LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Hardware
User Name
Password
Linux - Hardware This forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 07-30-2010, 05:10 AM   #1
atriya
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 21

Rep: Reputation: 0
Unhappy Linux very slow on a P4?


I've been using Linux for some time now on a 2002 P4 (1.7Ghz) desktop with 768MB RAM (266Mhz DDR). I used to have Windows XP on this computer and it was very responsive. When I switched to Linux, I found GNOME and (especially) KDE to be very slow. Although I heard that KDE 'should' run well on this system, I switched to lighter environments - XFCE and LXDE, in the hope that things would improve. They DID run faster than KDE/GNOME, but still much slower than XP, and the machine still feels unresponsive.

I recently installed a system resource app that can be constantly monitored. My memory usage is always very low, so that's not the problem. But my CPU usage becomes 100% even when performing basic tasks - moving big files, or even opening a new tab in a web browser. The CPU is NOT always 100% though... in idle state it's 0-2%.

Now, I know that my P4 is an old and obsolete processor... but should it be THIS bad? Does processor performance slowly deteriorate over time? Or do you folks think something else is to blame here? Thanks in advance.

P.S. It's the same with most Linux distribs... I've tried several, and almost all the major ones.
 
Old 07-30-2010, 05:39 AM   #2
cgtueno
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 363

Rep: Reputation: 50
Hi

I have experienced many similar problems on systems using the Pentium IV 1.7 and 1.8 GHz processors. The Overall performance of many distributions was particularly poor. For example Ubuntu 8x was very slow to load, and application execution time was slow.

In my case I run a number of 1.8 GHz Pentium IV machines for various purposes and put up with the poor interactive response (a number of those machines are simple header-less servers, etc), or have replaced the 1.7 and 1.8 GHz processors with later 2.0+ GHz processors where possible.

Despite some significant time experimenting, I finally concluded in my case that it was preferable to replace systems of this class with faster (later generation) equipment as it was a a cheap and quick solution.


There are significant internal CPU architectural differences between the Pentium 1.7 - 1.8 era processors and the 2.0 GHz (and later) CPUs. Similarly the motherboard designs and features improve with the introduction of the 2.0 GHz and later era CPU technologies.

You might like to consider checking if your motherboard can handle a Pentium IV 2.0 GHz or higher processor and/or upgrade the motherboard. Note that a lot of the early Pentium motherboards may or may not support a 2.0 GHz processor. Some of the earlier boards are restricted to 1.7 and 1.8 GHz processors.


You are quite correct in your statement that they "seemed" to perform much better when running MS Windows. However, this isn't a really fair comparison since the two operating system designs are different and exploit CPU features with differing demands.


Hardware upgrade is recommended to avoid frustration.

Hope that assists

Chris

PS. If you are interested in the differences between the various Pentium IV processors (especially cache, etc) take a look at www.cpu-world.com which is readable and quite informative.

C.
 
Old 07-30-2010, 10:40 AM   #3
snowday
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,667

Rep: Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411
What is your graphics card, and have you installed the correct drivers (if applicable)? Improper graphics support can make the system feel sluggish and unresponsive in my experience. Also try disabling the Compiz desktop effects (if you haven't already).

Personally I like to use non-Gnome/KDE distros like CrunchBang, SliTaz, or AntiX for older hardware. I've had good success with those three even on my Pentium 3. Puppy is also popular for older hardware (haven't used it much myself).
 
Old 07-30-2010, 11:11 AM   #4
atriya
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 21

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
@cgtueno: That's interesting... in fact, it's the first ever confession I've heard from a Linux user about Linux running slower than Windows, on any hardware. Jokes apart, thanks for the informative response. This is not my primary machine (that one's a Core 2 Duo), so I think I'll just let it be, and not take the trouble to upgrade. Do you think compiling a custom kernel and using something like Gentoo could help in a situation like this? I have neither the time nor the expertise to actually do this though.

@snowpine: I don't have a graphics card. I use the integrated graphics solution in the D845GLAD motherboard. The driver section in my xorg.conf file says 'intel', which I think is the correct driver. Do you think the 'vesa' driver could speed things up? And btw... I could never dream of using compiz... things are slow enough without it. And yes, I could keep transitioning to lighter and lighter distributions, but it's strange because most Linux people will say that a P4 should handle GNOME fine. And it's also strange that simply moving a file, or running a package update should make the CPU go to 100%. I'm using a really light distrib already - PeppermintOS, which is a VERY stripped-down version of Ubuntu with the LXDE desktop environment (which is very light).

Last edited by atriya; 07-30-2010 at 11:14 AM.
 
Old 07-30-2010, 12:05 PM   #5
snowday
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,667

Rep: Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411Reputation: 1411
vesa driver is worth a try; I have read some bad things about Intel 845 support in Ubuntu (do a search over on ubuntuforums.org)

Sorry I do not have more concrete suggestions but I have no personal experience with that chipset.
 
Old 07-30-2010, 06:36 PM   #6
Electro
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,042

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
A Pentium 4 at that speed is slower than a Pentium III, but it is too late to tell you that. Also DDR single channel memory will not help the processor because it will just put another bottleneck for the Pentium 4. RAMBUS memory is better for bandwidth, but it has higher latency. The Pentium 4 requires both a high speed clock and high memory bandwidth to do well.

I suggest recompile all programs with the mtune=pentium4 CFLAG for the best performance. The easiest to do this is with either Gentoo or Arch. If it is still slow, the hard drive will be next device to cause a slow down. Since kernel 2.6.16, the IDE performance have taken a dive for the worst, so you will have poor performance. IDE using today's latest stable kernel will only get worst because it goes through a SCSI layer. Developers say this should not affect its performance, but it actually does. Anything that goes through layers will affect performance. If you want performance, I recommend Western Digital SE16 or Blue series or Hitachi. Stay away from Seagate.
 
Old 07-31-2010, 12:20 AM   #7
sophiadavid01
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2010
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: 0
I think you need latest RAM. Because Linux require more space.
Or you can also do one thing that you use advance processor.
Make P4 convert into advance processor. If it is possible.

Last edited by pixellany; 07-31-2010 at 06:21 AM. Reason: delete advertsing in sig
 
Old 07-31-2010, 12:40 AM   #8
John VV
LQ Muse
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: A2 area Mi.
Posts: 17,622

Rep: Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651
i have a dell with a 2001 p4 2 ghz and 1 gig of ram and a geforce 2 mx 400 card
yes very very old
But Arch with gnome runs just fine
and so dose CentOS 5.5 and the last version of fedora i ran Fedora 11

now openSUSE was VERY slow ( it is just a bit over bloated - the kitchen sink , and your neighbors sink also .)

however 768 meg of ram is a bit low

if you do not mind a big learning curve ( very big)
install a min. Arch with xfce

if the box is for just net and office
CentOS and gnome or xfce will do .
just keep the install small and do not run to many start up/background services
 
Old 07-31-2010, 04:58 AM   #9
craigevil
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Distribution: Debian Sid/RPIOS
Posts: 4,883
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 533Reputation: 533Reputation: 533Reputation: 533Reputation: 533Reputation: 533
Debian with lxde flies on my crappy old pc with a tiny VIA 1.4 cpu with 2gb ram and a nvidia 5200 pci card.

It even works OK on the kids OLPC XO running Debian on a 8gb sdhc, the XO only has a 400mhz cpu and 256mb ram.
 
Old 07-31-2010, 07:30 AM   #10
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware, Slarm64 & Android
Posts: 16,147

Rep: Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by atriya View Post
I've been using Linux for some time now on a 2002 P4 (1.7Ghz) desktop with 768MB RAM (266Mhz DDR). I used to have Windows XP on this computer and it was very responsive. When I switched to Linux, I found GNOME and (especially) KDE to be very slow. Although I heard that KDE 'should' run well on this system, I switched to lighter environments - XFCE and LXDE, in the hope that things would improve. They DID run faster than KDE/GNOME, but still much slower than XP, and the machine still feels unresponsive.

I recently installed a system resource app that can be constantly monitored. My memory usage is always very low, so that's not the problem. But my CPU usage becomes 100% even when performing basic tasks - moving big files, or even opening a new tab in a web browser. The CPU is NOT always 100% though... in idle state it's 0-2%.

Now, I know that my P4 is an old and obsolete processor... but should it be THIS bad? Does processor performance slowly deteriorate over time? Or do you folks think something else is to blame here? Thanks in advance.

P.S. It's the same with most Linux distribs... I've tried several, and almost all the major ones.
I'm with you on kde. Let me explain the high cpu usage. Poor video rendering or hard disk access just eat cpu cycles. Example from my laptop: I had 320 fps in glxgears, with 99% cpu usage for glxgears, and 50% for X (Twin core). I found that the radeon driver was pointed at a radeonhd lib (!), fixed that and a few other things and got 375FPS with 10% usage for glxgears and basically zero for X. I'm not there yet, but on the way.
 
Old 08-01-2010, 12:38 AM   #11
Electro
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,042

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
I'm with you on kde. Let me explain the high cpu usage. Poor video rendering or hard disk access just eat cpu cycles. Example from my laptop: I had 320 fps in glxgears, with 99% cpu usage for glxgears, and 50% for X (Twin core). I found that the radeon driver was pointed at a radeonhd lib (!), fixed that and a few other things and got 375FPS with 10% usage for glxgears and basically zero for X. I'm not there yet, but on the way.
glxgears is the wrong way to show performance. Using glxgears is a better way to show that 3D is working. To this day people still think using glxgers is a good way of showing for performance and this is is just wrong. The only way to show 3D performance is to download a game demo and run a benchmark script.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sophiadavid01 View Post
I think you need latest RAM. Because Linux require more space.
Or you can also do one thing that you use advance processor.
Make P4 convert into advance processor. If it is possible.
The latest RAM? Using DDR3 is actually slower than DDR on terms of CAS. Linux does not need a lot of RAM. People have gotten by using 64 megabytes of RAM when they are using GUI. Do not need a lot of RAM to run Linux. Windows these days requires a lot of RAM close to 8 gigabytes to just be OK. Sure atriya could upgrade the processor, but Pentium 4 came in two sockets in those days. One is 478 and the other is 423. It is hard to find either of them these days. Finding one that is compatible will be hard. I recommend just do a complete system upgrade.
 
Old 08-01-2010, 02:05 AM   #12
knudfl
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen DK
Distribution: PCLinuxOS2023 Fedora38 + 50+ other Linux OS, for test only.
Posts: 17,511

Rep: Reputation: 3641Reputation: 3641Reputation: 3641Reputation: 3641Reputation: 3641Reputation: 3641Reputation: 3641Reputation: 3641Reputation: 3641Reputation: 3641Reputation: 3641
http://www.intel.com/p/en_US/support...glad/doc_guide

QUOTE :
... AGP Graphics Cards 4X and 8X at 1.5 and 0.8 Volt supported

Suggest : Plug in any old nvidia graphics and get high speed.

The Linux 'intel' driver is slow. Not usable for games.
...
 
Old 08-01-2010, 11:52 AM   #13
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware, Slarm64 & Android
Posts: 16,147

Rep: Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308
@ Electro: Agree fully - glxgears is a poor test. It was something I had done and had stats on to point the poster. There is also phoronix test suite.
 
Old 08-01-2010, 12:31 PM   #14
FredGSanford
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: USA
Distribution: Mageia 7 - Debian 10 - Artix Linux
Posts: 1,142
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 207Reputation: 207Reputation: 207
Hmmm, my old IBM Netvista systems runs fairly fast for me. Of course i don't play the latest, fancy games but for basic stuff it runs good. I use the nouveau driver for the older nvidia onboard card. I'm currently using Mandriva with LXDE environment also. It have 512mb of memory and a 20gb drive.

Last edited by FredGSanford; 08-01-2010 at 12:32 PM.
 
Old 08-01-2010, 02:16 PM   #15
John VV
LQ Muse
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: A2 area Mi.
Posts: 17,622

Rep: Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651Reputation: 2651
"glxgears is a poor test" true but it is a good test to see if something is busted on your system
if the frame rate goes from 900's to 30 - there is something wrong

other than that not a good test
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
slow very slow file Download on linux platform michael_access Linux - Newbie 3 01-12-2010 03:56 AM
Suse 9.2 & SATA - Slow, Slow, Slow jess1975 SUSE / openSUSE 6 01-28-2007 12:17 PM
slow to boot, slow dns resolution after host name change FC5 edavis6678 Linux - Newbie 3 01-03-2007 06:26 PM
New Fedora Internet connection slow slow slow matrim Fedora 9 07-29-2005 01:39 PM
RH8 vs. W2k - Slow, slow, slow zerojosh Linux - Software 2 06-30-2003 07:19 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Hardware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration