Hands-on: Acer Predator Triton 700 review
Had a similar issue about a month ago but luckily I just sold on a machine I built to family member as she was happy with it but I have rebuilt a new machine and again still finding the running of the machine poor for what the specification is.
The specification as follows if anyone can see anything wrong with it and also what to maybe adjust in the bios? I do not want to overclock as this would be false considering the specification.
Also to add, about a year ago I built a machine using a Duo core 7300, 2GB DDR which has faster using XP Home than this one and my 4yrs AMD 4800x2 is also the same speed.
Coolermaster 700w Modular PSU
Asus P5QL Pro motherboard
Quad Core Q9550 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Cache, 1333MHz FSB
Crucial DDR II 4GB PC2-8500 1067MHz Kit
Samsung SATA DVD Wtr
Westen Digital WD5000AAKS 500GB SATA2 16MB Blue
PowerColor HD 4850 PCS+ Edition 512MB GDDR4 Dual DVI HDTV Out PCI-E Graphics Card
Microsoft Windows XP Pro OEM SP3 32bit
I have some issues also with the Graphics card display going blank on occasions at certain screen settings my older 6yr CRT copes better with it than my 3yr old ViewSonic with DVI cable
my first attempt was with a Asus P5Q SE in the now sold on machine to my sister and I choose this motherbaord to use a different HDD controller chip I am tempted to replace the motherboard with one which has a Silicon over the marvel I think its called.
Maybe its the ATI driver v9. Should I use the Mfrs card downloaded driver v9 or direct from ATI/AMD I tried both and found the powercolour came with more driver parts to it than ATI/AMD which I wasn't intending to use yet.
hopefully I won't have to try and dispose this machine and go 3rd time lucky. So help please from the best system builder here.
Thanks for catching up with me. & Hello!
You know when you work on one machine and then use another and you can feel the difference a bit like getting behind the steering wheel of a different car. I feel that for what its built arround it should show and work faster.
When say going to click on start then the programe and menu list comes up, theres a few sec delay as if it has to think about it, or opening a programme like Word or internet epxlorer take a few seconds longer.
Starting from powering on, the first pre-post boot screen shows and takes a few seconds nearly a minute to check the drives then goes to the WinXP screen where that strobe goes from right to left.
going into windows not very quick for the system tray to load all of 5 applets.
I have never been involved in performance testing like the enthusiast run and reviewers. Wouldn't know where to start. I feel I have choosen a poor poor with Asus again.
I did think if this Asus board bottlekneck is that thing called Express Gate which is a built in utility to booth the machine for getting online in like 5 seconds or so according to Asus.
So I wondered if this is the machine trying to detect this option which I have turned off as I think its false economy forcing a machine to boot faster just to be online quicker. You may think I am a hypercrit re this?
In the manaul it says if you install DDR II 1066MHz Memory with a DDR II SPD of 800MHz ensure you set the DRAM frequency in the BIOS to DDRII-1066 which I havent done as I don't understand why DDR1066MHz memory is also DDRII 800MHz.
a boot, from switch on to operating system fully loaded? It's up to you to decide when the OS is loaded.
Ref the last paragraph in your last post, I've just had a quick scan through the nstruction book for your mobo, but can't find reference to what you've said.
What section of the manual is it under?
Will do it now. Done it, its 1 min 20 seconds. I get the screen flicker to black very quickly as well while loading the desktop a little like when its changing a resoloution.
Just found out that this Retail Q9550 comes in 3 options a retail boxed and 2 OEM tray types and I am thinking the E0 revision is the better. I am sure when I bought the Retail is said in the customer review it was a E0 chip type.
What do you think of 1.20 for boot time ?
Manual No. (printer on Top Right) E4081
and ref page 2-14 under the first grid of DDR1066 mem QVL list grid to the right of the feather.
pre-post is the worst part and once within windows opening programs seems a little slow.
is not a concern and I am barking up the wrong tree then am I right in thinking I shouldn't see the pre-post and when I power on it should boot to the XP boot logo then to desktop.
The RAM settings in 2-14 *i think* is referring to factory overclocked RAM. Can't be sure though.
1m 20s for a boot into XP, assuming a clean install with all necessary drivers and graphics controllers in place, doesn't seem too bad to me.
The screen flicker when you boot up may well be caused by the resolution changing when the driver loads.
Not sure what you mean in your last post (00:17) What do you mean by pre-post?
I think that the screen going blank with the Radeon 48xx graphics card is/was a known issue. My 4870 occassionally does it with my monitor (a Dell 2408 which has been replaced 4 times- and it's been the same with all of them. With more recent driver revisions this has happened less frequently though.
I wouldn't worry about the revision of your processor either unless you plan to overclock- at stock speed you would never know the difference.
For a lot of 'performance ram' it is necessary to input the required settings manually in the BIOS. For example some '1066mhz' RAM is actually just 800mhz RAM that has been rated to run at the higher speed- in this instance you would have to manually tell the computer to run at this higher speed. This normally happens when the higher RAM speed has not been ratified by JEDEC yet. 1066mhz memory has been around a while though, so f your RAM is reasonably new, I would expect it's 'true' 1066mhz RAM anyway, so you don't need to worry about it. (In any case, the difference between 800mhz and 1066mhz is usually minimal).
Which SATA ports have you got your hard drive plugged into? I always find that the inbuilt Intel in AHCI mode work best, I usually disable any sata ports provided by third party chips because I have found them on occasion to be slower. In fact turning off any devices in the BIOS you know you definately won't use wouldn't do any harm.
1 min 20 does seem a little slow. My pc is similar in spec (QX9650, 8gb RAM) and it boots Vista (which should be slower than XP) in about 30 secs- after which it is fully useable. Have you made sure you don't have lots of unnecessary programs on start up by looking at msconfig? Have you also checked the SMART status of your HDD- sometimes slowness can be attributed to a slowly dying hard drive. Maybe you could run a benchmark program such as that found in Everest Ultimate- that will show the speed of you PC in comparison to others, so you could see if there is anything seriously wrong.
Apart from trying a reinstallation of windows to see if that helps things, I'm not what else to suggest at the moment.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.