Technology, Support, and News Forum

[Grav!ty Profile]

Partition is 35 GB of which 9 GB is used, primary and formatted by Windows 7 setup. I'm using the latest nVidia driver - 190.38_desktop_win7_winvista_32bit_english_whql.exe and the latest available chipset drivers from Intel.

In a few days I'll zap everything but XP, and get rid of the Vista/Win 7 boot system files then reinstall Windows 7 again (at least my 12th install of RTM) and see if not having Vista on the system makes any difference. My downloaded image checks out on SHA1, burnt with Nero 7 and the burn verified. Really there's little if anything, I can put this strange behavior down to with any certainty at this stage.

[JabbaPapa Profile]

OK -- 35 GB is slightly on the small side, but is large enough. Ditto for the 2 GB RAM. And you're using the right graphics driver

I can't see that Vista SP2 and W7 RTM should really interfere with each other, and the fact that two separate setups, Pro and Ultimate, yielded the same poor results would suggest some sort of ... I dunno, drivers issue ?

I'm sure I've seen at least one report of raptors providing less than satisfactory performance in W7 (?)

Do you have a spare hard drive knocking about in a drawer, that you could perhaps use for a separate installation and see if it's a RAID-related problem ?

I see that your motherboard has a Gigabit LAN controller, that I have experienced issues with on my own mobo in W7 (causing severe instability) -- can you perhaps download the latest driver from their website, which solved a few problems on my own rig anyway ?

[Grav!ty Profile]

I use the Marvell Yukon ethernet controller. Can't see why what amounts to a standard hard drive with better than normal seek and access times should affect Windows 7. I only have raptors (five of them) except for the IDE drives that are in my USB storage enclosures.

I still suspect it's got something to do with having Vista on the system and that will be the first thing I check out. Thanks for your suggestions

[imnuts Profile Website]

Any reason that you installed the chipset drivers yourself rather than using the drivers within Windows 7, or did not everything install? Since it just came out, the drivers may not be meant for Windows 7, even if they did work fine with Vista/XP, that could cause the issue.

[leo27 Profile]

try the windows 7 intel inf (intel motherboard drivers) here http://www.station-drivers.com/page/intel%20chipset.htm and see if that fixs the problem. It is almost certainly a driver problem that you are experiencing. Also since you are running raid are you using the latest version of intel storage manager which was just released and supports win7 i beleive its version 8.9.0.1023?

[Grav!ty Profile]

Thanks guys, I'll try those newer chipset drivers. I undid my RAID 0 array on this system sometime back because when we have a power outage while the systems running I always have to rebuild it and then chances of losing the OS's are quite big.

I install manufacturer drivers out of habit I guess, even if there are no missing MS default drivers.

[Grav!ty Profile]

I installed the new chipset drivers, rebooted and am back in Windows 7 Professional. Then I ran the performance score just for the heck of it. Now I've opened exactly the same applications/features I used when last I had a freeze (Firefox and Windows Explorer), and so far it seems to be OK.

Here's my performance rating just for the heck of it. Not too shabby for my aging rig





What I'm really keen to do in the not too distant future is to check out how desktop customizable Server 2008 R2 is.

[JabbaPapa Profile]

Great, gj with the fix

RAM score seems very low though, for dual-channel DDR3 -- I'm getting 7.3 with my 1067 Mhz DDR2 ...(graphics scores on my rig are very low, probably due to the drivers, same as you're using btw but you get a more realistic score with your hardware).

Nevertheless your RAM score should clearly be higher, and the slowdown you experienced may be at least partially related to some sort of issues with the RAM

I would run a memory test, and ... er ... are you certain that the RAM modules are correctly placed on the motherboard for dual-channel ? I know that I've certainly installed RAM badly in the past, and the colour coding on some motherboards can be confusing ... or the score could be indicative of some damage to the motherboard even ? Perhaps try moving the RAM to the other pair of slots ?

Looks like something's rotten in there though

[Grav!ty Profile]

Thanks. Looks like that's holding. DDR3 is A LOT slower in terms of timings. A 1T Command Rate timing is totally out of the question without serious overclocking if it's possible at all. Stock is a Command Rate of 2T, while stock of DDR2 is 1T.

What makes DDR3 better is the higher unclocked FSB rating and the wider bandwidth.

Mine run at a FSB of 533 MHz (which gives me a 1:2 FSB to DRAM ratio (CPU stock FSB being 1066) although it's rating is 1333 (PC3 10700). Unlike DDR2 RAM it's virtually impossible to achieve a 1:1 FSB to DRAM ratio.

The ASUS Blitz Extreme motherboard probably remains one of THE most overclockable on the market in terms of the range and extent to which one can customize BIOS settings, right down to frequencies and voltages of the South and North bridges and different timings for RAM channels.

Vista however did not like even a moderate overclock of anything, usually refusing to install and failing to boot if overclocked after installation. No doubt Windows 7 would fall over too.

[JabbaPapa Profile]

What makes DDR3 better is the higher unclocked FSB rating and the wider bandwidth.

I'm not sure that I understand, as I have only dabbled in overclocking ; although my motherboard includes the automatic AMD overclocking features.

The W7 performance rating for RAM looks at the "number of memory operations per second", and on the face of it you are getting a far smaller number than my (admittedly top-notch) 1067 Mhz DDR2 with your own 1333 Mhz DDR3.

I do seem to recall though that the first generally available DDR3 modules, released about the same time as you appear to have built your system, were reviewed as having not so good performance as the highest range of DDR2 modules, such as those that I have installed on my own system -- which might be the actual explanation here.

Anyway, bottom line is that your system is functioning properly, which is all that matters really