# Core2 Quad Q6600 + 2GB RAM = Slow PC?



## rickys

Hey everyone, I have a pretty robust machine here which I setup last year. It's got an Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 2.4GHz processor with 2 GB of RAM. Currently running Windows 7 on it. When I installed Windows 7, it used to run pretty fast but over the last month or so, I'm finding the computer has gotten a bit sluggish. By sluggish I mean, it takes a bit longer to start the apps which I used to be able to load right up. Looking at the CPU and RAM usage, it is below 30% for the most time. I don't see any suspicious processes running.

Any ideas? Do I just need to defragment?


----------



## diduknowthat

Sounds like the computer is getting a little clogged up. How many programs have you installed and uninstalled in the past months? Try running CCleaner and see if things speed up a bit.


----------



## rickys

diduknowthat said:


> Sounds like the computer is getting a little clogged up. How many programs have you installed and uninstalled in the past months? Try running CCleaner and see if things speed up a bit.



Good point. I don't believe I have too many programs on it currently just other than your basic Office suite and Adobe etc. Although I may have installed/removed a bunch of them over the past year. You could be right, it's probably just clutter left behind by those apps. 

CCleaner...is that a free app? 

Thanks for your suggestion.


----------



## Twist86

I wont lie when my Q6600 underclocks back to 2.4ghz my entire system is sluggish and slow. I am talking like 2 minute boot times / slow load up on programs etc. Once I overclock back to 3.2ghz though its 50% faster.

Maintenance Programs I use
Auslogics Defrag
Auslogics BoostSpeed (has a good registry cleaner/junk file cleaner and its pretty stupid proof (just don't use advanced mode)
Tuneup Utlities 2010 (good registry cleaner/registry defrager)
Malware Bytes - Great for trojans/malware


----------



## 87dtna

Overclock the CPU (monitor temps) to atleast 3ghz and defragment the hard drive.


----------



## FuryRosewood

might recommend more ram too...with x64 win7 you might start running into swapspace...


----------



## 87dtna

Just increase virtual memory for now.....control panel - system - advanced system settings - virtual memory/settings - advanced - change - deselect automatic at the top - custom size 4000mb/max 5000mb - set - reboot.


----------



## linkin

Overclock that thing and get another 2gb of ram. How many RAM sticks are you running now? just a single 2gb stick? System responsiveness is a lot better in dual channel becuase you get double the memory bandwidth, but you need 2 ram sticks.


----------



## 87dtna

If he hasn't defrag'd the HDD in over a year it's probably most of his problem.


----------



## Matthew1990

So you guys are telling me that 2.4GHz Quad is not fast enough to run a System?


----------



## Shane

Matthew1990 said:


> So you guys are telling me that 2.4GHz Quad is not fast enough to run a System?



I dont think they mean that,Theyre just saying that his system probably needs a good defrag and clean up.

If your refering to what Twist86 said,Hes right...the Q6600 stock seems very slow,especialy if you have had it overclocked for a long time like i have...overclocked it shows its true performance.

And to the OP,if you have ever thought about overclocking it realy is like day/night diffrence when the Q6600 is overclocked.


----------



## Matthew1990

Nevakonaza said:


> I dont think they mean that,Theyre just saying that his system probably needs a good defrag and clean up.
> 
> If your refering to what Twist86 said,Hes right...the Q6600 stock seems very slow,especialy if you have had it overclocked for a long time like i have...overclocked it shows its true performance.
> 
> And to the OP,if you have ever thought about overclocking it realy is like day/night diffrence when the Q6600 is overclocked.



Good ol' days when P4 3GHz was cutting thru everything


----------



## Twist86

Matthew1990 said:


> So you guys are telling me that 2.4GHz Quad is not fast enough to run a System?



Any chip is "fast enough" to run a system however no at 2.4ghz it doesn't move faster then my impatient meter moves so its a issue for me 

Just ask anyone with a Q6600 they will tell you there is a huge difference in 600mhz. Gotta remember Vista/7 only use multiple cores when loading programs at start up....for the most part its 1 core usage from the OS itself that I have noticed so its not using the quad to its full benefit.


----------



## 87dtna

Matthew1990 said:


> So you guys are telling me that 2.4GHz Quad is not fast enough to run a System?





Did you miss what I said??



87dtna said:


> If he hasn't defrag'd the HDD in over a year it's probably *most *of his problem.




If your PC was fast to start, obviously the HDD is just crapped up.

But as other people mention, MOST apps are single threaded, therefore having a quad doesn't mean crap.  So you need more clockspeed for things to go faster.  3ghz is the standard anymore pretty much.   You should be able to get 3ghz easy.  All you do is take the FSB to an easy 1333 (333) and that should do fine on stock voltage and even the stock cooler.  It will also keep your ram multipliers in check, just lower it to the next lower multiplier in the Bios and it should stay the same speed as it was before.


----------



## linkin

Exactly! Which is why my dual core at 4ghz will be faster than your quad at 2.4ghz running single threadded apps.


----------



## Shane

linkin said:


> Exactly! Which is why my dual core at 4ghz will be faster than your quad at 2.4ghz running single threadded apps.



Your dual at 4ghz does not beat my quad at 3.5ghz in Super PI  :good:,and im pretty sure super pi is single threaded?

What you have to remember linkin is that more apps/games now take advantage of quad cores = better performance than on a dual core 

Not only that,your dual only has 2mb cache,the q6600 has 8.


----------



## linkin

Yes, true, but we are talking stock speeds. Also remember my cpu uses newer architecture and does well in superpi despite less cache... only ~2 seconds between your score and mine IIRC


----------



## fastdude

I still love the how cheap the pentium E6300 is... :L and it does OK in superpi?
:good:


----------



## 87dtna

Nevakonaza said:


> Your dual at 4ghz does not beat my quad at 3.5ghz in Super PI  :good:,and im pretty sure super pi is single threaded?
> 
> What you have to remember linkin is that more apps/games now take advantage of quad cores = better performance than on a dual core
> 
> Not only that,your dual only has 2mb cache,the q6600 has 8.




Are you on crack?  An E6300 at 4ghz will whip a Q6600 at 3.5 in superPi.  It would take you atleast 3.8-3.9ghz to match his score.

Cache plays a small factor, it's only worth ~1-2 tenths though.  Clockspeed is handsdown the largest factor/help.


----------



## Shane

87dtna said:


> Are you on crack?  An E6300 at 4ghz will whip a Q6600 at 3.5 in superPi.  It would take you atleast 3.8-3.9ghz to match his score.
> 
> Cache plays a small factor, it's only worth ~1-2 tenths though.  Clockspeed is handsdown the largest factor/help.



hah dude im only messin with linkin,chill out bloody hell. 

and nope it does not "whoop its ass"...my q6600 at 3.5 is about 2 seconds slower than his e6300 at 4ghz.....if i was to oc to 3.8 or something the q6600 would be faster.



> 11. Linkin (Pentium Dual Core E6300/4003Mhz/1.46) [14.31]
> 12. Mihir (i7 920/2810.2/1.088) [14.407]
> 13. Nevakonaza (Core 2 Quad Q6600/3500Mhz/1.192) [15.116]



Now lets stop thread jacking lol


----------



## 87dtna

Didn't seem to me like you were joking at all.

1 second is a whipping in superPi, thats a lot.

Go ahead and try 3.8ghz, I bet you'll be around 14.4-14.5 seconds.  Wolfdale core architecture is better/faster than Kentsfield.  The cache only makes up the difference.  So now that I thought about it a bit more, even at 3.9ghz you may not catch him.

If you won't do 3.8ghz, than Linkin you should do 3.5ghz.

There's no thread jack, the OP's questions have all been answered.


----------

