Quad Core only showing 3 cores?

O

officermartinez

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
2,012
Well, my moment of greatness came and went.. LOL. I finally managed a stable overclock at 4ghz. Although I am happy with the 4ghz barrier, it never dawned on me to check how many cores were up and running. This morning, while I was looking at CPU-Z, I noticed that it only showed 3 cores. 3 cores? What? I thought it might have been a CPU-Z bug but when I went into my device manager, it confirmed that I am only running on 3 cores.

Can anyone with experience on this problem shed some light and help me resolve the issue?


4002ghz01.jpg
 
Wow that's unusual. I wish I could help but I've never actually heard or read about something like this happening. Maybe something in the BIOS got borked while you were OC'ing? Just a thought....
 
Pretty weird.. I checked, double checked and re-checked it again and everything is fine.. At 3.905ghz, all 4 cores are showing. Changing nothing else but the multiplier and the FSB setting, when I hit 4ghz, it automatically disables one of the cores. I have now done this approximately 6 times.. back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, etc.. Each time, I get the same result. Since my motherboard is "limited" to "only" 1.6vcore, I am wondering if the system recognizes the overclock, but in order to maintain that overclock, I need more VCORE. Is it possible that internally, the system "see's" a solution by disabling one of the cores to maintain that overclock?

It's just very weird.. I have been combing through tons of forums and no one really suffers from this (or atleast suffered from it and posted info about it). 3.905ghz = 4 cores. 4.002ghz = 3 cores. Who knew!
 
try a different version of CPUZ or a different software... That might be the cause. The software might be bugged since you're running Vista (alteast that's what is looks like in that screenshot).
 
LOL

I am sorry but I find this very hilarious, and quite a cool find. You can hit 4g but you lose a core or you can stay at 3.9 and keep 4 cores going.

I wonder what the difference would be in the scores?
Keep posting man this is pretty cool, and peeks my interest!!
 
I thought it "could" have been a CPU-Z bug but my Device Manager confirmed that I was only operating on 3 cores. This one has me stumped. I will update my CPU-Z but I am 99.999% positive that it has NOTHING to do with my issue.
 
If TASK manager is only showing 3 cores, updating cpu-z isn't going to do a thing for you.

Try a different FSB/multi combo.
 
Yeah.. My same thoughts.. I have since tried a few different settings. 15x multiplier + 267 FSB booted to the Windows Vista logo and BSOD'd instantly. I re-ran my exact same settings of 12x + 334 FSB and it booted with ONLY 3 cores (again). This time, I have a larger screen shot of CPU-Z, Device Manager and Everest Ultimate confirming what I am seeing on my end.. This is toooooo weird.. haha.


WTF4002ghz02.jpg
 
You guys might have a core that fails to post at that speed. If one fails (does not make the clock) then you'd see a lost core.


Just a stab in the dark :)
 
9x + 445 FSB = Does not boot. Possibly hit the quadcore FSB wall?
10x + 400 FSB = Immediately BSOD'd.
11x + 364 FSB = Does not boot.
12x + 334 FSB = 3 cores work. 1 core disables itself.
13x + 308 FSB = Does not boot.
14x + 286 FSB = Does not boot.
15x + 267 FSB = Immediately BSOD'd.
16x + 250 FSB = Hangs on the Vista Logo during boot up.

I'm not going to go higher than a 16x multiplier.. At a 16x multiplier, that's running lower than the default FSB of 266mhz.
 
Hmm

Ockie might be right on this but still keep updating man this is pretty interesting!!
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
could it be throttling?
Click to expand...

I have throttling disabled. Ugh. Oh well, I have tried every combo that I can and I am no closer to finding out why it does this.. Well, atleast I know my processors limit. 3.905ghz. This will hold me over until I get a new 8 core when they are released.
 
Did anyone stop to think it's just fuckin' defective? :D

Send it back to Intel and get one that works properly... it's under warranty, so why waste time debating the situation. If you (meaning the OP) have done everything under the sun that you're capable of doing to verify the system is working properly and it's still showing 3 of the 4 actual cores in operation, then something is terribly wrong - one would think that's obvious from the gitgo.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Did anyone stop to think it's just fuckin' defective? :D

Send it back to Intel and get one that works properly... it's under warranty, so why waste time debating the situation. If you (meaning the OP) have done everything under the sun that you're capable of doing to verify the system is working properly and it's still showing 3 of the 4 actual cores in operation, then something is terribly wrong - one would think that's obvious from the gitgo.
Click to expand...

Absolutely +1
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Did anyone stop to think it's just fuckin' defective? :D

Send it back to Intel and get one that works properly... it's under warranty, so why waste time debating the situation. If you (meaning the OP) have done everything under the sun that you're capable of doing to verify the system is working properly and it's still showing 3 of the 4 actual cores in operation, then something is terribly wrong - one would think that's obvious from the gitgo.
Click to expand...

If it runs 4 cores at stock speeds, then it isn't defective.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Did anyone stop to think it's just fuckin' defective? :D

Send it back to Intel and get one that works properly... it's under warranty, so why waste time debating the situation. If you (meaning the OP) have done everything under the sun that you're capable of doing to verify the system is working properly and it's still showing 3 of the 4 actual cores in operation, then something is terribly wrong - one would think that's obvious from the gitgo.
Click to expand...

And what is he goin to tell Intel? "Hey Intel when I OC my cpu to 4ghz (which by the way is something that you guys dont condone and voids my warranty) one of my cores dont work. I want an RMA." :confused:
 
Intel will tell him to stick it if he thinks he can RMA this to them.
 
Ditto, as long as it works at stock speeds, it works perfectly fine.

I'm kinda baffled that only one core is dropping out. Is there some kind of ID on the cores so that you can tell if it is the same core not coming online? If bad cores would just not come on line, I would think it was something that would be well documented at this point. But it sounds like the OP has had no luck finding any mention of this issue anywhere.

Maybe you got an AMD chip that was remarked as an Intel chip. I hear they are going to release 3 core chips next month.

I'm new to multi core clocking, and since I just ordered a new Q6600 system, I was going to clock it 10-20 %. However far my Thermaltake V1 will take me anyway.

Don
 
officermartinez said:
Well, my moment of greatness came and went.. LOL. I finally managed a stable overclock at 4ghz. Although I am happy with the 4ghz barrier, it never dawned on me to check how many cores were up and running. This morning, while I was looking at CPU-Z, I noticed that it only showed 3 cores. 3 cores? What? I thought it might have been a CPU-Z bug but when I went into my device manager, it confirmed that I am only running on 3 cores.
Click to expand...
You have a kentsfield stable at 3.0Ghz. :eek: Be happy with that, its slightly beyond average.
bbz_Ghost said:
Send it back to Intel and get one that works properly... it's under warranty, so why waste time debating the situation. If you (meaning the OP) have done everything under the sun that you're capable of doing to verify the system is working properly and it's still showing 3 of the 4 actual cores in operation, then something is terribly wrong - one would think that's obvious from the gitgo.
Click to expand...
I do so hate to just postwhore like this, but....OMGWTFROFLMAO :p
BX_TECH_GOD said:
And what is he goin to tell Intel? "Hey Intel when I OC my cpu to 4ghz (which by the way is something that you guys dont condone and voids my warranty) one of my cores dont work. I want an RMA." :confused:
Click to expand...
Glad I wasn't the only one to get a chuckle at bbz's post.
 
JSpecGC8 said:
Hmm

Ockie might be right on this but still keep updating man this is pretty interesting!!
Click to expand...


I have seen this bEfore with high clocked AMD chips.the cache drops out or a core all together.


The chip you have is right on the edge.Grab a 45nm in a few weeks and use that.GL.
 
It wasn't meant as a joke, but I can see how some people would think such a thing. I still say it's defective and I still say return it. Surely he's not going to put "It won't overclock correctly" as the reason for the return, all he'd have to state is it's not stable and everything else in the system checks out. Who knows: if he returns it he might get really lucky and get a far far superior overclocker as the exchange. Only one way to find out...
 
bbz_Ghost said:
It wasn't meant as a joke, but I can see how some people would think such a thing. I still say it's defective and I still say return it. Surely he's not going to put "It won't overclock correctly" as the reason for the return, all he'd have to state is it's not stable and everything else in the system checks out. Who knows: if he returns it he might get really lucky and get a far far superior overclocker as the exchange. Only one way to find out...
Click to expand...
Fraud. Not just for petty theives and the ignorant anymore. Wait...
The chip is fine at the rated speed. Hell, its fine at 1.5x the rated speeds. ITS NOT DEFECTIVE.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
It wasn't meant as a joke, but I can see how some people would think such a thing. I still say it's defective and I still say return it. Surely he's not going to put "It won't overclock correctly" as the reason for the return, all he'd have to state is it's not stable and everything else in the system checks out. Who knows: if he returns it he might get really lucky and get a far far superior overclocker as the exchange. Only one way to find out...
Click to expand...

returning CPU's that aren't defective because they dont overclock as much as you want is horseshit and raises costs for all of us.
 
Yeah, I can't believe anyone would suggest it's defective if it runs up to 3.9; as far as I know the only guarantee on an Extreme edition is that the multiplier can be raised as well as lowered............. and possibly (not sure about this) OCing doesn't void the warranty........ but it is not something they guarantee............
 
LOL this isn't detective work.

It loses one core when at an obviously unstable overclock, or at an overclock that one of the cores cannot handle.

Doesn't take much to see that...
 
I'd say check your power supply, make sure there's enough juice to go around? other than that, I havn't seen any screens of task manager. AND there has been a slight problem with rebranding certain cpu's to look like they have more active cores than they do, I saw a story in maximum pc, but I'm not up to date with the details. O well though, it seems intel beat AMD to the tri-core punch :eek:
 
Are your cpu/cooling solutions lapped?
What are temps on the cores at 3.905?
 
shing said:
Are your cpu/cooling solutions lapped?
What are temps on the cores at 3.905?
Click to expand...

The more I examine the facts, I think my quad must be at its limit.. As for cooling, I am running at -34c (Phase Change). Cooling isn't a problem.. LOL.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Did anyone stop to think it's just fuckin' defective? :D

Send it back to Intel and get one that works properly... it's under warranty, so why waste time debating the situation. If you (meaning the OP) have done everything under the sun that you're capable of doing to verify the system is working properly and it's still showing 3 of the 4 actual cores in operation, then something is terribly wrong - one would think that's obvious from the gitgo.
Click to expand...

Whoa teenage noob alert here?
....."Supplier-- " User can't run 4 cores when overclocked and pushing voltage far beyond spec...let's give him a new chip and tell INTEL that this chip won't run 1.3 ghz past it's specification".

Some people are just plain stupid..or dense...

Back to OP:
You're losing a core because your overclock is not stable. One of the cores craps out and is thus not detected. Higher vcore may help that, but you're already pushing that chip EXTREMELY far, considering that's a B3; not many B3 quads can even reach 4 ghz without subzero of some sort. Similar problems used to happen on the PCI bus years ago when it was not fixed and people started pushing it to 41+ mhz at an 83 FSB; HDD's started crapping out....
 
Ah, thats nothing. Back on my old Gigabyte 965P DS3, any front side bus over 1312 and I would lose all but one core... :mad:
 
I think the problem is one of this :
1. The stepping (b3)
2. nvidia motherboards(your 680i) have problems with overclocking quad cores ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top