New (second hand) desktop slower than old laptop

[JDuding]

I was getting frustrated with my old laptop taking so long processing JPG filters... then trying to edit RAW files...
Had to upgrade.

Went to my local computer bloke. smh.

So I tell him my laptop is too slow... can he build me a faster desktop from old bits.
He specialises in building gaming PCs.
I knew that was no guarantee that he would know anything about graphic/video editing... but gave him a shot at it.

After building me a box with an SSD for the boot system and a 1TB HDD for internal storage.
A wireless card (at my request) to communicate with all my wireless cams.
And a graphics card with an HDMI plug.

I get home and find (after installing everything and transferring all my data from the old computer) that the system takes 9 secs to calculate the white balance of a RAW image... where as my laptop was taking little more than a second at most.

I called the computer bloke... he asks that I put the file on the SSD and see if there is an improvement.
Why yes... it now only takes 6 seconds.
He says "well, we're getting there"
I start to loose it. Just a bit... but noticeable.
I let him know that the laptop was too slow and this new system he built can't even match that.
He says bring it in and he'll upgrade the CPU for no charge... but if i want more RAM... it'll cost me. It did.

Specs.
Desktop.

Win10 (free upgrade from Win7)
An i7 3.4Ghz Intel
16gb of 1600Mhz RAM
120GB SSD as C drive (OS installed)
1TB HDD as internal file storage.
300mbs wireless card
NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
-GPU 625 MHz
-1GB DDR2

Since the upgrade to i7 and more/faster RAM... now processing RAW in 3 secs. Now only 3x slower than my Laptop.
Computer bloke says... well... you haven't wasted your money... you only need a new graphics card, new motherboard and new CPU and you'll have a good system.
I realised how many ways of expressing my point of view with my foot I was considering and left the shop.

My laptop is some years old, but wasn't the slowest horse in the race back in it's day.

hp pavilion g6 - AMD a8 4500m
4 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
AMD Radeon HD 7640G/7670M Dual GPU (2 GB DDR3 dedicated)
500 GB 5400 rpm SATA
Windows 8 64 bits


So now I'm trimming down Win10 and trying to get the most out of the purchase... as I have my eye on a new graphics card.

I have a GOPRO and want to be able to edit RAW video as well as RAW photo's... I can also record 4k from my smart phone... so want to be able to edit that at some stage.

So the card I'm now looking at is the nvidia quadro.
They range in price from $260 - $8000... and up.

So if I can make the desktop useful until I can save up for a $500 card... but might have to settle for the entry level card... that might be enough for most things except 4k... not sure. Still a lot of reading to do. Only started checking it out yesterday.

Well.. that's where I'm at... and hoping that I can tweak it enough for the time being.

It's been suggested that I donate my new (second hand) desktop to family for web surfing... probably all it's good for LOL... but we'll see if it's a dead horse first... and even then I'll probably flog it some. :D

[ameerat42]

It's odd, as the specs of this desktop don't sound slouchy.
Some preliminary considerations:
Have you ever run the "Windows Experience Indicator" in Win 7 on any of your older machines?
It is installed as part of Win 7, but NOT in Win 8 or Win 10.

To install it in Win 10 (and it looks the same as in Win 7 then), you need a 3rd party APP called
"ChrisPC Win Experience Indicator" (http://win-experience-index.chris-pc.com/how-to-check-windows-experience-index-in-windows-10.html)

It's free, and it gives you an indication of the performance of all your computer sub-systems, graphics, ram, etc...

IF YOU INSTALL IT, the first T&C is OK, but you can decline the 2nd one. I did, and it still works.
AND ANOTHER THING, install it on an external drive (like I did to save space, but in case you end up returning that machine).

Run it, and do the same on your Win 7 laptop. (On Win 7 installs it is in the Properties part of My Computer.)
Compare the results. It might indicate what's letting your performance lag.
No good running out and getting a new graphics card if the RAM/HDD/something else is below par.

That's that bit for a start, and now...

1) Did you let the computer store people know of the type of performance you were after, like show them your laptop, or some other indicator?
2) Did they say anything about being able to satisfy your requirements?

Since they did not, you could return it on the grounds it doesn't perform as advertised/was supposed to. If they don't accept, then there is the state consumer affairs
if you consider it's worth that.

If this is favourably resolved financially, get some good advice on a system from somewhere other than that place before you purchase again.

Enough for now. (ANd AK might weigh in, and then what?:eek:)

- - - Updated - - -

PS: I meant to say that the reply you got from them was specious and unwarranted. You should have a witness next time you go there.
How good are you at putting your foot down?

[Cage]

1st Question.

Do you have your PP program installed on Disc 'C', the SSD ?

And check to see you have the latest W10 drivers for your GT 220. http://www.nvidia.com/download/driverResults.aspx/87988/en-us This is for 64bit systems, which I hope you have.

[JDuding]

1st Question.

Do you have your PP program installed on Disc 'C', the SSD ?

Yep.
All software installed on the SSD 'C' drive.


---EDIT---
just checked the driver and it is a later version than the one available via the link you provided???
Not sure where he got it from... I'll try the autoupdate from the GeForce website.





It's odd, as the specs of this desktop don't sound slouchy.
Some preliminary considerations:
Have you ever run the "Windows Experience Indicator"...
...It might indicate what's letting your performance lag.
No good running out and getting a new graphics card if the RAM/HDD/something else is below par.



Goods idea... I have left upgrading the graphics card for last... as I wanted to make sure I had as good as I could get (on a budget) before moving ahead. this is also why i have opened it up for the forum to offer advice... I want to make sure I have utilised the maximum potential of the system before writing it off.



...
1) Did you let the computer store people know of the type of performance you were after, like show them your laptop, or some other indicator?
2) Did they say anything about being able to satisfy your requirements?

Since they did not, you could return it on the grounds it doesn't perform as advertised/was supposed to. If they don't accept, then there is the state consumer affairs
if you consider it's worth that.

If this is favourably resolved financially, get some good advice on a system from somewhere other than that place before you purchase again...

...PS: I meant to say that the reply you got from them was specious and unwarranted. You should have a witness next time you go there.
How good are you at putting your foot down?


I had given him a brief on why I was purchasing the system (laptop too slow) and what I'd be using it for (editing RAW photo files and GOPRO video).
He worded his response as I would have in the same circumstance... "SHOULD be able to put something together".

Although it hasn't been spoken... and I am just assuming... if I did crack the -it's, he probably would accept the return and refund... but that was before the RAM upgrade... not so sure now... but still, perhaps.

As for me putting my foot down... Yes.
I can and have a history of it.
Nowadays, I step back and consider things a bit first. (Still a hot head... but it shows less)

The system (before the RAM upgrade) was $400 all up.
So for the price... not so bad. the RAM cost a bit though... so has blown out a bit now.

After exhausting all attempts to speed the unit with what I have... I'll consider returning it with a stern demure.

Until then... I'll do what I can.



----------------------


NOTE: the current speed test I have been judging the system on is this...

Capture NX-D (run from an SSD)
a 22.2MB .NEF file
From the White Balance menu... "Calculate Automatically".

I have noticed that the time to calculate is reduced if the application window is not at full screen.


------------------

Have to go out soon... so might not be able to reply to any posts until later.
Thanks all for your input.






- - - Updated - - -



Checked the GeForce web site http://www.geforce.com/drivers
(http://www.geforce.com/drivers)
and I do have the latest Win10 driver installed. V341.81
it also has the previous version available... V341.74

I'll roll it back as a trial if anyone thinks that might help?

[Cage]

As Am said, the system specs aren't real shabby.

It would be a good starting point to know the make and model # of the motherboard, and also the PSU.

I'd hold off throwing a new GPU at it at this stage.

[farmmax]

I run a win 7 desktop with specs under what your "new" computer has, and it eats up raw files and handles most things instantly. I don't think there is any excuse for your PC not to do the job you want it to do.

If the scratch disc for photoshop is C drive, try changing it to your larger more empty drive. In Photoshop go to Edit/preferences/performance to decide how to allocate your scratch disks. In the same place, is your " Enable OpenGL drawing" ticked on?

[JDuding]

As Am said, the system specs aren't real shabby.

It would be a good starting point to know the make and model # of the motherboard, and also the PSU.

I'd hold off throwing a new GPU at it at this stage.


I'll open it up this evening and get the motherboard details.




I run a win 7 desktop with specs under what your "new" computer has, and it eats up raw files and handles most things instantly. I don't think there is any excuse for your PC not to do the job you want it to do.

If the scratch disc for photoshop is C drive, try changing it to your larger more empty drive. In Photoshop go to Edit/preferences/performance to decide how to allocate your scratch disks. In the same place, is your " Enable OpenGL drawing" ticked on?


One of the reasons that I am not throwing the computer at the tech and jumping up and down... is that I also believe that it should be able to do what is being asked of it easily.

I am not currently using Photoshop... but will check the software prefs to make sure it is set to use the hardware available.

A mate also suggested that I check the power saver settings of win10. I never thought to look as it's not a laptop.

---------


Also to note: I did notice that during the tests that the laptop (when looking at Task Manager/performance/memory) would keep topping out at about 70% of RAM utilised, when performing the calculations on the laptop.
When the desktop was processing the same file... would show as utilising over 75% of the available RAM... When I had 8GB installed.
This is why I thought I should try and have more RAM installed.
Putting in 16GB helped improve the speed by 10-15%... but the cost turned a reasonably priced system into a "what have I done" type of deal.

So now the system barely registers 20% RAM being utilised during tests.
The maths seems a bit off, but better than being maxed out.

Will look into it more after work tonight.

[arthurking83]

I did a summary down below if you can be stuffed reading the whole thing!

There are so many aspects to this issue .. where to begin!

Firstly, are you confident of getting into the BIOS to check a few things?

1. check to see if all CPU cores are enabled. Some BIOSes default to some AUTO setting, and shut down uneccessary cores to save on power, and enable them if needed.
Problem can be, when they are enabled, the process that needed them probably doesn't need them any more!(or something to that effect).

2. Check to see if the builder of the system enabled AHCI in the BIOS.
Warning, if the system's storage config is set to IDE mode, and you set to to AHCI .. your system will be trashed!
I found that a massive difference is HDD speeds came from switching from the default IDE mode to AHCI .. but there is a specific order of steps necessary to do this right.
All you want to do for now is check to see what the builder did for now.

There are also some aspects that you can't do nuthin' about like .. what motherboard did he use to build the system?

There are some things you can change to help too tho, like what model HDD did he use

Other things to be mindful of:
Note that you sometimes get an anomalous situation where not all your RAM is used.
Some motherboards just do this, and they have a RAM compatibility list(located somewhere on the manufacturer's website)
You would expect that a person specialising in building systems wouldl do the right job .. but don't assume .. check to be sure.
Is all the RAM seated properly?

eg. I have 16Gb of RAM installed, but the motherboard I have can only use 12G of that RAM .. and 500Mb of that is reserved for the onboard graphics card! :D
(yep! I only use the onbard graphics chip on my desktop .. long story about how my graphics card got donated to another PC .. and never replaced!)

My desktop is now a fairly old setup, I run an AMD II X4 955 Phenom CPU(which is a fair bit slower than your i7!!) onboard graphics(Radeon 4290 chip) .. so technically a fair chunk slower than your system and CNX-D calculates an Automatically calculated WB the moment I press that option!
That is, no wait for it to start calculating .. and maybe 0.5sec for it to render the D800E's 80Mb file from a nice looking WB rendering to an ugly more magenta 'auto' version! :p
It's take all of 0.01sec to return it to the nicer looking 'recorded value' version again.
The only aspect of my PC that is on the fast side are all the (main) HDDs I use.
Minimum speeds are in the 85-90MB/s range.
I do have a few older and slower drives of various forms(and functions) and if I place a raw file on them .. then I see slower rendering speeds.

Look for updated IDE/SATA/ATAPI drivers from the manufacturer. You need to know what motherboard model was used. storage controllers vary from motherboard to motherboard .. even from revisions of the same M/board model! so be 100% sure if you try to update them, you get the right ones. You may have to manually download the latest drivers. if you try to update via Windows's Device Manager update method, it will say the best drivers are installed! :rolleyes:
Well at least they work .. maybe just not as efficiently!

I updated from Window's own(2006) year drivers for my SATA system to AMD's SATA drivers(2013)

As one example of how much different just this one driver made:


CrystalDiskMark 4.1.0 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 124.597 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 103.914 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1.074 MB/s [ 262.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 0.986 MB/s [ 240.7 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 123.938 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 114.728 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 0.556 MB/s [ 135.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 0.969 MB/s [ 236.6 IOPS]

Test : 1024 MiB [T: 8.6% (80.4/931.5 GiB)] (x3) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2015/07/09 13:10:38
OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

That's with Windows 2006 driver(the std install used)

Updated with the AMD SATA driver and:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 4.1.0 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 142.509 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 142.678 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1.278 MB/s [ 312.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1.163 MB/s [ 283.9 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 142.614 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 147.443 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 0.599 MB/s [ 146.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 1.207 MB/s [ 294.7 IOPS]

Test : 1024 MiB [T: 8.6% (80.4/931.5 GiB)] (x3) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2015/07/11 11:30:04
OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

It's not just the actual speed difference, it's the more responsiveness difference that you notice in the drive.
Not all drives respond with such a difference, my C drive only got boosted from 80-ish Mb/s to just under 100Mb/s.

Crystal Diskmark is free to use to check the hard drive's performances .. it'd be good to know how much faster the SSD is over the HDD, and how fast your HDD is as a storage device too.

I found that speeding up the responsiveness of the storage system was the most crucial aspect to faster raw file editing on all my systems from way back when.

Note about the graphics chip:
CNX-D doesn't use accelerated GPU rendering processes(like Adobe software can). I remember reading that Lr supposedly uses the GPU's extra capacity to help speed it up a little(same with photoshop too).
Years back, when I had to donate my geforce 260(something) graphics card, I didn't notice any speed difference in Nikon's software then(ViewNX2 and CNX2) in going from a much faster card, to the onboard chip either. Using this onboard graphics chip probably explains why I experienced slow operation in Lr4 (point something). I haven't reinstalled it again.

The other thing to be mindful of too with Windows and some motherboards(that caught me out).
The drivers used to operate the hard dries(both SSD and HDD) can make a difference in speeds.

SUMMARY:

Check BIOS for:
1/. AHCI. All BIOSes are different, but look for the storage section. What storage mode is used. Options could be IDE/AHCI/RAID .. or others **BUT CHANGE NOTHING**
2/. RAM count and HDD model name while your there. Did all the RAM get used?
3/. CPU cores enabled? there may be options to set a specific number of cores, all or some auto setting.
(my M/b has all of these options .. but not all BIOSes are the same, and some are even dumbed down, and can be suped up a bit with some special key input)

On the PC, go to Device Manager and Task Manager:

Look for RAM usage in Task Manager. Now look for how much RAM is in use and allocated: if it doesn't add up to the 16Gb you have installed, this can be normal. Annoying, but normal!

In Device Manager: Drill down to your IDE/ATA/ATAPI controllers.
Are the storage controllers used(look in Properties) Windows old 2006 drivers?

[Tannin]

Something is wrong. Very wrong. It's not performing anything like its specs. You need to run formal tests and benchmarks on the system to locate the problem. Start with the IDE devices.

[Warbler]

I'd suggest that the graphics card might be your problem. I've found that a fast GPU with 2gb or more of fast DDR5 RAM speeds up my processing a lot. Altering WB on a RAW file is instantaneous. Filters that take the longest on my PC are the Blur filters, in particular the Surface Blur. Gaussian Blur is instantaneous. Make sure your RAW settings in Adobe are correct and set the cache size to suit the number of image previews you want to store. Adobe says each 1GB of cache size caters for 200 RAW images. My cache is set to 100GB and actually rendering previews the first time I open a folder with a few thousand RAW images in it, it does take a little while to render all those thumbnails and then preview the edits. IN ACR though, WB changes are still instantaneous. I'm running a GTX660 video card with 2TB a DDR5 RAM. My system is a Core i7 with 32 GB RAM. I'm not running any SSD drives, just WD Green discs which are obviously not as fast as the best available.

****EDIT*****

Sorry I'm using a GTX750 with 2GB DDR5 RAM at the moment. And, when I say check your settings, go into photoshop and edit settings where you'll find a box that deals with your graphics processor. Make sure you have it set to hardware acceleration.

[ameerat42]

Hey JD. Have you run any tests yet???

[Warbler]

You, and others, may find this helpful too.

http://blogs.adobe.com/crawlspace/2012/10/how-to-tune-photoshop-cs6-for-peak-performance.html

[ameerat42]

Warbs. That - and likesomes - is why I asked JD if he has run any tests. Gotter get down to the problem(s).
I'm still rather :confused013 about it all.

[Warbler]

Sorry AM. You posted before I hit the post key. My last post was directed at the OP, not you. I'd be checking the software settings before I start fiddling around with the hardware, but if they are okay, then go ahead and follow the excellent advice already given.

[fillum]

Re the GPU, my understanding is that the app software needs to explicitly throw work at it - is that correct ? Photoshop does this, especially for for complex calcs like blurring as Warbler pointed out, but I'm not sure Capture NX-D would be doing this. In other words, a GPU upgrade might not have any effect in this case.

(FWIW, I don't have a graphics card or SSD, and PS and LR work fine for me...)

As Tannin stated you need to do some basic benchmarking to try to isolate the issue. My feeling is maybe some sort of motherboard incompatibility / settings...


Good luck...

[Warbler]

Capture NX-D (run from an SSD)
a 22.2MB .NEF file
From the White Balance menu... "Calculate Automatically".

Sorry, I missed that bit about Capture NX. I thought he must have been using Adobe products to run his filters. As you were then. :o

[Cage]

If you are not comfortable in opening your case, download this free utility which will give you most of your hardware specs.

http://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/cpu-z_1.74-en.exe

121147

It will also give you basic performance info on your MoBo, Memory and GPU. And if your PSU is much less than 500W you may be down on required power.

[JDuding]

Hey JD. Have you run any tests yet???


So that you and others that are taking so much time and making so much effort to assist me know...

I work weekends.
2x 12hr shifts and sometimes a 15hr istead of 12 on a Sunday.

So please don't think I am not taking all the advice on board or have given up... but right now I'm knackered and after a day like today... last thing I feel like doing is running any tests.
That's not actually true.
I am tremendously curious to try all the suggested tests and to track down the issue/bottleneck... but not tonight.

Sorry to all that are as curious as I am to see the results.
But will have to wait till tomorrow evening or Monday.

Cheers @all and a really big "Thank You" for all the interest and advice.

[ameerat42]

That's OK. Take it easy. You ask when you're ready.

For me, sorry for any overload.

[Cage]

JD, I'm retired, and obviously have too much time on my hands. I often lose sight of the fact that other people actually have a life.

My computer knowledge is gleaned from building my own, firstly because I hate paying good bucks for not so good gear, and secondly because of my limited budget I'm a tight @rse and want the most bang for my buck.

I also have this inherent desire to help people, so if I come across as pushy, I also apologise. :oops:

[JDuding]

@Am and Cage... no apologies necessary. And not overloaded with info.
I appreciate all the info and suggestions. Was the point of posting about this issue.

Was just pointing out that I have limited time for a couple of days.

I certainly haven't felt like anyone was getting pushy... but did notice the enthusiasm to help from everyone.
Grateful and will get through all the info and provide some updates to the issue as soon as time permits.;)

[arthurking83]

Re the GPU, my understanding is that the app software needs to explicitly throw work at it - is that correct ? Photoshop does this, especially for for complex calcs like blurring as Warbler pointed out, but I'm not sure Capture NX-D would be doing this. In other words, a GPU upgrade might not have any effect in this case.

.....

Like I said earlier (yeah!! I know it was a long post! :p) ..

NX-D doesn't take advantage of the GPU at all.
I'm only running an on board graphics chip and my processor is also considerably embarrassed by all those i7's out there is PC hotrod land too but (rarely) using CNX-D (actually very rarely!) and a simple process like a WB change is instantaneous.
My conclusion is that CNX-D's inner workings rely less on CPU/GPU processing power and more so on storage speed.


Traditionally, Nikon's software relied more on storage speed to work quickly and efficiently(that was both Capture NX2 and View NX2.

Warbler states that Adobe says that for every 1Gb of cache caters for about 200 raw images. That implies that they use jpg previews(or similarly small image file types).
Nikon have traditionally used tiff files for previews.
I'm looking into the workings of CNX-D and I haven't found much other than a few files with a .nkr file extension that could be a compressed image format of some type.

In the old days, when Nikon's software relied on tiff files for rendering the image on screen, the faster the storage system, the quicker (most)things were completed.
The one exception (in CNX2) was always noise reduction. This seemed to rely heavily on CPU power .. which makes sense.

I'm off to work today too, but when you have time JD .. in CNX-D have a quick look at some settings(if you haven't already)

Go to Tools -> Preferences. New box opens and in the upper section check your cache settings.
Firstly find the location of the old cache folder(it should be listed in the dialogue box, I think) and delete it completely. (shift delete!! not recycle)
It's not needed, other than to help the program start a up a little quicker.

Then set the cache to a new location, using the Specify cache location tick box. On your SSD, create a new folder on the C drive called cache. Set the cache to that lcoation.
Cache is always best set to the fastest drive in your system. Even better if that drive is both faster AND separate from your programs folder .. but again this was the best way back in the old days of CNX2. I see that CNX-D is a little different.
But this is how I have my computer set up anyhow. A separate and the fastest drive I have is used for cache(not the main C drive).
Personally I care little for a few extra seconds for a program to load up.. but I prefer faster actual inner operations.
Actually my fastest drive is my image location, but the cache drive is fast enough to be considered the same speed(about 10% slower).

FWIW: on my PC I have 5 HDDs(all HDDS, no SSDs) C drive is the slowest normal drive. Image storage is the fastest, and I have a dedicated cache drive(which I use for all manner of temporary storage).

I regularly format the cache drive to keep it running as quick as it can. It's average read speed is about 90-100Mb/s, write speeds are in the 80-ish range. And note that write speeds are critical for any cache location .. which makes sense when you think about it .. as that's what a program does .. continually write too and read from a cache for every update step!


.. gotta scoot off now.

[JDuding]

update: askcdgaslhlkbn!!#@$@%#$#@

Yesterday... I changed in the BIOS the storage mode from IDE to AHCI.
After finding that it needed safe mode to install a driver... got the system to start up and think it shaved another second off of the calculation test.

After thinking about what had been said and that CNX-D doesn't utilise the graphics card...
I decided to see if there was a lag between the motherboard and the graphics card.
So I shutdown the system, unplugged the monitor cable (HDMI) from the graphics card and plugged it into the port on the motherboard.

pressed the on button.

"BEEP, BEEP, BEEP" repeat.

Thought, "OH NO!"

Turned it off. swapped it back. "BEEP, BEEP, BEEP" repeat.

Found an RGB cable... "BEEP, BEEP, BEEP" repeat.

rang the computer bloke... "...you must have bumped the RAM. Try reseating it..."
Me "how do you bump RAM by swapping a monitor cable?"
"...try it and ring me back..."

"BEEP, BEEP, BEEP" repeat.

Rang back "...maybe one chip is faulty. Try with just one and see... it's Melbourne Cup soon, so if you need to bring it in, it will have to be tomorrow..."

"BEEP, BEEP, BEEP" repeat.


------Next day--------

In his shop.
He starts the computer "...%$# %# %$##..."
Me :eek: "What happened?"
"...there's a burning smell coming from the power supply..."
he tries 2 other power supplies and finally gets one to power on the computer... to hear "BEEP, BEEP, BEEP" repeat.
He then says "...leave it with me... I'll see what I can do..."

I left and on one hand... the fault in the system could explain the performance issues... but on the other hand... what a lemon.


Will post when I hear back from the pc bloke. :crossed:

[ameerat42]

Why bother??? There can only be ONE OUTCOME: he gives you back your money and you PART WAYS!!!

Just let us know how SOON this happens. If it is NOT INSTANTANEOUS, then get Consumer Affairs HEAVILY involved.

Better to lose a 2ple of 10s of $ paying them than HEAPS MORE to this "computer CROWD".

Now is that time to STAND FIRM!

By Hector!! They should be showering you with refunds and apologies!!!

[JDuding]

If he can provide me with an 'as good or better' motherboard, cpu, powersupply and RAM... with the SSD and HDD and the Graphics card and wirless card... for no extra cost... all I've lost it a bit of time.

If that doesn't happen... then I will be expecting the refund.

If the refund is not happening... then I take the long legal path and see where that leads.

[ameerat42]

You're too kind!:D

[JDuding]

;) That's better than the old me :mixed0:

[arthurking83]

Sometimes it happens .. can't be helped.
Years back, when WinXP was brand new, so I think about '04-ish .. I'd just built myself a new PC. Ran perfectly, fast smooth etc, etc.
Recommended it to a mate at work(looking for a new PC)(BTW, I still have that ol box! too).
Anyhow, he went direct to MSY(where I got my parts) and they built it for him.
He came to me at work one day after it was all up and running, saying it randomly reboots. No beeps, no warnings .. nut'n! .. just shuts down and starts again with no wanring. Randomly.
He took it to the shop for them to fix it .. and came back a while later telling me they didn't fix it, even tho it worked ok for a few days. started just this random rebooting for no reason.
He gave it too me to have a look(as it was the exact same specs as mine) and I had it for a few days. I had it running some CPU or RAM tests for a few days .. maybe two or three(can't remember).
No problem! :confused013 Anyhow .. then one day, it rebooted on me too! :th3: I'm thinking, maybe now we can find the problem. Checked all configs I knew how too, and many that I had no idea about.
So went to search some RAM timing specs .. and what they all mean and do(of which I had -100% knowledge on .... and still do :p)
So with the computer sitting only at the BIOS configs page(ie. no load whatsoever) it rebooted! :confused: .. is the BIOS borked? .. how on earth do you fix that.
Last thing I wanted to do was update the BIOS firmware and have it reboot during that process .. then it's not even a paperweight .. it's a total gonner(new mobo needed).

But after the reboot and me searching for the info on RAM timing, I noticed that the BIOS config page I was on now.. said that the 5V rail had failed.
So I sat there, for a while and it said .. good now. I sat there for a good hour, maybe more just waiting to see if it'd change again .. and there it was. The 5 volt rail in the PSU was occasionally failing.

Took it back to him, told him to go back to MSY and tell them to change the PSU. The PSU was a well known high quality one from Antec(came in the case) .. I had the exact same case.

Moral of the story .. it happens. It's better to have the attitude that it's not the fault of the builder of the system, nor that of the manufacturer, ALL of the time.
This was one that just slipped through the QC filter.


Speaking of which: I'm about to update to a new PC very soon(next few days or so) .. because my PSU has been making grinding fan noises for about 2 maybe 3 years now! :D
it drives me nuts, and every now and then I pull it apart and grease it up a bit and it's fine for a few days.
The reason I haven't changed it is that it still works .. albeit with rocks getting crushed within it's small confines.

But I need a NAS server, and the best way for me to do that, without wasting money is to get a new PC, and retire this current 'rock crusher' as my NAS.

I'll post some CNX-D times in a few hours or so .. once household chores are done.

And unless the 'BEEP BEEP BEEP' failure is in the 12volt rail, which means possibly not supplying enough power to the HDD, then I doubt it's the cause of the slowness. But I think you'd have had stability issues too ... but I'm not sure, as I've never had any experience with that.

[ameerat42]

Sure, but JD's been getting some shrift that has been curtailed from the people, in amongst the inaction.

[Cage]

If he can provide me with an 'as good or better' motherboard, cpu, powersupply and RAM... with the SSD and HDD and the Graphics card and wirless card... for no extra cost... all I've lost it a bit of time.

May I suggest that you ask for a full parts list, including Make & Model Nos, before you make any decision, and that you post that list here.

There are plenty of folk on this forum who build their own computers and in a short time can look at the proposed specs and very quickly pick up on any incompatibilities.

I'm guessing by the sound of things that he uses very cheap and nasty PSU's which can cause all sorts of problems. It is very important that the various components, particularly the CPU, RAM and GPU get the right amount of regulated power to function correctly.

[ameerat42]

What's the use of that? What if they muck that up too? I reckon he should be rid of it and of their
association too.

[Cage]

What's the use of that? What if they muck that up too? I reckon he should be rid of it and of their
association too.

If the parts are all up to the job, and compatible, it then becomes pretty much a plug 'n' play exercise.

I should add that given the sellers history in building gaming machines there is a very good chance that the used components may have been overclocked and therefore stressed. I guess it all comes back to 'Caveat Emptor'.

[ameerat42]

That's right. Easy as pie what you're saying. I have put a few machines together over the years.

It's the whole situation that I'm talking about... Like you mean, if they're that good, why demur?
Rectify it. - Pref the easiest way: take back your "machine" and get money back.

[arthurking83]

@ JD.

Just did some testing with CNX-D(which is a slightly convoluted process).
I reckon it doesn't use all that much in the way of storage resources. That is, it's not as reliant on storage speed, as is/was Nikon's CaptrueNX2 and ViewNX2.
With the old NX2's, the faster the storage speed you used, the much faster both programs effective ran. And that included the location of the cache area.

So the most likely culprit for the CNX-D slowdown could be/have been a CPU issue of some sort.
Could be like Cage said, a PSU issue. eg. if it didn't supply enough power to the CPU the CPU can't utilise it's full potential.

I'm not a programmer type, so have no idea on how software developers write their programs, but CNX-D isn't like the NX2's with heavy reliance on storage speed for efficient operation.

FWIW: I have many HDDs on my PC, fastest runs at about 140-170MB/s and the slowest runs at an anaemic 50MB/s(that's megabytes, nor megabits).
So technically, 100MB file will 'load' in either 0.75s for the fast drive, or about 2s for the slow drive. But it doesn't actually work like that in real life!

Using both drives, and comparing CNX-D and VNX-2 and doing some simple/basic/easy-one-touch edits .. WB/PictureControl type stuff.
I also tested cache speed too, so each run, I tested with cache cleared(deleted) and left intact too.
VNX-2 is instant with the same image on both drives. That is, make the change and with the image on either the fast or slow drive .. and the change is instant.
If you could measure the time it took to effect the change, it'd be less than 0.1s.(that's different to how it used to be, and the slower drive always caused a slight delay.

CNX-D was slightly different, but the overall effect was the same.
With the cache cleared, each edit effect too a half a second or so to render the image. Most of that rendering was not so much for the colour or tone difference, but just for the rendering of the image to be sharp. For each edit step, CNX-D blurs the image a bit(it looks pixelated), makes the edit effect instantly, and then unblurs the image to a sharp pic again. That sharpening takes about 0.5 - 0.75sec on my PC.
But that's with the cache cleared(which is like loading the images up for the first time).
With the cache untouched, which is akin to going back to re-edit an image .. the changes were instantaneous like VNX2 is.
rendering is immediate .. both for colour/tone changes AND sharpness rendering.

Curious if the PC changes after the current issue is resolved too.

[JDuding]

A quick update... (then I'll go back and read the new posts from everyone :D)

My NEW (New (second hand)) desktop pc is home.

Did a test instore and it is doing the calculations almost instantly.

edit--- forgot to add...
it has a new motherboard and new power supply :th3:

Still need to give it a full workout... but looking like something to smile about now.:nod:
All covered under his warranty.
People can be ok sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -


Sometimes it happens .. can't be helped.

Moral of the story .. it happens. It's better to have the attitude that it's not the fault of the builder of the system, nor that of the manufacturer, ALL of the time.
This was one that just slipped through the QC filter...

...And unless the 'BEEP BEEP BEEP' failure is in the 12volt rail, which means possibly not supplying enough power to the HDD, then I doubt it's the cause of the slowness. But I think you'd have had stability issues too ... but I'm not sure, as I've never had any experience with that.


The 3 beeps is supposed to be a faulty RAM alarm... but the RAM was fine in the New motherboard.
So... the issue was either the motherboard or the PSU... but both were swapped out for upgraded parts and the actual fault was not discovered, as far as I know.

All the work was done under warranty and better components than before.





May I suggest that you ask for a full parts list, including Make & Model Nos, before you make any decision, and that you post that list here.

There are plenty of folk on this forum who build their own computers and in a short time can look at the proposed specs and very quickly pick up on any incompatibilities.

I'm guessing by the sound of things that he uses very cheap and nasty PSU's which can cause all sorts of problems. It is very important that the various components, particularly the CPU, RAM and GPU get the right amount of regulated power to function correctly.


I documented all the components to post... (until the 3 beep issue broke me)... and never thought to write down the PSU details.

So what I have now is an ASUS PBZ77-M (upgraded from an ASRock H61M/U3S3)
Still the same i7 3.4ghz
Still the 16 GB of 1600 DDR3 RAM
A CASECOM PSU 600W -VP600 (ugraded from a ??? smelt odd)
Same
NVIDIA GeForce GT 220 GPU Clock 625 MHz
Shader Clock: 1360 MHz Memory Amount 1.0 GB Memory Clock 800 MHz (400 MHz DDR2)

_____WOW______
Typing this reply and I had to open up the unit to get the motherboard details... noticed that it was missing the CMOS battery...
:lol:

The Pc Bloke was apologetic and I will pick it up tomorrow.




Sure, but JD's been getting some shrift that has been curtailed from the people, in amongst the inaction.

TOO RIGHT!
And even today he asked if I was using it during the recent thunderstorm.
"No... I was taking photos of it, trying to capture the lightning" (no luck btw... will keep trying)




As per my previous post... I'll do some testing later.
Tonight I am off to do an intro to photography course, put on by the camera house where I bought my camera.
Can't gets too much leaning in me right :D

[ameerat42]

The specs look LIGHTNING fast. Hope it gets up and goes.
(Must've been those pictures you were taking:p)

[Cage]

JD, you've learnt that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. :wd:

OK, the Mobo, spec wise, should do all you need, and more. It's a scaled down budget type board, but mainly in the respect of expansion slots, and the 16GB of RAM should be more than enough for your needs. The CPU seems well regarded and will offer some tweaking if you feel the need.

See how it runs, and if it is doing what you expect it to, look at getting a half-decent brand name PSU, which I think is the weakest link.

I think the specs add up and should give you what you need, maybe with a tad of fine tuning.

:crossed: for it.