Phrixos 19:21 21 Mar 2009


My machine has an Asus P5E board, 2GB of Ram, and a P4 Quad6600 processor. The processor SHOULD be lightning fast, but it rarely tops 50% usage and mostly sticks around the 30% mark--even during heavy tasks. (My RAM also rarely goes above 50% usage.

I even use ASUS' own "AI Suite" software, (it came with the mobo, and automatically controls overclocking) but despite having that set to maximum performance, my processor is still "just moseying along". I wonder, what's the point of having such a powerful machine when it it's so ... lazy!

Having tried many other Registry cleaners, I finally settled on Windows System Care Pro, and with which I keep the machine clean--and it does it's job. Obviously, I've got a big bottleneck somewhere.

Is there anything I can do to perk up my machine?

  Stuartli 19:29 21 Mar 2009

It's obviously not being stretched enough by any task you set it.

Bit like having a supercar, but being restricted to a maximum of 70mph by the speed limit.

  Forum Editor 19:39 21 Mar 2009

or the fact that your machine's processor is easily handling the work it is given?

I talk to lots of people about this in my working life, and my advice is always the same - as long as your computer comfortably handles the tasks you throw at it, what's the problem? Nowadays most home computers can deal with most tasks fairly easily - it's rare for a machine to exhibit the virtual memory problems and other bottlenecks that were commonplace topics in the forum six or seven years ago. Modern computers do things so rapidly that waiting times are most often measured in milliseconds, and the average person wouldn't detect a few milliseconds more or less.

Your processor may just be idling along because that's all it needs to do. You say that it does this "even during heavy tasks", but you don't say what those tasks are - processors are usually stretched by state of the art games, and by handling large graphics and image files. Is that the kind of thing that you're doing?

  Phrixos 21:32 21 Mar 2009

Thanks Stuarti, and Editor, but actually, I'm more concerned that there is something wrong. I mean, at such capacity, I should hardly find myself waiting for much and yet I find myself waiting, all the time. I mean, If I try to save very large graphics file that takes, perhaps,30 seconds, when the processor is only working at a third of its capacity, shouldn't it save the same file in ten seconds, using ALL its capacity? And if, in particular, I set the computer do doing a deep antivirus scan, why should that take four hours, at (broadly) 25% capacity. It's like the machine doesn't WANT to do hard work. Really, I do push my machine, so why doesn't it get off its butt?

  Phrixos 21:34 21 Mar 2009

I stress, I have NEVER seen my computer hit 100% capacity, not even for a SECOND.

  I am Spartacus 21:54 21 Mar 2009

I've not seen my systems hit 100% with normal usage. Rendering video with Adobe Premiere Elements hits at most 85% on all cores.

If you really want to test your system then try Prime95 click here

Be prepared to be surprised if your cooling isn't adequate and shut it down if the temperatures get too high.

If you've not overclocked then you should be ok even with the stock cooler.

  MAJ 22:21 21 Mar 2009

A couple of other things to try as well.

1. Run CPU-Z click here Let us know what it reports for your CPU.

2. Run a scan on PC Pitstop, see what it reports. click here

  AL47 22:25 21 Mar 2009

hm, try a video encode,

both cores of my laptop immediatly shoot to 100% and stay there for hours.. they do clock down tho, cause i think the vents are getting dusty so it gets too warm

  Phrixos 23:26 21 Mar 2009

Will do, but as I am on Greenwich time, that'll be tomorrow.

  Phrixos 12:16 22 Mar 2009

CPU-Z Data (CPU Tab):

Intel Q6600 Kentsfield, soc 775 LGA @2.4GHz
core voltage 1.16-1.8, varying,
Family 6
Model F
Stepping B
Revision G0
Core Speed: 1603.8
Multiplier x6
Bus Speed 267.73
FSB: 1069.1
L1, Data: 4x32 KB
L1 Inst: 4x32 KB
L2: 2x 406KB
cores 4

PC Pitstop: a very handy tool. Thanks for pointing me to it.

I'm shocked to find my two hard disks ranked at 38%--but might that be because, more than speed, size is also taken into consideration in the ranking? I don't need many hundreds of Gigabytes. I thought Samsung SP0812C's were reasonably fast drives.

And having repartitioned some months ago to enlarge my C: from 20 to 25GB, I'm shocked to see it is now nearly full--again! I can't imagine why, when I have all my programs installed on a separate partition. I've done a scan with Advanced Windows Care and it has shown me in detail what is on C: (including half a GB of useless video I didn't ask for and hence didn't even know was there.

I suppose it needs an enema.

The scan reports "1610" for drive C: (I take it that it has found one file with that many fragments.) But isn't Vista supposed to defrag itself, by itself?) My system utility has never reported the need for a defrag.) So I'll do a manual defrag too, and see what effect that has.


  norman47 12:27 22 Mar 2009

"And having repartitioned some months ago to enlarge my C: from 20 to 25GB, I'm shocked to see it is now nearly full--again!"

That might be one of your problems. The C drive needs space to move things around and to defrag.

Get rid of some of your restore points and shrink some of the partition rive so you can expand the C drive.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

The Evil Within 2 review-in-progress

Adobe shows still-in-development tools, including automatically colourising black-and-white photos

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment transformer un iPhone en borne Wi-Fi ?