[SOLVED] I upgraded from i5 3330 to 10400 and didn't notice any difference...

[yankleber]

Hey all, don't know if this is the proper place but I'll tell you my situation...

After to use an i5 3330 (gen 3) for seven years I decided to upgrade to gen 10. I didn't change because I think my computer was bad -- in fact it was totally fine -- but I was concerned that it was getting to old and that could die suddenly. As I didn't want anything fancy I got a what I think is a good cost-benefit. Since I wanted a Mobo with GPU I didn't get a "F" CPU and so I got the 10400.

Anyway, I got a 410 Gibabyte mobo, 8 GB of RAM and a new power supply because the old one was TOO old (over 12 years). Other than that I recycled all the other parts, including a 240GB SSD, a couple HDDs, etc. I use a very basic setup for working and some multimedia.

The fact is that despite the new setup doesn't disappoint by the other hand it didn't excite me. Before to make the purchase I checked a comparison in cpubenchmark.net e by the results the 10400 should at least THREE TIMES faster than the 3330, but I have the perfect impression of being running the very same computer as before.

I would like to know if it's necessary some kind of trick or special settings to 'unleash' the performance of this CPU. I just assembled the parts as is and left all the default settings of the mobo BIOS (no overclock). Naother important thing to mention is that I don't game. I use mostly Photoshop and a couple audio/video tools and I didn't feel a relevant difference.

I am under WIndows 10 and one thing that I realized is that when I run the usual tools the 10400 seems to do things at the same pace as the 3330 BUT monitoring it with the Resouce Monitor (Task Manager) I got amazed when I noticed that the CPU usage rarely goes beyond 5-6% . In short, it keep doing things in a slow pace even having a LOT of available resources to full throttle and even so it doesn't!

Any idea?

 

[Wendigo]

It depends on what you’re trying to do exactly. It probably means that other components are limiting the performance, for example the graphic card or HDD speed.
Some applications might still run single threaded only, lowering the difference between older low core CPU and newer ones with more core and threads.

 

[cdrkf]

Hey all, don't know if this is the proper place but I'll tell you my situation...

After to use an i5 3330 (gen 3) for seven years I decided to upgrade to gen 10. I didn't change because I think my computer was bad -- in fact it was totally fine -- but I was concerned that it was getting to old and that could die suddenly. As I didn't want anything fancy I got a what I think is a good cost-benefit. Since I wanted a Mobo with GPU I didn't get a "F" CPU and so I got the 10400.

Anyway, I got a 410 Gibabyte mobo, 8 GB of RAM and a new power supply because the old one was TOO old (over 12 years). Other than that I recycled all the other parts, including a 240GB SSD, a couple HDDs, etc. I use a very basic setup for working and some multimedia.

The fact is that despite the new setup doesn't disappoint by the other hand it didn't excite me. Before to make the purchase I checked a comparison in cpubenchmark.net e by the results the 10400 should at least THREE TIMES faster than the 3330, but I have the perfect impression of being running the very same computer as before.

I would like to know if it's necessary some kind of trick or special settings to 'unleash' the performance of this CPU. I just assembled the parts as is and left all the default settings of the mobo BIOS (no overclock). Naother important thing to mention is that I don't game. I use mostly Photoshop and a couple audio/video tools and I didn't feel a relevant difference.

I am under WIndows 10 and one thing that I realized is that when I run the usual tools the 10400 seems to do things at the same pace as the 3330 BUT monitoring it with the Resouce Monitor (Task Manager) I got amazed when I noticed that the CPU usage rarely goes beyond 5-6% . In short, it keep doing things in a slow pace even having a LOT of available resources to full throttle and even so it doesn't!

Any idea?

Honestly I'm not surprised - in general day to day use the performance difference isn't going to be much - even going back as far as the very first i7 processors (e.g. a 920) these are fine in most applications.

The only thing you've listed that might get a decent benefit is with video editing - if you render a video that can really make use of the new processor and will be much faster on a 10400. The single thread is also better, so if you apply some heavy filters in photoshop you should also note they will be faster. For more general use though the i5 was already pretty good, and honestly the SSD / HDD will likely be the limit factor for boot times, loading applications and so on.

 

[faalin]

How old are your programs that you use? DO they take advantage of multi core CPU's? Have you also checked your ram usage? Photoshop, A/V can use a lot of ram depending on the program. I also see your using the IGPU of the CPU which will also use ram so instead of the 8GB you have installed you might be down to 6GB, add in what windows needs to function and the apps might only be able to use 4-5GB.

 

[yankleber]

Thank you very much for your inputs friends, I will add more RAM and observe!

 

[drivinfast247]

Is it a single stick of RAM? And did you fresh install Windows?

 

[xravenxdota]

The thing with todays hardware is.There's no more wow effect cept if you came like me from an AMD FX 4170 to a ryzen 2600 or my Friend that came from a P4 3ghz(he used to do video editing on the P4)to a ryzen 7 2700x.Like what was mention.It may be the program that's to old to utilize the cpu properly.

 

[yankleber]

Is it a single stick of RAM?

Yes, it is.

 

[drivinfast247]

Yes, it is.

That's leaving noticable performance on the table.

Did you fresh install Windows?

 

[yankleber]

That's leaving noticable performance on the table.

Good to know! I will add an extra 8GB stick, I already had it in mind.

Did you fresh install Windows?

I did not. I just updated the drivers.

 

[drivinfast247]

Good to know! I will add an extra 8GB stick, I already had it in mind.


I did not. I just updated the drivers.

RAM is only guaranteed to work together when bought as a kit. Not saying you'll have issues, but just keep that in mind.

You should perform a fresh install after such a drastic hardware change.

 

[yankleber]

RAM is only guaranteed to work together when bought as a kit. Not saying you'll have issues, but just keep that in mind.

You should perform a fresh install after such a drastic hardware change.

Thanks!

 

[SamirD]

Lots of great suggestions in the thread and let me add my own experience of adding an i7-4790k in the mix of my systems--I regularly use an i5-2500k with a similar config and even though the single thread performance of the 4790k did give it a little more pop, the improvement was not as noticeable as on paper, and looking at your upgrade, I see you're in the same boat:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...2500K-vs-Intel-i7-4790K/1475vs3737vs804vs2275

The biggest advantage the newer cpus have are more cores and less power usage, but code bloat seems to have taken the feeling of improvement from the 50% faster single thread performance.

 

[mdd1963]

Until getting proper chipset and GPU drivers, you are likely running at 800 MHz...

Flatten the existing installation, and start over...(one should not just 'reboot with new hardware and hope for the best')

 

[yankleber]

Lots of great suggestions in the thread and let me add my own experience of adding an i7-4790k in the mix of my systems--I regularly use an i5-2500k with a similar config and even though the single thread performance of the 4790k did give it a little more pop, the improvement was not as noticeable as on paper, and looking at your upgrade, I see you're in the same boat:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...2500K-vs-Intel-i7-4790K/1475vs3737vs804vs2275

The biggest advantage the newer cpus have are more cores and less power usage, but code bloat seems to have taken the feeling of improvement from the 50% faster single thread performance.

Cool, thank you!

Anyway, in the last 24 hours I had the chance to make a couple better tests.

Just to clarify the first test I did with MKVToolnix I was reading from an USB HD and when I remade the test reading from SATA things changes drastically. Also I realized that this app is NOT multi-thread so... Another test I did was to recode a huge video file using Handbrake and it was around six times faster than a similar recoding using the 3330. Finally I tried a few things in Photoshop such as filter processing and even resize or move layers and the difference is brutal.

I think I rushed on saying that it was the same thing. Definitively it's NOT!

🙄

 

[USAFRet]

. Another test I did was to recode a huge video file using Handbrake and it was around six times faster than a similar recoding using the 3330. Finally I tried a few things in Photoshop such as filter processing and even resize or move layers and the difference is brutal.

I think I rushed on saying that it was the same thing. Definitively it's NOT!

🙄

When I changed from a i5-3570k/16GB RAM to i7-4790k/32GB RAM, there was a 40% decrease in import time with Adobe Lightroom.
Yes, actually timed with 200 RAW files never seen in my Lightroom gallery, 100 files in each test.

Normal web browsing, etc...not so much.

You have to be cognizant of what you are actually measuring.

 

[SamirD]

Cool, thank you!

Anyway, in the last 24 hours I had the chance to make a couple better tests.

Just to clarify the first test I did with MKVToolnix I was reading from an USB HD and when I remade the test reading from SATA things changes drastically. Also I realized that this app is NOT multi-thread so... Another test I did was to recode a huge video file using Handbrake and it was around six times faster than a similar recoding using the 3330. Finally I tried a few things in Photoshop such as filter processing and even resize or move layers and the difference is brutal.

I think I rushed on saying that it was the same thing. Definitively it's NOT!

🙄

Glad you saw the differences. On cpu intensive things it will really be much faster as you've seen, especially for photo/video work. Enjoy it!