Help with tweaking

whs said:

chev65 said:

I have some other ideas about tweaking but they don't envolve messing with the Op system. Overclocking is my version of tweaking and also the one that makes the most difference. There are some risks but also great rewards in performance are there for the taking.

Yes and no. For gamers, the CPU speed may make a difference (I am not a gamer though). But for all the others, the amount of RAM and the speed of the disk are more important. I saw the biggest performance improvement with the SSD (OCZ Vertex). It is absolutely unbelievable what it it can do for performance. Even at the relatively high price of the device, I know of no other piece of hardware from which you could get a comparable beat for the buck.

The cpu speed makes a huge difference in all applications not just games. Downside it that most people simply don't have the time or talent to overclock correctly.

The gains from running more than 4GB ram are there to be had but getting 8GB to run in some systems will cause more problems than they will solve in most cases.

SSD's have plenty of problems that go along with them, they are still in the experimental stage as far as I'm concerend. No doubt they will get better as the firmware gets perfected.

chev65 said:

whs said:

chev65 said:

I have some other ideas about tweaking but they don't envolve messing with the Op system. Overclocking is my version of tweaking and also the one that makes the most difference. There are some risks but also great rewards in performance are there for the taking.

Yes and no. For gamers, the CPU speed may make a difference (I am not a gamer though). But for all the others, the amount of RAM and the speed of the disk are more important. I saw the biggest performance improvement with the SSD (OCZ Vertex). It is absolutely unbelievable what it it can do for performance. Even at the relatively high price of the device, I know of no other piece of hardware from which you could get a comparable beat for the buck.

The cpu speed makes a huge difference in all applications not just games. Downside it that most people simply don't have the time or talent to overclock correctly.

The gains from running more than 4GB ram are there to be had but getting 8GB to run in some systems will cause more problems than they will solve in most cases.

SSD's have plenty of problems that go along with them, they are still in the experimental stage as far as I'm concerend. No doubt they will get better as the firmware gets perfected.

I respect your opinion, but my experience is different. Granted that CPU speed will make a difference for some bread and butter applications like video editing and alike. But for anything you do on the web, office applications, picture processing, etc. I have seen no difference on my 4 Vista systems which range from a modest duo core laptop to a quad core desktop. But once I added the SSD, I could really see a giant difference. And today's SSDs are probably better than you think - especially the ones that have Trim support and run Win7. Just try one out - there is a new Intel ( Intel X25-M 80GB 2.5" SATA SSD Solid State Drive - Toshiba ) that seems to be a good buy (although I am an OCZ fan).

Hardware changes will having varying effects based on usage of the computer. Adding a much faster processor, and several extra GB of memory isn't going to make web browsing or office apps much faster. It will help with processor and memory intensive tasks though. That's the key. Figure out what component is going to be stressed, and upgrade that. For example, a gaming system is going to rely mostly on the video card, so as long as you have a decent processor, the video card will make the largest difference. For a general usage system, the SSD will make much more of a difference. You guys are comparing apples to oranges.

In my experience, overclocking doesn't yield much results for something like gaming, but could show quite a bit with video encoding, etc. It also doesn't take any time or talent, as mentioned before. It takes a small amount of knowledge, good cooling, and the willingness to stress your components more than usual.

All in all, when I am building/designing a system for a friend, family member, or employee, my first questions is to determine the usage, and the second question is to determine the budget.

whs said:

chev65 said:

whs said:

Yes and no. For gamers, the CPU speed may make a difference (I am not a gamer though). But for all the others, the amount of RAM and the speed of the disk are more important. I saw the biggest performance improvement with the SSD (OCZ Vertex). It is absolutely unbelievable what it it can do for performance. Even at the relatively high price of the device, I know of no other piece of hardware from which you could get a comparable beat for the buck.

The cpu speed makes a huge difference in all applications not just games. Downside it that most people simply don't have the time or talent to overclock correctly.

The gains from running more than 4GB ram are there to be had but getting 8GB to run in some systems will cause more problems than they will solve in most cases.

SSD's have plenty of problems that go along with them, they are still in the experimental stage as far as I'm concerend. No doubt they will get better as the firmware gets perfected.

I respect your opinion, but my experience is different. Granted that CPU speed will make a difference for some bread and butter applications like video editing and alike. But for anything you do on the web, office applications, picture processing, etc. I have seen no difference on my 4 Vista systems which range from a modest duo core laptop to a quad core desktop. But once I added the SSD, I could really see a giant difference. And today's SSDs are probably better than you think - especially the ones that have Trim support and run Win7. Just try one out - there is a new Intel ( Intel X25-M 80GB 2.5" SATA SSD Solid State Drive - Toshiba ) that seems to be a good buy (although I am an OCZ fan).

The difference is night and day between a cpu at 2.6 and one at 4.0GHz. But the precieved gains come in a differerent way than what you would see from an SSD.

Actually video editing is where the extra memory really comes in handy but a faster CPU will indeed speed up the process considerably.

You seem to be comparing a dual core to a quad core as opposed to spec clocked versus overclocked FSB. They both overclock pretty well in my experience. Although the quads are much harder to get stable when overclocking.

The more substantial gains come from the actual FSB overclocking but it takes a lot of time and effort to get it right. If you havn't tried doing this it can be a very humbling learning experience. I have written posts with nearly 5000 views describing the process and how to do it correctly. This one for instance. Q9650 4050Mhz Blendstable GTLVref SHORTCUT

The gains from overclocking the FSB are quite substantial accross the board and anything that uses the CPU will be faster...much faster in fact. The risks are burning stuff up and system instabitly so it takes much time, patience and experience to do it right. No tweak is without it's drawbacks apparently.

As for just simply installing hardware and making your computer faster, no doubt that simply installing a SSD drive and installing more Ram is the easier way to do this. Although installing more Ram can be problematic also depending on the chipset.

I have two dual cores and a quad core CPU which have all been overclocked. I'd say the quad is faster with most applications, especially the ones that can use all 4 cores.

I can't wait till the SSD's become a bit more mainstream, no doubt there are gains to be had with SSD drives but they are still evolving at a rapid pace and do have some persistant problems associated with them which I'm sure will be worked out in due time.

DeaconFrost said:

Hardware changes will having varying effects based on usage of the computer. Adding a much faster processor, and several extra GB of memory isn't going to make web browsing or office apps much faster. It will help with processor and memory intensive tasks though. That's the key. Figure out what component is going to be stressed, and upgrade that. For example, a gaming system is going to rely mostly on the video card, so as long as you have a decent processor, the video card will make the largest difference. For a general usage system, the SSD will make much more of a difference. You guys are comparing apples to oranges.

In my experience, overclocking doesn't yield much results for something like gaming, but could show quite a bit with video encoding, etc. It also doesn't take any time or talent, as mentioned before. It takes a small amount of knowledge, good cooling, and the willingness to stress your components more than usual.

All in all, when I am building/designing a system for a friend, family member, or employee, my first questions is to determine the usage, and the second question is to determine the budget.

I disagree with most of what you said here,.. nuff said. the gains in gaming from overclocking the FSB are very substantial and also well documented. There are downsides of course but the upsides are substantial and very real.

Until you have attempted a substantial overclock you really can't know the truth about this. I'm also well aware of the advantages and also disavantages of running more Ram. Yes there are disavantages also but going futher into it would really take this post even more off topic LOL.

I never argued about SSD's being faster or making a difference, I was just pointing out that they have a ways to go in the reliability department. No doubt as the firmware develops they will become more and more mainstream. Can't wait to use one in fact but they are still evolving so fast I'm willing to wait.


I think were going a bit off topic from the original which related to Op system tweaks which hardly do anything. My fault I supposed but those so called black viper tweaks hardly do a thing to make your system go faster. I couldn't resist the urge to talk about the tweaks that actually do make a difference like SSD's, overclocking and extra Ram. :)

chev65 said:

I disagree with most of what you said here,.. nuff said. Until you have attempted a substantial overclock you really can't know the truth about this.

So are you going to make the assumption that I haven't done this in the past? Or are we to pretend that I don't have the *ahem* talent to do so?

You are missing one of the key factors of this whole discussion. Let's say you have a Core2Quad and an Nvidia 9600GT. You decide you want to upgrade for gaming's sake. Should you spend your money on an i7 processor to pair with your 9600GT, or keep the processor and upgrade the video card, to say, a Radeon 4890? Which is going to give you the best bang for your buck performance increase in games? Hell, which is going to give you the best performance increase period? Right, the video card.

The video card is still the bottleneck in a high end gaming system, running recent games. If you want proof of this, take a look at any major trade mag and their becnhmark process. When comparing video cards, they use the latest games. When comparing processors, they tend to use older, processor instensive benchmarks to isolate the processors efforts. Ever wonder why, in 2009, Quake III is still used as a benchmarking tool?

How does this relate to overclocking? Simple. Bumping the speeds in your processor often isn't going to make much of a change in your gaming performance, simply because the processor wasn't the bottleneck in the first place. Upgrading your video card to a newer architecture and featureset will almost always yield a better result.

nobody seems to have pointed out that upgrading costs money, whereas overclocking is free...

mickey megabyte said:

nobody seems to have pointed out that upgrading costs money, whereas overclocking is free...

Maybe, ask the overclockers how many CPUs they destroyed before they got it right.

mickey megabyte said:

nobody seems to have pointed out that upgrading costs money, whereas overclocking is free...

That is certainly one of it's largest pluses....unless your system is pushed too far, and you burn something up.

And I do agree with chev65's comments about BlackViper, aka QuackViper and all his baseless, useless tweaks, especially when compared to something like overclocking that will yield measurable results. SSDs are already outpacing platter drives, and that gap will only widen as SSDs are improved and optimized.

My comments were only to show that there are different components in a system that play larger or smaller role in overall performance based on the uses of the computer.

in defence of blackviper, his site originated in the days of early xp, just after the turn of the millennia, with machines of very low ram - i hesitate to put an exact figure to it, but you remember those days - 128 megs?

back then, it made a lot of sense to disable a few services to free yourself 10-15 megs of wasted memory.

personally i still try to run a lean, mean, fighting machine, even with an overclocked 4 gig dual-core cpu and 4 gigs of ram. so i still trawl through services.msc looking for things to disable or set to manual.

why run background processes that you are never going to need?

and again, tweaking services doesn't cost much...