought that windows only scheduled auto defragmenting, but it would only run if the PC is turned on at that time? Mine is set to run at 1am every Wednesday for example, however, it is rarely ever on at that time, and says that it has never run.