Windows 7 slowing down tremendously

[The Progen]

I have this funny situation. Got a new Zotac G41 Value motherboard. Put in 1GB of 667MHz RAM and a Dual Core E2180 processor, 2.0GHz, 800MHz FSB with 1MB cache. Installed Windows 7 Ultimate. Ran fine.

Then I upgraded to a E7500 processor, 2.93 GHz, 1066MHz FSB with 3MB cache. Still with 1GB of 667MHz RAM. No changes to the operating system in any way.

What happened was that performance dropped drastically. Programs took ages to open although Windows startup was fine. It took quite long to shut down though and it was like running Windows 7 on a system that's like 5 to 6 years old. Worked but really slowly! Switching between programs was a nightmare too.

So I got myself a 1 x 2GB piece of 800MHz RAM, took out the 667MHz one and lo behold! Everything was ok. I'm not much of a person for calculations but I've assembled quite a lot of systems over the past 10 years. This is the first time I've come across a situation where a piece of RAM can make such a HUGE difference.

 

[Wishmaster]

With only 1GB of RAM, it was probably Pageing alot of DATA.

Meaning, alot more HD activity, hence the slowdowns.

 

[whs]

For Vista and Win7 RAM is the determining factor for performance. When you have the performance problem, have a look in Resource Monitor > Memory tab and see whether you have any/a lot of hard page faults. If yes, that would explain the slowdown ( as Wishmaster said).

 

[BugMeister]

Wow, going from 1G of 667GHz to 2G of 800GHz must be like getting into a Ferrari..

- great fun..!!

you'll see the benefit when you're running several progs at once, as well
more (-and faster!) RAM is definitely a good move - especially in 64-bit..

 

[Frostmourne]

Put in 8GB, I think your G41 board will support it. Why? You'll never worry about RAM again - well not for a year or so.

 

[win7clutz]

Put in 8GB, I think your G41 board will support it. Why? You'll never worry about RAM again - well not for a year or so.

 

[The Progen]

I knew you folks would put the blame on the RAM BUT .......... BUT ............ BUT noticed the first part of my initial post?

NO problems when I first installed Windows 7 Ultimate on the same system with the E2180 processor doing the duties. Worked fine. Not fantastic but sure beat my two T6400 equipped notebooks, one with 667 and the other with 800MHz RAM. Both had 2GB.

What I'm suspecting, from a layman's point of view, is that the E7500 with its higher FSB and larger cache was facing a great bottleneck with the 1GB of 667MHz RAM but as also mentioned earlier, this is the first time I've come across such a drastic difference in performance. Usually the differences in adding or subtracting RAM from my systems (refer below) are barely noticeable in the real world.

ps. My systems are always left bare. At the very very most, I'll only have one antivirus software and Norton Antivirus was already present when the E2180 was acting CPU. No other nonsense starting up with Windows. I check with MSConfig and go into the registry too. Sometimes, I'll even take a look at Processes in Task Manager. I also have the pagefile placed on a different partition from Windows and set to a fixed value as recommended.

 

[seekermeister]

Could it be that when you intially upgraded the processor, that you dislodged or damaged a stick of RAM? Did you run Memtest86 on the old ram before replacing it?

 

[The Progen]

Could it be that when you intially upgraded the processor, that you dislodged or damaged a stick of RAM? Did you run Memtest86 on the old ram before replacing it?

Don't think so. That piece of 667 MHz RAM was removed and inserted a few times when I tried other RAM. No problems starting up and running. It's now in another PC and working fine.

 

[TGSoldier]

Compatibility issue with the RAM and Processor.

 

[The Progen]

Compatibility issue with the RAM and Processor.

That could be one reason.

 

[whs]

Compatibility issue with the RAM and Processor.

That could be one reason.

If both RAM and Processor are within the mobo specifications, that should not be a problem. I would check the mobo specs and see whether the components (CPU, RAM) are permissable.

 

[The Progen]

Whs, again bear in mind that the 667MHz of RAM was on the motherboard all along with the E2180 and later on with the E7500.

 

[TGSoldier]

Compatibility issue with the RAM and Processor.

That could be one reason.

If both RAM and Processor are within the mobo specifications, that should not be a problem. I would check the mobo specs and see whether the components (CPU, RAM) are permissable.

I beg to differ.

 

[whs]

That could be one reason.

If both RAM and Processor are within the mobo specifications, that should not be a problem. I would check the mobo specs and see whether the components (CPU, RAM) are permissable.

I beg to differ.

OK, understand. Could you elaborate please.

 

[Frostmourne]

You match the processor to its standard RAM supported speed and type of RAM (if you can). So I have DDR2 memory in an older system so bought an AM2+ board and an AM3 CPU - everything works at the best possible speed with 800MHz RAM. If this were a new system I'd buy a DDR3 board with an AM3 CPU @ 1333MHz - which is the native supported speed.

You also check to make sure you have the latest BIOS update and the CPU is supported by the motherboard revision.

 

[The Progen]

Yeah, as suspected (by myself, no concrete evidence though), there could be a huge bottleneck with the CPU's 3MB of 1066MHz cache meeting the 667MHz RAM down the line.

BIOS is definitely the most recent one and the CPU is supported.

ps. I wanted to try 1066MHZ DDR3 but the motherboard doesn't support it.

 

[Wishmaster]

DDR2 Cas 4 800 / DDR2 Cas5 1066 and DDR3 1066 are all about the same. (DDR2 will likely do better at these speeds in fact due to lower latencies)

Differences only being in a benchmark.


For 1066 speeds and Intel ((At least socket 775 DDR2)) , in most cases youll need to overclock the FSB/CPU to actually use it at that speed.

And being as the memory performance itself isnt that much difference, the only reason to go beyond DDR2 800 is if you are overclocking ((Generally))

IMHO, DDR3 only makes sense on a new build and at 1333 or more as it has enough speed to counter the higher latencies DDR3 brings.

 

[Frostmourne]

Yeah, as suspected (by myself, no concrete evidence though), there could be a huge bottleneck with the CPU's 3MB of 1066MHz cache meeting the 667MHz RAM down the line.

BIOS is definitely the most recent one and the CPU is supported.

ps. I wanted to try 1066MHZ DDR3 but the motherboard doesn't support it.

The 3MB of cache doesn't run @ 1066MHz, that is the FSB or link between the CPU and Northbridge. You should buy memory at or lower then the FSB.