View Full Version : XP 2700 seems slow

30-10-2004, 10:31 PM
Just built a new PC - AMD XP2700 on a Gigabyte 7VT600P-RZ m/b, 512 Mb @ 400 DDRam, 120 Gb Maxtor H/D running Windows 2000 Pro.

This machine doesn't seem any faster at booting into Windows or opening programs than my old machine (AMD 750 Athlon) or my daughter's PC: P3 - 667.

There are only two things I've noticed that it's faster at: 1) multitasking - I can have 10 things open on the desktop and there is no depreciation in performance, and 2) it processes sound editing a lot faster.

Otherwise, my daughter's PC and my old 750 boot into Windows faster and do most other things at a similar speed.

Can anyone shed some light on this, or tell me how I can check if it's running at optimal speed or at least doing the speed it's claimed to be doing. I have an idea that the 2700 runs at around 2 GHz.


30-10-2004, 10:38 PM
You could download CPU-Z - this will give you full details of your cpu type, cpu speed, bus speeds, ram type, ram speeds etc.

I would recommend doing this...

Did you go through and sort out all the settings in your system BIOS?

30-10-2004, 10:51 PM
Right click your "my computer" icon either on the deskyop or in the start menu,click properties,This will open up System properties,By default it should be displaying the General tab,this will list the clockspeed your cpu is running at,and what model it is detected as.

31-10-2004, 01:16 AM
Ok now I downloaded CPU-Z (great utility thanks!) and so far I have only found one thing that doesn't make a lot of sense.

The system is detecting the CPU correctly as an XP 2700, and shows the core speed as 2170 MHz.
Multiplier is x 13.0.
FSB = 166.9 MHz.
Bus Speed = 333.8 MHz.

I have 400 DDR Ram.

The CPU is listed as a 333 FSB, the m/b is supposed to be 400 FSB.

Why then is it showing it as 166.9 ?

I have tried to change this and I can only get it up to around 200 I think. All these numbers are starting to confuse the heck out of me.

Most of the settings in the BIOS are set to AUTO.

31-10-2004, 01:34 AM
166 and 333 are one in the same hence DDR memory - Double Data Rate.
200 and 400 are also the same.

Your processor runs on a 166/333 FSB so using 200/400MHz memory with this processor would be pretty much the same as 166/333Mhz memory.

If you are adjusting the FSB rate close to 200 you are overclocking the processor (making it run faster than normal) and your memory will run nearer its native speed of 200/400MHz.

If your system is crashing or randomly rebooting put the FSB back to 166Mhz.

31-10-2004, 01:45 AM
Basically the settings in the BIOS are correct and the CPU and memory bus are working at the proper frequencies!

Windows 2000 does have a major loading time - keep in mind that the features on the new motherboard and all your input devices have to be initialised.

Windows XP effectively boots faster by loading less up to the logon screen and then loads extra services when it loads your user profile.

31-10-2004, 09:12 AM
Thanks HadO for all of your info on this. I guessed that everything was running as per normal. When I ran the FSB up to 200 I was aware that it wasn't a normal speed so I put it back to 166 again - I didn't leave it up there.
Question still remains tho - why is this machine not really any faster than my daughter's PIII-667 or my old AMD 750?
Surely after shelling out $500 on this new CPU, m/b and RAM I should be leaps ahead??
If I had known that there was no real jump in performance I don't think I would have spent the money.

31-10-2004, 09:16 AM
how long does it take to boot into windows?

And is it a fresh install on a newly formatted drive?

31-10-2004, 11:08 AM
You could always try Hibernation if you wanted a quicker boot time for Windows - although this will use 512MB of hard drive space and it doesnt work properly with all systems.

31-10-2004, 08:21 PM
Ok, when loading Windoze it's not dragging its feet or anything bad - I haven't timed it but I'd say it takes about 30 secs to load, but as an example, the bars across the bottom in the first boot screen that fill from left to right (boot menu etc) - my old AMD 750 flicks across them pretty quick, the XP2700 takes proportionately longer.

Installation is a fresh one on a newly formatted h/d.

What I find interesting tho is that my friend's XP1800 seems to be quicker all round.

So in essence the XP2700 isn't slow, it just seems slower than the handful of theoretically less specc'd machines that I know of.

31-10-2004, 10:07 PM
when is the last time u did a reformat??, its always good to do one of these once in a while, it may clean up the left overs, might pay to give it a go.......

03-11-2004, 10:27 PM
Thanks Prescott - I will look at that, although I have now substituted a different hard drive and done a format/new install on that and it didn't change much.

03-11-2004, 10:33 PM
is the ram oc'd? i think it is at by the info on the top post im no too sure on that one aye, might pay to slow it down, back to stock settings, or even try a new stick on ram.....