T450s is running slow

[hyde]

I don't know what's causing it to run so slow, especially when it's loading things on browser or when I am checking a large folder, it seems like it's struggling to load things even though I have SSD on this unit. I read about disabling few services, which includes windows search and background intelligent services, but I use search in my Outlook all the time, will that be a problem?

Also I noticed time to time "Storage" access is %100, is that because SSD has some issue and it's running slow? Should I run some Read/Write test?

My 4,5 yr old X220 runs faster than my brand new SSD T450s.

[RealBlackStuff]

Which OS?
SSD-size? (needs at least 10% (better 20-25%) unallocated space for over-provisioning)
Bloatware (Norton and its ilk, etc.)
What does Task Manager say? (from all users)
- Processes (sorted by CPU), which ones "eat" the most?
- Performance (CPU usage, MEM usage)

[hhhd1]

An important thing to note is that the task manager in windows 8 does not report cpu usage the same way as it did in windows 7.

in windows 8, if the cpu maximum frequency is 2.4 GHz, and the cpu is running at 0.8 GHz with actual utilization of 100% , the task manager will report cpu usage of 33%.

so you need to get a 3rd party tool to report accurate CPU usage, this could simply be the processor running in thermal throttling mode or in power saving mode.

a good tool for this is hwinfo64.

[Brad]

Was your new T450s this slow when you took it out of the box?

From your signature it looks like it is three weeks old.

Brad

[hyde]

Which OS?
SSD-size? (needs at least 10% (better 20-25%) unallocated space for over-provisioning)
Bloatware (Norton and its ilk, etc.)
What does Task Manager say? (from all users)
- Processes (sorted by CPU), which ones "eat" the most?
- Performance (CPU usage, MEM usage)

Windows 8.1
180GB, 35GB Occupied so far
No bloatware other than whatever is installed by Lenovo minus McAfee that has been removed.
I am not running any CPU or Disk usage intensive software.

Was your new T450s this slow when you took it out of the box?

From your signature it looks like it is three weeks old.

Brad

Yes, and in terms of usage it's equivalent of about 3 days old since I only turned it set up my applications and turned it off waiting for my MS office license, RAM, Backlit Keyboard and Docking Station but I have been setting up my email, firefox extensions, etc which are really not very invasive. I am not running any antivirus either, but for some reason it feels like it's struggling. I did turn of those three services, but I found Outlook not functioning properly without windows search so I have to enable it.

4GB Ram might have something to do with this, but honestly I don't think Lenovo would ship this with 4GB if it wasn't enough.

When I open just three tabs in firefox, I can see the spinning circle stutter and it would take a second or so for the clicks to register (closing those tabs).

Here is what task manager performance tab looks like during that process, there is really nothing out of the ordinary:

http://i.imgur.com/BCClHsJ.jpg

[RealBlackStuff]

Firefox is one of the major sinners!
Read my post here: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=116497
The difference after installation of Firemin is HUGE.

[hyde]

Firefox is one of the major sinners!
Read my post here: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=116497
The difference after installation of Firemin is HUGE.

Thanks, but I am experiencing the slow performance even when firefox is not running or never has been run since the thinkpad was restarted. I am seeing long load times for excel files opening from emails, which was a breeze on my older thinkpad, there is definitely something hold this machine back but what. I remember we had terrible throttling issues on my X220 whenever it was plugged and we had to wait for 2 BIOS updates to resolve the issue, is this one of those things? A powerful machine being bottlenecked by something unknown?

Edit: System Update needed to be updated, just did that and I noticed there is a BIOS update, let's see if that makes any difference.

[RealBlackStuff]

Are you using the correct power supply with it?
Maybe they gave you a 45W and you should have a 65W instead?
That would explain some of the throttling.

[hyde]

Are you using the correct power supply with it?
Maybe they gave you a 45W and you should have a 65W instead?
That would explain some of the throttling.

No, this T450s comes with 45W, (45N0473) and the slowdown is observed while it's on battery as well (I haven't used the laptop on power too much so far)

Right now BIOS is updated and I will enable Windows Search to see if things are better.
I'll keep using a little bit more as well to see if it's part of "settling in" process.

An important thing to note is that the task manager in windows 8 does not report cpu usage the same way as it did in windows 7.

in windows 8, if the cpu maximum frequency is 2.4 GHz, and the cpu is running at 0.8 GHz with actual utilization of 100% , the task manager will report cpu usage of 33%.

so you need to get a 3rd party tool to report accurate CPU usage, this could simply be the processor running in thermal throttling mode or in power saving mode.

a good tool for this is hwinfo64.

I'll try hwinfo (I loved that on my older machines, but never thought I'd need on a brand new one to cross check specs and usage) however the issue is an observable one, so we would just be monitoring with hwinfo instead of proving it is running slow.
What do you suggest I use to check SSD's read and write speeds? Is CrystalDiskMark the go-to for this test?
In case there is anything else I should look for, please share your suggestions.

[RealBlackStuff]

...No, this T450s comes with 45W, (45N0473) and the slowdown is observed while it's on battery as well...

All the more reason to try a 65W charger!

[hhhd1]

Before buying a new charger, better verify that there is throttling issues.

For testing SSDs, yes, CrystalDiskMark is a good tool, and also AS-SSD.

Some SSDs throttle under high temperature due to continues use, try to run benchmark multiple times after each other.
if you are worried about wasting precious life cycles from the SSD life, you can use tools like HDTune (the trial version is enough) to do full disk reads multiple times to raise the temperature, and then redo the normal read/write benchmark.


Hwinfo should show you cpu utilization, cpu/gpu power usage, thermal throttling, actual cpu speed, and allot more info that might help you to find the culprit. it can display graphs of any value that it display.

[ajkula66]

Windows 8.1

My condolences.

180GB, 35GB Occupied so far

Recovery partition intact and no over-provisioning, I presume? A SandForce-based Intel SSD as well? I'd re-do the entire setup, from scratch.

No bloatware other than whatever is installed by Lenovo minus McAfee that has been removed.

That's still a ton of junk, in all fairness.

4GB Ram might have something to do with this, but honestly I don't think Lenovo would ship this with 4GB if it wasn't enough.

Your level of trust in Lenovo brings me to tears.

4GB RAM in a single-channel mode is really not all that much especially with a system that hasn't been properly set up, which seems to be the case here.

[hyde]

Windows 8.1

My condolences.

180GB, 35GB Occupied so far

Recovery partition intact and no over-provisioning, I presume? A SandForce-based Intel SSD as well? I'd re-do the entire setup, from scratch.

No bloatware other than whatever is installed by Lenovo minus McAfee that has been removed.

That's still a ton of junk, in all fairness.

4GB Ram might have something to do with this, but honestly I don't think Lenovo would ship this with 4GB if it wasn't enough.

Your level of trust in Lenovo brings me to tears.

4GB RAM in a single-channel mode is really not all that much especially with a system that hasn't been properly set up, which seems to be the case here.

Thanks for the info, we discussed over provisioning in another thread so I won't go into that, I seriously doubt that is the reason for overall performance issues during very specific tasks and it's more of a stutter rather than struggle. If we can pinpoint what causes the momentary stutter, I think we can address the issue, otherwise system seems to run fluidly from what I can tell.

BIOS update improved things slightly, however I still notice Excel files that are just 3MB still take longer to open in comparison to my old win 7 computer.

For testing SSDs, yes, CrystalDiskMark is a good tool, and also AS-SSD.

Some SSDs throttle under high temperature due to continues use, try to run benchmark multiple times after each other.
if you are worried about wasting precious life cycles from the SSD life, you can use tools like HDTune (the trial version is enough) to do full disk reads multiple times to raise the temperature, and then redo the normal read/write benchmark.


Hwinfo should show you cpu utilization, cpu/gpu power usage, thermal throttling, actual cpu speed, and allot more info that might help you to find the culprit. it can display graphs of any value that it display.

It's hard with hwinfo, unless it keeps a graph of utilization and usage, if I remember correctly, it just gave number value for these readings, has that changed? Without continuous graph it will be difficult.

My first CrystalDiskMark test gave me this:
http://i.gyazo.com/2a6bfa73a137937b350d9cfab5a359c2.png
I'll be using my laptop for another hour or so, and above was after a few hours of usage in the office.

Here is my test in a slightly warmer environment at home (it's 83 in my room right now, even with A/C on..)

http://i.gyazo.com/91c0793d1ebdbbee334bd41c0146bab7.png

Overall, what do you make of these results, are they in line with what SATA 3 SSD should be reporting?


MOD edit: pictures are WAY too big! Only a total of 50KB is allowed! IMG tags removed.
Please read the Forum Rules, especially Section 5.

[hhhd1]

The result of the SSD are pretty good, it is most likely NOT the cause of the problem.

in HWinfo, you can double click, or, right click and select 'show graph', then it will start displaying the graph for any values you select.

I am suspecting the slow down to be because of the processor,
sometimes, the gpu acceleration in firefox may over-tax the processor GT core, driving the processor to a lower clock rate to remain within the 15w TDP limit of the processor.

if the processor is hitting ~14w of total power usage, that means it has hit its performance limit.

if the processor is running at low frequency, lower than 2ghz, when it should be delivering more power, that could be the problem.

keep an eye on:
core #0 clock, core #1 clock, total cpu usage, cpu package power, gt cores power,
and also, notice if any thermal throttling is triggered

[ajkula66]

The result of the SSD are pretty good, it is most likely NOT the cause of the problem.

The writes are *horrendous* for a SATA III bus. Every single one of my SATA II systems performs better in that respect.

4K read speeds are beyond bad as well. My 2008 Intel X-25E in a SATA I system performs better. This - unlike the write speeds - can be associated with lags of the system.

[hhhd1]

The result of the SSD are pretty good, it is most likely NOT the cause of the problem.

The writes are *horrendous* for a SATA III bus. Every single one of my SATA II systems performs better in that respect.

4K read speeds are beyond bad as well. My 2008 Intel X-25E in a SATA I system performs better. This - unlike the write speeds - can be associated with lags of the system.

Intel Sandforce SSDs are slow, so I think the results are ok considering it is running on a busy system, with an active pagefile.

11 mb/s for 4k read on the 2nd benchmark, even if it is half of what it should be, it is still more than ten times faster than any mechanical harddisk, so it shouldn't cause any noticeable slowness.

the slow write speeds are normal for sandforce because TRIM isn't that effective, so write speeds tends to drop over time.


Those benchmarks maybe troubling only if they were taken after a clean restart and leaving the computer for few minutes to fully load all background services.

[ajkula66]

the slow write speeds are normal for sandforce because TRIM isn't that effective, so write speeds tends to drop over time.

That's where you and I differ.

In my opinion - these speeds are unacceptable - period.

Yes, I know that SF-based drives are junk and have been saying that for years now. Their performance was unimpressive when new and even more so today.

I'm comparing speeds that the OP is getting with what other people are getting on the same platform, not just with other SF-based garbage. There is something *seriously* wrong with a system that performs - in this respect - worse than machines which are 6-7 years older. That's inexcusable.

[hhhd1]

@ajkula66

You may be correct, but i still suspect that the processor maybe the reason for the slow SSD benchmark.

Try to run any SSD benchmark with the processor limited to lowest clock rate of 800mhz, and you will see surprisingly slow numbers.

I have now Intel SSD 530 240gb (sandforce) as my main storage, even though it is slower than SSDs that are 2 years older like Crucial M4, it is still plenty fast, .. yes, it does slow down the whole system with fast file transfer or backups, but, most of the time when I run many vmware machines that require much more ram than the physical ram I have, and end up relying on huge pagefile, the bottleneck i have remains the processor, and rarely the SSD is the bottleneck.

I really dislike those new 15w TDP processors,
Can't even remember reading any review where one turbo past 15w, .. they all end up running at clock lower than 1.5~1.2ghz when the graphics core get a little stressed.

[ajkula66]

@ajkula66

You may be correct, but i still suspect that the processor maybe the reason for the slow SSD benchmark.

Try to run any SSD benchmark with the processor limited to lowest clock rate of 800mhz, and you will see surprisingly slow numbers.

Theoretically, your train of thoughts is a very valid one.

In *real life* there's absolutely no reason for a Broadwell-powered system to lag behind the results of a 2008 C2D Penryn-powered T61.

Or are Intel's recent offerings such as Hotwell and Broadwell really that bad? I wouldn't know since I don't own a system that sports either/or....

I really dislike those new 15w TDP processors,

I wouldn't touch any of them with a 30-foot pole, but that's me. The OP has chosen differently.

[hyde]

Nobody said anything about T450s' processor issues (15W tdp?) when I asked if it's a good replacement for X220, so I figured I'd just go with it and get that boost in performance that impressed me greatly when I saw my coworker receiver his Carbon X1 (I think his is 1st gen) and it was amazing how fast the system was overall. Did Thinkpad use something different on Carbon X1 series that makes them run faster?

I will check HWinfo again and post results here.

[ajkula66]

Nobody said anything about T450s' processor issues (15W tdp?) when I asked if it's a good replacement for X220, so I figured I'd just go with it and get that boost in performance that impressed me greatly when I saw my coworker receiver his Carbon X1 (I think his is 1st gen) and it was amazing how fast the system was overall. Did Thinkpad use something different on Carbon X1 series that makes them run faster?

Hmm...1st generation X1C is Ivy Bridge and there's no way that you'd be able to see *that* much of a difference unless your X220 was under-performing to begin with due to not being set properly.

There is no small ThinkPad on the market right now - short of possibly the latest Carbon - that will outperform X220 by a noticeable margin. Yes, full-voltage Sandy Bridge is *that* good, especially when compared with LV offerings of the recent ThinkPads, including T450s.

[exTPfan]

There is no small ThinkPad on the market right now - short of possibly the latest Carbon - that will outperform X220 by a noticeable margin.

I think that's right. Here are some Win 7 experience numbers
WinExp: cpu/mem/vid/vidgaming/disk
X220: 6.9/7.4/4.6/5.7/7.9
X1: 6.9/5.9/5.7/6.4/7.9
T450s: 7.1/7.5/6.7/6.7/7.9.

The X1 carbon is 1st generation. All are i5 with SSD. In trying them out, I've seen very little difference between them. Maybe there's a difference in video/gaming.

[hyde]

His is the one with touch F row, not sure if that's 2nd gen, but then we assume it's 2nd gen, his apps opened really fast, but I think he has 8GB ram + i7 quad core.

Anyway, I ran the test right after turn-on and after letting it set for a bit.

It seems there is a huge drop in write speeds compared to my first test in earlier post.

and hwinfo screens after about 45 minutes:
http://i.gyazo.com/15ebc4ca43d1af0698928933e63e77ba.png
http://i.gyazo.com/b4f14694d759c818421237ca5037b2b9.png

I changed the power policy from Lenovo Optimized to Balanced, maybe I should change it back, but I doubt power plan would have impact on SSD test, would it?

WinExp: cpu/mem/vid/vidgaming/disk
X220: 6.9/7.4/4.6/5.7/7.9
X1: 6.9/5.9/5.7/6.4/7.9
T450s: 7.1/7.5/6.7/6.7/7.9.

Are these with identical specs? I thought win experience numbers were not something we should rely on, they removed this on 8.1, right?

[ajkula66]

I changed the power policy from Lenovo Optimized to Balanced, maybe I should change it back, but I doubt power plan would have impact on SSD test, would it?

It might. Is there an option of "High Performance" or something along those lines?

Are these with identical specs? I thought win experience numbers were not something we should rely on, they removed this on 8.1, right?

They removed *a lot* of good stuff in 8 and 8.1...

WEI gives one a "general idea" of where the system's strengths and weaknesses are. Not a real benchmark, though.

[hyde]

It might. Is there an option of "High Performance" or something along those lines?
They removed *a lot* of good stuff in 8 and 8.1...
WEI gives one a "general idea" of where the system's strengths and weaknesses are. Not a real benchmark, though.

Any indication those goodies will be added back on Win 10, or should I consider downgrading to Win 7 (I actually liked Win 7 a lot).
As for overall performance compared to X220, I am blown by these numbers (I am on my X220 now, and even with below it still feels more fluid and snappy for some reason) :

[ajkula66]

Any indication those goodies will be added back on Win 10, or should I consider downgrading to Win 7 (I actually liked Win 7 a lot).

I don't believe so, but I'm a W7 diehard.

As for overall performance compared to X220, I am blown by these numbers (I am on my X220 now, and even with below it still feels more fluid and snappy for some reason) :

I've got no words. That's with a solid-state-drive?

My SATA-modded 2006 T43p on a SATA I platform gets *significantly* better results. That's just plain atrocious. No wonder X1C felt like a Concorde next to that poor X220...

[brchan]

Have you installed and run malwarebytes to check for malware? It tends to catch malware that norton, mcafee, and other antivirus software miss. Also, try booting a linux live distro from usb/dvd. If it does not lag, then the issue is probably Windows itself or the SSD, and not the ram or processor.

[hyde]

Any indication those goodies will be added back on Win 10, or should I consider downgrading to Win 7 (I actually liked Win 7 a lot).

I don't believe so, but I'm a W7 diehard.

As for overall performance compared to X220, I am blown by these numbers (I am on my X220 now, and even with below it still feels more fluid and snappy for some reason) :

I've got no words. That's with a solid-state-drive?

My SATA-modded 2006 T43p on a SATA I platform gets *significantly* better results. That's just plain atrocious. No wonder X1C felt like a Concorde next to that poor X220...

That's the stock 7200rpm thinkpad supplied 250GB HDD on X220 (which I posted above) that is running more smoothly (smoother?) than T450s with those HDD speeds.
I guess it's not just HDD that impacts overall performance, and we might have to look into processor instead.

Here are the two more test results from mechanical X220:
http://gyazo.com/21e414fe24137c074a7bdcfdd375ce4e
http://gyazo.com/326051e799b3e80ba387e9942d8d3adc

Have you installed and run malwarebytes to check for malware? It tends to catch malware that norton, mcafee, and other antivirus software miss. Also, try booting a linux live distro from usb/dvd. If it does not lag, then the issue is probably Windows itself or the SSD, and not the ram or processor.

No, nothing installed, other than uninstalling mcafee from T450s.
I agree, it's probably not the SSD but either windows itself or processor. Are there other tests I can run like benchmark or something in order to see things run the way they are supposed to?

Example: My X220 (I am on right now) when I open an excel file, it opens quickly enough that I don't see the % loading indicator, I see %0 then immediately opens, but on T450s I can see it count from %0, 10, 25, 38, 53, ... .. .. then it opens.

So this is a sign that SSD test cannot be relied upon solely to determine speed because X220 with those terrible numbers seem to run faster than SSD toting T450s with much faster results.

[brchan]

Are there other tests I can run like benchmark or something in order to see things run the way they are supposed to?

You can also run memtest, but I doubt the ram is causing problems, since you would probably run into freezing and BSODs. I would just start with a scan using malwarebytes antimalware, then a live linux usb boot if it did not catch anything.

[hyde]

Are there other tests I can run like benchmark or something in order to see things run the way they are supposed to?

You can also run memtest, but I doubt the ram is causing problems, since you would probably run into freezing and BSODs. I would just start with a scan using malwarebytes antimalware, then a live linux usb boot if it did not catch anything.

Since hhhd1 mentioned 15w TDP, I was wondering if processor is somehow causing the slowdown. I'll try malwarebytes but seriously I did not install anything at all that could cause this. I just remember seeing Disk at %100 in task manager graph that's why I thought it could be SSD.
I'll switch to High Performance for a few days and see if this makes any difference.