New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inspiron 1501 question

post #1 of 7
3/16/07 at 11:00pm
Thread Starter 
As of this last Christmas I was generously gifted a Dell Inspiron 1501, which seems to pack some pretty snazzy specifications, at a glance. However, I'm noticing some performance troubles, no matter who low I set things to. Generally, referring to gaming, and often in the form of stuttering, or general sluggishness of responsiveness of controls.

First off, it's a dual core, and my Control Panel -> System properties shows up at 1.79ghz, meaning I should be running at 3.6ghz total, right? Should that be showing in the system list, and is somehow messed up?

My biggest question however is regarding the integrated graphics, which is set to a respectable 256mb.. Is it really just that poor at processing despite the amount of graphical ram that it is, or is something perhaps amiss? (For anyone curious I've tried Titan Quest, Dawn of War, D&DOnline, EverQuest2, all on a variety of settings, normally -extremely- and painfully low, yet still I have the same sluggishness and stuttering feel.)

So, basically.. One, should the system properties be showing the speed of only one processor, and two, is the integrated graphics just that bad, or should I be seeing reasonable performance with it set to 256mb of graphics ram (leaving 1.75ish of system ram).

Thankyou in advance!
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 7
3/17/07 at 1:39am
No, I'm afraid you have the wrong impression on both fronts. Dual core does not mean you have the equivalent of doubling the clock speed... put simply it just means you have two CPU cores running in parrallel at that same speed (1.79GHz in your case). This helps with multi-tasking and such but by no means doubles regular performance. If you want to know more then you can google it or have a look at this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_(computing)

Now, integrated graphics are not intended for heavy gaming. It doesn't matter how much system memory is allocated to them... they are much slower than dedicated graphics cards. First of all the processing engine is nowhere near as powerful. Secondly, graphics engines are extremely memory intensive, and an integrated solution finds itself competing for the system RAM with the CPU as it has no dedicated memory. This problem is compounded by the relative slowness of system ram, with bandwidth between say 2 GB/s to 8 GB/s, yet dedicated GPUs enjoy between 10 GB/s and 88 GB/s of bandwidth depending on the model.

So to answer your questions; Yes, system properties should only be showing that speed, and; Yes, integrated graphics really will struggle with newer games even on lower settings.

Stu
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 7
3/17/07 at 1:57am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sakor1
No, I'm afraid you have the wrong impression on both fronts. Dual core does not mean you have the equivalent of doubling the clock speed... put simply it just means you have two CPU cores running in parrallel at that same speed (1.79GHz in your case). This helps with multi-tasking and such but by no means doubles regular performance. If you want to know more then you can google it or have a look at this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_(computing) Now, integrated graphics are not intended for heavy gaming. It doesn't matter how much system memory is allocated to them... they are much slower than dedicated graphics cards. First of all the processing engine is nowhere near as powerful. Secondly, graphics engines are extremely memory intensive, and an integrated solution finds itself competing for the system RAM with the CPU as it has no dedicated memory. This problem is compounded by the relative slowness of system ram, with bandwidth between say 2 GB/s to 8 GB/s, yet dedicated GPUs enjoy between 10 GB/s and 88 GB/s of bandwidth depending on the model. So to answer your questions; Yes, system properties should only be showing that speed, and; Yes, integrated graphics really will struggle with newer games even on lower settings. Stu
Greetings! First off, thankyou for your reply.. And while I understand that having a dual core doesn't technically give you processor speed x2 processing, I was under the impression that two 1.8ghz processors, aka, a dual core, would be able to perform remotely near to a 3.6ghz on it's own Also, I might should have noted that the System properties is reporting only one processor, where as normally I think it should show both at 1.8ghz. All that aside, Sandra Lite benchmarking showed my processors as performing roughly 40% as well as a 1.8ghz Intel dual core chip, which to me, says that there is defintaely something very amiss. Considering the tests always had the equivalent or similar chips running at 105-114% higher than mine, it really feels like one of the cores simply isn't doing anything. Thankyou for your timely reply, and I look forward to any further advice you can offer.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 7
3/17/07 at 5:47am
System properties will only show one... as in essence you have only one processor, just it has two cores! And also keep in mind it is a processor designed to be used in a laptop... it has an innate function (speedstep) to operate at lower clock speeds when the CPU is not in heavy use in order to conserve power and reduce heat output. You will only see its full potential when the CPU is under load unless you force it to run at full tilt.

Stu
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 7
3/17/07 at 4:59pm
Thread Starter 
Thankyou again for your response.

However, I have an AMD Turion 64 x2 processor, and I was under the impression that SpeedStep is an Intel processor thing. Also, my power options are set to 'Always On,' which again as best I can tell from what I've found on google and such, it should thus disregard any speed varying.

Also, I would presume that things such as gaming and benchmarking would stress the system as much as possible, and thus push it to throttle fully even if it is slowing sometimes for power saving reasons.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 7
3/17/07 at 9:42pm
Sorry, didn't click that you were talking about the e1501 and not the e1505. But what I mentioned still stands, as the AMD's use a similar PowerNow! technology, which dynamically scales clock speed and voltage in response to CPU loads to conserve power/ heat output.

Additionally, the Intel chips are far superior performers to the AMD mobile chips at the moment, particularly the Core 2 range. Hence the price premium and your noted difference in benchmarking. Clock speed isn't everything.

Stu
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 7
3/21/07 at 9:21pm
The easiest way to put why a multi-core system isn't twice as fast as a single core is to compare it to a 4x4 vs 2 wheel drive vehicle. 4 wheel (or all wheel) drive is a help but it won't make your car go twice as fast.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home