Reasonable multi task proccessor?

Hi guys

I have a Dell desktop I bought off a mate as a stop gap. I think it is a Pentium(R) 4 3.2Ghz processor with 1 GB of RAM.

When I run Internet explorer and any other package it feels bog slow. (I'm still on XP by the way).
I normally have perhaps Word, Excel and IE open with the google earth plug in running so I can flick between them. It's generally a [censored] experience and I know my FTTC is not slowing things down.

Been looking at a HP laptop with an AMD phenom quad core processor (don't remember the exact spec off the top of my head) with 4GB RAM. Does it sound like this would be enough to speed things up for what I am using it for?

Just want it to flick between without a 5 second delay every time.

Thanks.
.

I'd guess the relatively little RAM of 1GB is the problem not the processor speed. Try bunging another 2GB in the existing machine.

few things: reinstall the OS with a known working version. If using non genuine OS this could be the cause of the slowdown. Also, flash the bios with the latest version available. Look at background running software, disable/uninstall those not needed, some anti virus / firewall software can cause machines to bog down.

I have a Dell desktop I bought off a mate as a stop gap. I think it is a Pentium(R) 4 3.2Ghz processor with 1 GB of RAM.

How old?

I'm guessing Prescott or possibly Northwood P4 - not fast CPU's by today's standards.

Do the usual things - run virus checks, make sure it's not loaded down with adware and other "helpful" but CPU sapping programs running in the background. Consider reinstalling the operating system from scratch as this is a good way of getting rid of accumulated cruft.

Maybe a it more RAM but 1GB should be OK for this type of machine - wouldn't go past 2GB personally.

Combination of RAM, settings and tweaks ought to improve that lot.

Open up task manager and watch the performance of the CPU when switching between tasks. Also monitor HDD activity. If you're game, some free tweaks will probably help.

How much memory does Windows see? Right click on My Computer and select Properties, it could be that the graphics sub-system, and perhaps others, are taking some of the small amount of RAM you have.

To be honest an extra 1Gb could well work wonders, 2Gb if possible.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Combination of RAM, settings and tweaks ought to improve that lot.

Open up task manager and watch the performance of the CPU when switching between tasks. Also monitor HDD activity. If you're game, some free tweaks will probably help.

I'll be a little more game to tweak when I have a new machine running my important stuff. Tweaking the old one may be fun as a learning experience if nothing else (and it might help the wife as it will be "her machine" once I have "my" new one. ).
.

In reply to a post by cheshire_man:

How much memory does Windows see? Right click on My Computer and select Properties, it could be that the graphics sub-system, and perhaps others, are taking some of the small amount of RAM you have.

To be honest an extra 1Gb could well work wonders, 2Gb if possible.

It says 1GB there.
.

In reply to a post by mr_bean:

I have a Dell desktop I bought off a mate as a stop gap. I think it is a Pentium(R) 4 3.2Ghz processor with 1 GB of RAM.

How old?

I'm guessing Prescott or possibly Northwood P4 - not fast CPU's by today's standards.

Do the usual things - run virus checks, make sure it's not loaded down with adware and other "helpful" but CPU sapping programs running in the background. Consider reinstalling the operating system from scratch as this is a good way of getting rid of accumulated cruft.

Maybe a it more RAM but 1GB should be OK for this type of machine - wouldn't go past 2GB personally.

Not sure really, 3 or 4 years?
.

Not sure really, 3 or 4 years?

Prescott then, most likely.

The NHS seems to have bucket-loads of Dells with Prescott processors (usually 2.8Ghz) - they're all s--l--o--w

Virus scan, reinstall the OS of you can, get rid of the cruft and add some more RAM, 1G or 2G extra at max (XP can't really use more than 3GB so there's no point going point having more).

By tweaks, I mean disabling bloatware, unnecessary processes, services, features. Not overclocking (in case that's what you meant). Nothing dodgy or silly.

Here's an example (my Vista laptop with 2GB RAM)

Before (931MB - 59 processes)

After (634MB - 40 processes)


Boot times down, waiting down. HDD thrashing down. Pretty speedy for vista on a lappy. When I had XP, it used around 250MB iirc. 1GB of RAM should easily cope with XP (if optimsed).

Edited by camieabz (Fri 02-Sep-11 20:51:51)

Open up task manager and watch the performance of the CPU when switching between tasks. Also monitor HDD activity.

Just being on uses a constant 390MB (running on XP)

Opening IE with Yahoo as my home page jumps to 480MB constant but the CPU spikes at 97% for a second or two.

Every action (search, back button etc.) jumps CPU to 50%.

Google maps running at 500MB. Clicking zoom button on map image jumps CPU to 65%.

Dragging task manager window about, 32% lol!

Does this sound slow? The laptop I looked at was an AMD Phenom quad core. I guessed this would allow for four processes at the same time, and that as long as these processes weren't CPU heavy then the whole thing would run much faster. The sales muppwit confirmed this for me. But is that correct or is he using the old sales trick of agreeing with me?
.
.

In reply to a post by mr_bean:

...(XP can't really use more than 3GB so there's no point going point having more...

My XP Pro system reports 3.5Gb of RAM, though I'm not sure whether it actually uses all of it

In reply to a post by mr_bean:

The NHS seems to have bucket-loads of Dells with Prescott processors (usually 2.8Ghz) - they're all s--l--o--w

Why does this not surprise me.

No doubt 80% of their IT budget is actually going to the profits of the company who they (no doubt) outsourced it too.

A bit of a "Cliche" you could say but you can't really measure acceptable performance/spec by watching CPU usage go up and down in task manager unless you really have a feel for it. Dragging a window about will certainly raise CPU up, infact, just moving your mouse around rapidly will no doubt increase CPU utilization in task manager by 2-3% on a P4 system.

I have a feeling you don't have a proper graphics driver installed. Can you double check this?

Failing this, it might be worth a reinstall of the OS (or further diagnostic) because from your descriptions it is underperforming. Double check Paging file settings are automatic, purge system restore, run chkdsk, defrag disks, disable indexing service, ensure all drivers correctly installed.

edit - copy and paste of the � didn't work first time round, cba learning the unicode.
edit again - oh, it did work, just this forum can't handle it before a quotation mark!

Edited by Pipexer (Fri 02-Sep-11 21:21:04)

Been looking at a HP laptop with an AMD phenom quad core processor (don't remember the exact spec off the top of my head) with 4GB RAM. Does it sound like this would be enough to speed things up for what I am using it for?

Just want it to flick between without a 5 second delay every time.

Sorry guys, I think I must have been a bit ambiguous with my post!
Though I will try all these things with my old PC, I was hoping someone could tell me whether or not this AMD spec machine would multi task for me?
.

That should be plenty suitable. All this said I installed Windows 7 on a Pentium 4 Prescott 3.0Ghz with 1GB RAM and onboard graphics a few weeks back and it ran Aero and MS Word 2007 and IE instance perfectly, a bog standard office PC with value components, even Aero flip was smooth. Most of the time systems start going slow because they are bogged down with security products and other rubbish accumilated over the years.

My XP Pro system reports 3.5Gb of RAM, though I'm not sure whether it actually uses all of it

It depends on how much of the top 1G of address space is used by the system (e.g. for the video card RAM). the absolute limit for 32-bit XP is 4G - see this knowledge base article for the details.

Individual processes can only get a maximum of 3GB (and then only with special tweaking otherwise its 2GB).

However you only need enough RAM to hold running programs and their data - beyond that the OS might cache some disk pages and that might make things slightly faster but once you have "enough" RAM improvements from adding more diminish rapidly.

Thus with a maximum limit of 4GB, and a practical limit somewhere between 3-4GB I'd generally suggest 3GB max for 32-bit windows (of pretty much any flavour more recent than NT 4).

When upgrading, however you tend to be faced with limits imposed by DIMM size and the number of free slots and the fact that "dual channel" memory controllers need the DIMMs to all be the same size for maximum speed. So usually it winds up being either 2GB or 4GB - given that choice I'd probably go for 2GB in the system the OP describes.

For general surfing, word processing etc 2GB really ought to be enough. 1GB - depends on workload but RAM is cheap at the moment so it can't hurt to put an extra Gig in.

Sorry guys, I think I must have been a bit ambiguous with my post!
Though I will try all these things with my old PC, I was hoping someone could tell me whether or not this AMD spec machine would multi task for me?

Ah, well suggesting ways to pep up and old machine is "interesting" whereas looking a something modern which won't be tweaked much is less so

Would help if you could list the exact model. AMD processors are noticeably slower than Intel processors at the moment but it does depend on exactly what you're looking at and what budget you've got.

Thanks for the link. Some very familiar stuff from a virtual memory operating system I was involved in in the early 1970s.

I wasn't aware that an individual process was limited to 2Gb - though it makes some sort of sense to allow the OS itself to get on with its work.

Well hopefully I'll do both. Can you recommend a free clean up program that is easy to use or is it better to buy something?

I will dig out the spec for the AMD and post it. Thanks.
.

CCleaner : Be sure to double check the IE/App settings before cleaning.

A AMD phenom quad core processor with 4GB of ram will do you fine, not sure what AMD laptop processors are like these days, but it will certainly be fast enough for you.

I got a phenom quad core in my dekstop, ok so it is a desktop version, but it is super fast.


If you don't feel like spending the money, as people have said a bit more memory in your P4 will make it a bit faster, I stuck a gig in a P4 a few months back, went from 1gig to 2 and it felt a lot better.

I have one of these which I use for everyday browsing and document/spreadsheet use when I'm on the move or simply too lazy to go upstairs to the study!

It's very fast and does everything I can ask of it.....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-15-6inch-Noteboook-Proc...

When I bought it, it was on offer in Argos at £399.99, but they don't sell it any more (new catalogue).

I think I'll do both, I need a laptop anyway to be honest. I liked the sound of the Phenom quad core but it's nice to have a recommend from people actually using them.

As for speeding up my desktop, isn't it true that only Dell memory will fit a Dell machine? Or have I been misinformed?
.

Thanks. I can now check if that is the same processor in the model I was thinking about buying.

I liked the look of the Acer, but I think the one I saw had rocker buttons on the touch pad?

I like the HP because it had "real" buttons if you like. Probably not a really good reason to choose between laptops, but I hate the rocker type buttons and couldn't see any others at that price point (400 quid) that had real separate buttons.

Anybody got a reason not to buy HP?
.

I'd go to one of the memory supplier sites and run their memory checker. Orcalogic or Crucial. I've put memory from Orca in a Dell with no problems.

I just noticed the uptime.

Not bad resources, considering (laptop remember).