Memory use and performance issues

I’m having some memory use or performance issues I think. Let me try to
explain.

I have a fairly powerful desktop with decent hardware all around. System
specs:

Dell Precision 670 Workstation
Running Windows Vista Ultimate x64.
All latest service packs etc.
2 Xeon CPUs 3.2GHz (2 logical processors each). So 4 logical processors each
running at 3.2GHz
6Gigs ram (2GB+2GB+1GB+1GB) DDR2-400 Registered ECC Memory Module.
2 Ultra320 SCSI controller and drives
NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT (512 MB) video card running two 24” monitors.

My Windows Experience Index scores:
Processor: 5.0
Memory (RAM): 4.7
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming graphics: 5.9
Primary hard disk: 5.9

Things to note:

1. With my system rebooted and no programs running I am already using
2.8Gigs of my 6Gigs ram. I must have a lot of processes and services started.
I have no idea which ones to shut off.

2. Considering my other computers have Processor and Memory scores of 5.9
and they have much slower and lesser number of CPUs and not even 64 bit I
suspect my RAM issues is slowing down my processors. I should have 5.9 for a
processor score.

3. My Memory (RAM) score is very low (4.7).


Here is a list of the processes and Services running on my computer:

http://members.cox.net/dmanvell/Processes.jpg
http://members.cox.net/dmanvell/Services1.jpg

So what can I do to free up some of this memory being used (What processes
or services can I shut down)? Can I speed up my RAM somehow? Is there
something in my bios that is not turned on or can the RAM be replaced with
faster RAM? It seems really poor that just booting up my computer alone is
using almost 3 Gigs of ram. With my system just sitting and idling, my CPU %
use is between 0 and 1 %. No memory faults are being detected either.

Processor Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz x 2
Memory (RAM) 6.00 GB
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Gaming graphics 2558 MB Total available graphics memory
Primary hard disk 93GB Free (279GB Total)
Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate

System:
Manufacturer Dell Inc.
Model Precision WorkStation 670
Total amount of system memory 6.00 GB RAM
System type 64-bit operating system
Number of processor cores 2

Storage:
Total size of hard disk(s) 1348 GB
Disk partition (C:) 136 GB Free (137 GB Total)
Media drive (D:) CD
Media drive (E:) CDCD/DVD
Disk partition (F:) 711 GB Free (932 GB Total)
Disk partition (J:) 93 GB Free (279 GB Total) <--Windows installed here.

Graphics:
Display adapter type NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Total available graphics memory 2558 MB
Dedicated graphics memory 512 MB
Dedicated system memory 0 MB
Shared system memory 2046 MB
Display adapter driver version 7.15.11.7813
Primary monitor resolution 1920x1200
Secondary monitor resolution 1680x1050
DirectX version DirectX 10

Network:
Network Adapter Intel(R) PRO/1000 MT Server Connection
Network Adapter Microsoft Tun Miniport Adapter

> So what can I do to free up some of this memory being used (What processes
> or services can I shut down)?

On this specific question: don't try. Vista, unlike it's predecessors,
makes much more use of any available RAM by preloading all sorts of stuff
into memory, including applications which it "expects" you to use (based on
your previous useage patterns - Superfetch).

This memory is instantly released if an application requires it, so it isn't
causing you a problem. Indeed, it is actually helping you by speeding
things up.

Remember: empty RAM is wasted RAM. You've paid for it, so let Vista use it
to improve your user experience.

SteveT

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:40:30 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> So what can I do to free up some of this memory being used (What processes
>> or services can I shut down)?
>
>On this specific question: don't try.

To the OP: disregard that instruction, because it's wrong.

>Vista, unlike it's predecessors,
>makes much more use of any available RAM by preloading all sorts of stuff
>into memory, including applications which it "expects" you to use (based on
>your previous useage patterns - Superfetch).

If the user disables the loading/starting of unneeded services and
programs then there will be just that much MORE RAM available for
system use.

Thus: it's worth trying.

DDW
--
Reply via this group
No email please

Initially, the amount of memory limits the WEI:
<256MB limited to 1.0
<500MB limited to 2.0
<512MB limited to 2.9
<704MB limited to 3.5
<960MB limited to 3.9
<1.5GB limited to 4.5
There are more, up to 5.9

Then comes bandwidth: MB/s
While you're CPU is fast, the memory may be bottlenecked when compared to
your CPU output.
WEI compares what the CPU can produce on the data bus to what the memory can
take in.

Lastly, latency:
Is your memory all working at the same speed? Or, are portions waiting for
the other sticks to catch up?
This is crucial when you have more than one stick: all memory should be
identical in it's ratings (even so much as made by the same manufacturer.)
If not, each stick will perform slightly differently and timings will be out
of alignment. Three of the four sticks will be waiting for the fourth. Do
you have the sticks in the right slots to support dual channel mode?

Go to: C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore
Open the most recent file with MS Word
Look for Memory Metrics.
I have a score here of 5.9
Memory Metrics: 9015
Memory: DDR2-800
Latency: 5 (Four matched 2GB sticks)

While I have 8GB memory, going further into the file I find a section
labeled Memory and it reports I only have 7GB. (See table above. I think
<6GB is the limit for 5.9) If you recall, x86 machines are limited to about
3.2GB due to hardware addresses using the rest of 4GB. Either this happens
on a x64 machine also, or I have something else going on here. (My video
card shares 2GB.) Point is, you may have less memory available than you
think. Is it all available?

Go a little further in the file and find: System Memory Bandwidth:
This is comparing CPU and memory bandwidth.
I get 9308 MB/s (average)
Each CPU is producing 4650 MB/s (average)
I have 2 CPUs
Since the total CPU output is equal to the Memory Input, my current
bottleneck is my CPU.
CPU rating: 5.6
(Note: I have a dual core 3.2Ghz. Same speed as yours, less
cores.)

Looking at these metrics will tell you where your bottleneck is on your
computer resulting in the low rating.
I would suspect:
Memory not matched.
Memory in wrong slots for dual channel.
CPU bandwidth > memory bandwidth



"david manvell" <davidmanvell@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DE4C976D-AEFE-403E-8098-C468C0CE72A0@microsoft.com...
> I’m having some memory use or performance issues I think. Let me try to
> explain.
>
> I have a fairly powerful desktop with decent hardware all around. System
> specs:
>
> Dell Precision 670 Workstation
> Running Windows Vista Ultimate x64.
> All latest service packs etc.
> 2 Xeon CPUs 3.2GHz (2 logical processors each). So 4 logical processors
> each
> running at 3.2GHz
> 6Gigs ram (2GB+2GB+1GB+1GB) DDR2-400 Registered ECC Memory Module.
> 2 Ultra320 SCSI controller and drives
> NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT (512 MB) video card running two 24” monitors.
>
> My Windows Experience Index scores:
> Processor: 5.0
> Memory (RAM): 4.7
> Graphics: 5.9
> Gaming graphics: 5.9
> Primary hard disk: 5.9
>
> Things to note:
>
> 1. With my system rebooted and no programs running I am already using
> 2.8Gigs of my 6Gigs ram. I must have a lot of processes and services
> started.
> I have no idea which ones to shut off.
>
> 2. Considering my other computers have Processor and Memory scores of 5.9
> and they have much slower and lesser number of CPUs and not even 64 bit I
> suspect my RAM issues is slowing down my processors. I should have 5.9 for
> a
> processor score.
>
> 3. My Memory (RAM) score is very low (4.7).
>
>
> Here is a list of the processes and Services running on my computer:
>
> http://members.cox.net/dmanvell/Processes.jpg
> http://members.cox.net/dmanvell/Services1.jpg
>
> So what can I do to free up some of this memory being used (What processes
> or services can I shut down)? Can I speed up my RAM somehow? Is there
> something in my bios that is not turned on or can the RAM be replaced with
> faster RAM? It seems really poor that just booting up my computer alone is
> using almost 3 Gigs of ram. With my system just sitting and idling, my CPU
> %
> use is between 0 and 1 %. No memory faults are being detected either.
>
> Processor Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz x 2
> Memory (RAM) 6.00 GB
> Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
> Gaming graphics 2558 MB Total available graphics memory
> Primary hard disk 93GB Free (279GB Total)
> Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate
>
> System:
> Manufacturer Dell Inc.
> Model Precision WorkStation 670
> Total amount of system memory 6.00 GB RAM
> System type 64-bit operating system
> Number of processor cores 2
>
> Storage:
> Total size of hard disk(s) 1348 GB
> Disk partition (C:) 136 GB Free (137 GB Total)
> Media drive (D:) CD
> Media drive (E:) CDCD/DVD
> Disk partition (F:) 711 GB Free (932 GB Total)
> Disk partition (J:) 93 GB Free (279 GB Total) <--Windows installed here.
>
> Graphics:
> Display adapter type NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
> Total available graphics memory 2558 MB
> Dedicated graphics memory 512 MB
> Dedicated system memory 0 MB
> Shared system memory 2046 MB
> Display adapter driver version 7.15.11.7813
> Primary monitor resolution 1920x1200
> Secondary monitor resolution 1680x1050
> DirectX version DirectX 10
>
> Network:
> Network Adapter Intel(R) PRO/1000 MT Server Connection
> Network Adapter Microsoft Tun Miniport Adapter
>
>

"david manvell" <davidmanvell@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DE4C976D-AEFE-403E-8098-C468C0CE72A0@microsoft.com...
> I'm having some memory use or performance issues I think. Let me try to
> explain.
>
> I have a fairly powerful desktop with decent hardware all around. System
> specs:
>
> Dell Precision 670 Workstation
> Running Windows Vista Ultimate x64.
> All latest service packs etc.
> 2 Xeon CPUs 3.2GHz (2 logical processors each). So 4 logical processors
> each
> running at 3.2GHz
> 6Gigs ram (2GB+2GB+1GB+1GB) DDR2-400 Registered ECC Memory Module.
> 2 Ultra320 SCSI controller and drives
> NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT (512 MB) video card running two 24" monitors.
>
> My Windows Experience Index scores:
> Processor: 5.0
> Memory (RAM): 4.7
> Graphics: 5.9
> Gaming graphics: 5.9
> Primary hard disk: 5.9
>

The reason for your low CPU and RAM scores is because your
machine is built on server and workstation specs, rather than general
use desktop specs.

The Xeon CPU's will not rate as high as Core 2 CPU's at the same
speeds. My 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo rates at 5.3 in Vista Ultimate 64.
The Xeons will shine at Autocad, Photoshop, etc., but will not
perform as well at gaming, etc.

Also, 800MHz RAM should score 5.6 or higher, but you are using
registered ECC, which is lowering the bandwidth. Error checking
reliability has a performance cost. That's why high speed gaming
PC's don't use buffered or ECC RAM. Very few desktop
motherboards take ECC RAM.

> If the user disables the loading/starting of unneeded services and
> programs then there will be just that much MORE RAM available for
> system use.

Fair point, although the amount of memory you really save is tiny. Have you
actually tried it? How much did you save?

What I should have said is that Vista's apparently higher memory useage is
mostly due to the better way it manages memory than XP (that is, it doesn't
aim to minimise it's footprint, which would reduce its performance
unnecessarily).

Thanks for the correction.

SteveT

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:52:33 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> If the user disables the loading/starting of unneeded services and
>> programs then there will be just that much MORE RAM available for
>> system use.
>
>Fair point, although the amount of memory you really save is tiny. Have you
>actually tried it? How much did you save?

I have don't remember exactly, but I seem to recall that I gained
somewhere between 10% and 15%. It was 6 months ago... I disabled
every possible service using Black Viper's recommendations (not the
"safe" ones), and also all the unnecessary startup items. Number of
running processes dropped from the upper 50s to 45.

When I did that, I had just installed Vista on an XP machine and only
had 1G of RAM so I thought anything I dumped would help. Now I've got
3G and don't even worry about it.

>What I should have said is that Vista's apparently higher memory useage is
>mostly due to the better way it manages memory than XP (that is, it doesn't
>aim to minimise it's footprint, which would reduce its performance
>unnecessarily).
>
>Thanks for the correction.
>
>SteveT

DDW
--
Reply via this group
No email please

The O/P has 6 gig of RAM. Do you think he really has a worry?

I don't.

--

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"DDW" <dd.wright@KILLSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:2chkf4poc23knug01io0975ts16131pke2@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:52:33 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
> <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>> If the user disables the loading/starting of unneeded services and
>>> programs then there will be just that much MORE RAM available for
>>> system use.
>>
>>Fair point, although the amount of memory you really save is tiny. Have
>>you
>>actually tried it? How much did you save?
>
> I have don't remember exactly, but I seem to recall that I gained
> somewhere between 10% and 15%. It was 6 months ago... I disabled
> every possible service using Black Viper's recommendations (not the
> "safe" ones), and also all the unnecessary startup items. Number of
> running processes dropped from the upper 50s to 45.
>
> When I did that, I had just installed Vista on an XP machine and only
> had 1G of RAM so I thought anything I dumped would help. Now I've got
> 3G and don't even worry about it.
>
>>What I should have said is that Vista's apparently higher memory useage is
>>mostly due to the better way it manages memory than XP (that is, it
>>doesn't
>>aim to minimise it's footprint, which would reduce its performance
>>unnecessarily).
>>
>>Thanks for the correction.
>>
>>SteveT
>
> DDW
> --
> Reply via this group
> No email please

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:24:16 -0400, "Richard Urban"
<richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The O/P has 6 gig of RAM. Do you think he really has a worry?
>
>I don't.

Nope. Not even CLOSE.

DDW
--
Reply via this group
No email please

> Nope. Not even CLOSE.

So I was right, then: don't try.

SteveT

"Ian D" wrote:

>
> "david manvell" <davidmanvell@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DE4C976D-AEFE-403E-8098-C468C0CE72A0@microsoft.com...
> > I'm having some memory use or performance issues I think. Let me try to
> > explain.
> >
> > I have a fairly powerful desktop with decent hardware all around. System
> > specs:
> >
> > Dell Precision 670 Workstation
> > Running Windows Vista Ultimate x64.
> > All latest service packs etc.
> > 2 Xeon CPUs 3.2GHz (2 logical processors each). So 4 logical processors
> > each
> > running at 3.2GHz
> > 6Gigs ram (2GB+2GB+1GB+1GB) DDR2-400 Registered ECC Memory Module.
> > 2 Ultra320 SCSI controller and drives
> > NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT (512 MB) video card running two 24" monitors.
> >
> > My Windows Experience Index scores:
> > Processor: 5.0
> > Memory (RAM): 4.7
> > Graphics: 5.9
> > Gaming graphics: 5.9
> > Primary hard disk: 5.9
> >
>
> The reason for your low CPU and RAM scores is because your
> machine is built on server and workstation specs, rather than general
> use desktop specs.
>
> The Xeon CPU's will not rate as high as Core 2 CPU's at the same
> speeds. My 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo rates at 5.3 in Vista Ultimate 64.
> The Xeons will shine at Autocad, Photoshop, etc., but will not
> perform as well at gaming, etc.
>
> Also, 800MHz RAM should score 5.6 or higher, but you are using
> registered ECC, which is lowering the bandwidth. Error checking
> reliability has a performance cost. That's why high speed gaming
> PC's don't use buffered or ECC RAM. Very few desktop
> motherboards take ECC RAM.

Do you know if I can change out the type of ram i have or the CPUs? or do I
have to use the ones they spec?

"david manvell" <davidmanvell@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:71C331BA-F772-4BD7-A4DE-4A719B697D4F@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Ian D" wrote:
>
>>
>> "david manvell" <davidmanvell@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:DE4C976D-AEFE-403E-8098-C468C0CE72A0@microsoft.com...
>> > I'm having some memory use or performance issues I think. Let me try to
>> > explain.
>> >
>> > I have a fairly powerful desktop with decent hardware all around.
>> > System
>> > specs:
>> >
>> > Dell Precision 670 Workstation
>> > Running Windows Vista Ultimate x64.
>> > All latest service packs etc.
>> > 2 Xeon CPUs 3.2GHz (2 logical processors each). So 4 logical processors
>> > each
>> > running at 3.2GHz
>> > 6Gigs ram (2GB+2GB+1GB+1GB) DDR2-400 Registered ECC Memory Module.
>> > 2 Ultra320 SCSI controller and drives
>> > NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT (512 MB) video card running two 24" monitors.
>> >
>> > My Windows Experience Index scores:
>> > Processor: 5.0
>> > Memory (RAM): 4.7
>> > Graphics: 5.9
>> > Gaming graphics: 5.9
>> > Primary hard disk: 5.9
>> >
>>
>> The reason for your low CPU and RAM scores is because your
>> machine is built on server and workstation specs, rather than general
>> use desktop specs.
>>
>> The Xeon CPU's will not rate as high as Core 2 CPU's at the same
>> speeds. My 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo rates at 5.3 in Vista Ultimate 64.
>> The Xeons will shine at Autocad, Photoshop, etc., but will not
>> perform as well at gaming, etc.
>>
>> Also, 800MHz RAM should score 5.6 or higher, but you are using
>> registered ECC, which is lowering the bandwidth. Error checking
>> reliability has a performance cost. That's why high speed gaming
>> PC's don't use buffered or ECC RAM. Very few desktop
>> motherboards take ECC RAM.
>
> Do you know if I can change out the type of ram i have or the CPUs? or do
> I
> have to use the ones they spec?
>

Personally, I wouldn't change anything. You have a superior spec'd
high performance workstation, built for productivity and reliability,
(ECC RAM). It just doesn't match up with the way Vista calculates
it's performance index. Big deal!

You could upgrade to faster memory, but considering it's ECC RAM
and 6GB, that would not be worth the cost for what you would gain.
In actual usage, the CPU index difference between 5.0 and 5.9 would
hardly be noticed.

In my previous post I was explaining why your machine scored lower
in the indexes, not saying there was anything wrong with its specs.

"Mark H" wrote:

> Initially, the amount of memory limits the WEI:
> <256MB limited to 1.0
> <500MB limited to 2.0
> <512MB limited to 2.9
> <704MB limited to 3.5
> <960MB limited to 3.9
> <1.5GB limited to 4.5
> There are more, up to 5.9
>
> Then comes bandwidth: MB/s
> While you're CPU is fast, the memory may be bottlenecked when compared to
> your CPU output.
> WEI compares what the CPU can produce on the data bus to what the memory can
> take in.
>
> Lastly, latency:
> Is your memory all working at the same speed? Or, are portions waiting for
> the other sticks to catch up?
> This is crucial when you have more than one stick: all memory should be
> identical in it's ratings (even so much as made by the same manufacturer.)
> If not, each stick will perform slightly differently and timings will be out
> of alignment. Three of the four sticks will be waiting for the fourth. Do
> you have the sticks in the right slots to support dual channel mode?
>
> Go to: C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore
> Open the most recent file with MS Word
> Look for Memory Metrics.
> I have a score here of 5.9
> Memory Metrics: 9015
> Memory: DDR2-800
> Latency: 5 (Four matched 2GB sticks)
>
> While I have 8GB memory, going further into the file I find a section
> labeled Memory and it reports I only have 7GB. (See table above. I think
> <6GB is the limit for 5.9) If you recall, x86 machines are limited to about
> 3.2GB due to hardware addresses using the rest of 4GB. Either this happens
> on a x64 machine also, or I have something else going on here. (My video
> card shares 2GB.) Point is, you may have less memory available than you
> think. Is it all available?
>
> Go a little further in the file and find: System Memory Bandwidth:
> This is comparing CPU and memory bandwidth.
> I get 9308 MB/s (average)
> Each CPU is producing 4650 MB/s (average)
> I have 2 CPUs
> Since the total CPU output is equal to the Memory Input, my current
> bottleneck is my CPU.
> CPU rating: 5.6
> (Note: I have a dual core 3.2Ghz. Same speed as yours, less
> cores.)
>
> Looking at these metrics will tell you where your bottleneck is on your
> computer resulting in the low rating.
> I would suspect:
> Memory not matched.
> Memory in wrong slots for dual channel.
> CPU bandwidth > memory bandwidth


I reran the windows experience index after installing this latest video card
and saw some improvement. I'm now at 5.0 with processors and 5.9 with
everything else. I'm surprised changing the video card affted it.
Unfortunately I am still seeing low framerates in World of Warcraft.

Here is my assesment file:

http://members.cox.net/dmanvell/2008...ent.WinSAT.xml

I will look and see what the rating is on all my ram. Iirc I originally had
2 one gig ram sticks and then I went and added 2 two gig ram sticks (For a
total of 6). I think all the memory in this computer is 400 speed. Can you
put faster memory in a computer? Or will it slow it down to the same speed as
the others? Can these CPUs be changed out?

> Personally, I wouldn't change anything. You have a superior spec'd
> high performance workstation, built for productivity and reliability,
> (ECC RAM). It just doesn't match up with the way Vista calculates
> it's performance index. Big deal!
>
> You could upgrade to faster memory, but considering it's ECC RAM
> and 6GB, that would not be worth the cost for what you would gain.
> In actual usage, the CPU index difference between 5.0 and 5.9 would
> hardly be noticed.
>
> In my previous post I was explaining why your machine scored lower
> in the indexes, not saying there was anything wrong with its specs.
>
>
>
>


This whole thing started actually because of World of Warcraft. I originally
had a video card NVIDIA 8800 GT and was not getting the best framerates when
playing. usually somewhere around 15-30 while running 1920x1200 with all
stuff turned on high. So i went and got a better video card NVIDIA 9800 GX2.
No improvement. I called NVIDIA and the said its most likely the wrong card
as WoW doesn't play well with SLI and those two GPUs are slaved together via
SLI. they suggested i get a single GPU video card. So returned those and got
a NVIDIA GTX 260. Still Now I'm gettign framerates of 20-35. Maybe a sliught
improvement but no where where i should be. Called NVIDIA and they said I
should be seeing a absolute minimum of 60-90 framerate.

We went over tons of stuff (Drivers and settings) and they can't find any
reason that my framerate is so slow. They said even with my original card or
the 9800 I should of had faster. They suspect something is wrong in Windows
itself. Something is bottlenecking it. They suggested uninstalling anything
in windows I don't really need and just doing a general performance
improvement on the whole system and if that did not work to reinstall windows
as it's been installed for several years now and maybe something has just
snuck in there that's bottlenecking it.

"david manvell" <davidmanvell@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1B1E3B81-4E2B-49E2-A85C-5D1E6AF2B6C8@microsoft.com...
>> Personally, I wouldn't change anything. You have a superior spec'd
>> high performance workstation, built for productivity and reliability,
>> (ECC RAM). It just doesn't match up with the way Vista calculates
>> it's performance index. Big deal!
>>
>> You could upgrade to faster memory, but considering it's ECC RAM
>> and 6GB, that would not be worth the cost for what you would gain.
>> In actual usage, the CPU index difference between 5.0 and 5.9 would
>> hardly be noticed.
>>
>> In my previous post I was explaining why your machine scored lower
>> in the indexes, not saying there was anything wrong with its specs.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> This whole thing started actually because of World of Warcraft. I
> originally
> had a video card NVIDIA 8800 GT and was not getting the best framerates
> when
> playing. usually somewhere around 15-30 while running 1920x1200 with all
> stuff turned on high. So i went and got a better video card NVIDIA 9800
> GX2.
> No improvement. I called NVIDIA and the said its most likely the wrong
> card
> as WoW doesn't play well with SLI and those two GPUs are slaved together
> via
> SLI. they suggested i get a single GPU video card. So returned those and
> got
> a NVIDIA GTX 260. Still Now I'm gettign framerates of 20-35. Maybe a
> sliught
> improvement but no where where i should be. Called NVIDIA and they said I
> should be seeing a absolute minimum of 60-90 framerate.
>
> We went over tons of stuff (Drivers and settings) and they can't find any
> reason that my framerate is so slow. They said even with my original card
> or
> the 9800 I should of had faster. They suspect something is wrong in
> Windows
> itself. Something is bottlenecking it. They suggested uninstalling
> anything
> in windows I don't really need and just doing a general performance
> improvement on the whole system and if that did not work to reinstall
> windows
> as it's been installed for several years now and maybe something has just
> snuck in there that's bottlenecking it.
>

I'm confused. Are you talking about the Dell Xeon workstation with
64 bit Vista Ultimate, in your post of Oct 18, or a different machine.
WoW is a game that's more GPU than CPU intensive. On the other
hand, flight sims such as MS FSX are very CPU intensive. FSX
would thrive on your two dual core Xeons.