How do i know my computer is using dual core?

J

jokerx225

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
193
I have a X2 4400+ and somtimes i dont feel like i am getting the full speed for dual core. Somtimes the Computer stalls for 2 sec when i open like 3 windows or when i am multitasking. why is this? how would i know if i am using dual core ?
 
open task manager, go to the performance tab

also.. do you have spyware? latest drivers? everything is confugured properly in the bios? nothing is overheating? the rig is stable?

give us more details about what you're doing when you notice the hangups ;)
 
There is no overheating. I updated the Bios. the rig does freeze somtimes but i think i have the wrong timings on my ram which imma fix in a min. I have Anti Spyware. What drivers are you talking about? when i go into System Properties it says i have Amd X2 4400+ but when i go into task manager it doesent show 2 cores
 
I know for a fact that my 2 cores are working. I still experiences lags, slowdowns, and hitches in my performance. Not as smooth as I expected, but definitely better than single-core.
 
jokerx225 said:
There is no overheating. I updated the Bios. the rig does freeze somtimes but i think i have the wrong timings on my ram which imma fix in a min. I have Anti Spyware. What drivers are you talking about? when i go into System Properties it says i have Amd X2 4400+ but when i go into task manager it doesent show 2 cores
Click to expand...

run super pi and see if its shows 100% cpu usage or 50%.If it shows 50% your using dual cores if it shows 100% your not.

You need to run 2 separate versions at the same time to use both cores.Try that out and see wut happens
 
If you're not showing 2 cores (2 separate processer graphs) in the task manager, then your system isn't setup for dual core operation. You may have to reinstall Windows XP.

Go into your device manager and click on the + sign next to where it says "computer". If it says ACPI Uniprocessor PC, then you're definitely running in single core mode.

If you don't have ACPI multiprocessor in the device manager then do the following...
Go to "control panel", "system", "hardware" tab, "Device Manager", double-click "computer", then "ACPI Multiprocessor PC" should appear in its tree. That is correct. If something else ("X") appears: double-click on "X", check the "driver" tab, "update driver", "next", "display a list of the known drivers...", "show all hardware".
In the "manufacturers" list, set to "(standard computers)". Then, in the "Models" list, choose "ACPI Multiprocessor PC". This is for Dual CPU systems.
Complete the installation..


If you reinstall XP do the following...
When setup asks "Press [F6] for installing 3rd party scsi/raid controllers", press [F5] and set the computer role to ACPI multiprocessor PC. Continue with installation.

Excerpts taken from http://service.steinberg.net/knowle...878BD3D942E03F8DC1256BAA0058450B?OpenDocument

From my own personal experience with dual core systems, you shouldn't experience any lag whatsoever. Granted, I don't own a dual core (2 cpus on 1 chip) system; but I have had and have used several mutliple cpu systems, mostly Athlon XP's/MP's and have never experienced any hiccups. I'd suggest a reinstall and make sure ACPI multiprocessor PC is selected as your chip.
 
it says ACPI multiprocessor. So that means its working right??? the thing is though like right now im installing a game and listening to music and when i went to open mozilla it kinda stalled for a couple of sec...
 
jokerx225 said:
the rig does freeze somtimes but i think i have the wrong timings on my ram which imma fix in a min
Click to expand...
manually set timings and set ram voltage to 2.7v
 
Sounds more like your suffering from an I/O problem. You can have a 10 processor system, but if 3 to 4 applications call on the I/O subsystem (hard drives, cd-roms, floppy drives...etc) at the same time, you can have lag. It's basically equivalent to running a virus scan on your hard drive, installing a game and listening to music off the hd all at the same time. You can have 2 processors or 10, you'll have I/O lag. It basically shows itself as a stutter.
 
it's not smooth? Damn, looks like the SMP placebo effect may not have worked on you. I'll write you a script for a quad opteron setup, call me in the morning.
 
freeloader1969 said:
Sounds more like your suffering from an I/O problem. You can have a 10 processor system, but if 3 to 4 applications call on the I/O subsystem (hard drives, cd-roms, floppy drives...etc) at the same time, you can have lag. It's basically equivalent to running a virus scan on your hard drive, installing a game and listening to music off the hd all at the same time. You can have 2 processors or 10, you'll have I/O lag. It basically shows itself as a stutter.
Click to expand...

Good point

Most of our subsystems can’t keep up with the over clocking we do now. Add that second CPU and suddenly the machine wants to do things faster but is limited by things like the hard drive, ram etc.

I think many people bought the X-2 with high expectations and not quite enough research into SMP systems and whom they will or will not benefit.

As was pointed out, IO has always been a major concern and now it’s even a bigger issue.

Threads like this need to address this problem before we start seeing the usual “X-2 Sucks” threads ;) :D
 
well, I've been saying the whole "if you didn't know/need SMP before, why do you need a X2 now?" deal since the get go. I hate the SMP smoothness arguement. Everyday use can be done quickly on a processor that's 18-24 months old just fine, and quickly as well. The disk system is still the same. Even a raptor setup doesn't do much. It's just a fast version of a slow disk system. Now the upcoming ramdrive, that's something to look forward to. For the average user, moving to a ram disk will likely show more overall system performance increases than moving from a socket A to X2, or like I did, a tbred 2ghz to a 2.9ghz venice (with super spiffy ram). Even SATA2 is still just more of the same. Solid state is where it's at.

Please, don't get upset when your $500 processor doesn't double or triple your computing speed, or even shave a fraction of a second of load times, it has 2 cores, but that really only makes a difference where it makes a difference, which isn't in everyday use. I'm sure eventually MS will find a way to make everyday computer use so bloated that it requires a SMP setup, but until we have a life like animation of the word "lightbulb" guy, or that stupid fucking dog (maybe he'll be a substitute for real one), or maybe a desktop theme that's a real animation of a tropical beach, horsepower will be used by the apps that can use it, encoding, multithreading, etc. (not games)

Don't mind my function over form rant, the first thing I do when I install a clean XP os is turn off all the stupid flashy animation crap, the themes, and all the other BS. I like my computer to push out numbers, not stupid pretty pasture scenes, unless it involves a gun, some blood, and a bunch of sheep with headcrabs on them.
 
I thought I'd raise the I/O problem as it's nastier now than it was just a few years ago. I'd settle for a dual core setup with a solid state hard drive anytime. I used to be a computer operator on several different IBM mainframes and they all suffered from I/O lag. One mainframe had 250 users on it at any given time. From the main console we could watch all the users in the I/O queue. That's where 90% of them spent 90% of their time :)

Anyhow, the company spent $10,000/month to rent a solid state O'Ryan Ram disk. That decreased lag and time spent in the I/O queue quite significantly. So unless we speed up hard disk platter speed and hard drive caches (in the neighbourhood of 15,000 RPM or higher and 64mb caches), no amount of fiddling with drive specs (ie....SATA II) is going to increase I/O throughput.

Personally I'm waiting for AMD to integrate PCI-e into the CPU before I upgrade to dual cores. This is good for servers and dual processor systems :)
 
well, that's why I'm pumped about the consumer solid state solution that's on the horizon.
 
well, that's why I'm pumped about the consumer solid state solution that's on the horizon
Click to expand...

Damn straight! I can't wait myself. I wonder what size will initially be offered. Somewhere between 20 and 40gb would be nice. Maybe I'm dreaming but can you imagine booting XP or a server variant (2003, 2000 etc) off of a solid state ram disk?
 
no, the initial size is going to be a 4 slot deal, with 4x1gb capacity, for 4gb max (DDR1, though I haven't seen anything on what kinds of compatibility will be required, ie. 3200, 2700, etc). It'll interface over the SATA line, and supposedly with be capable of running under raid (no reason why not, as it looks just like a regular SATA HD to the computer), retail is supposed to be ~$70, and everything from the computex demo says Q3 05, which isn't too far away. Nice thing is that it recieves power through the PCI slot even when the PC is off, so no worries over the battery dying.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/05/31/gigabyte_ramdisk/
 
I'd really see the benefit in solid state if it used super fast, low latency memory as a buffer cache for the HD.

For example, the HD loads data into the RAMdisk as a buffer as needed etc. Is that how its going to work, or is it going to just look like another HD interface to the PC?

i.e., you load CS, and you start playing, it'd be nice if it could buffer the entire bsp collection you had in your maps folder to where the next map would load instantly because it'd be calling it from the RAM, not caching from your HD. I know thats a pretty generic example, but CS:S map loading takes forever sometimes. So I could instantly see a benefit in relation to that.
 
Its gonna look like just another hard drive. anandtech.com has a review pretty much.
 
mikelz85: The Gigabyte part will only address the RAM with a 100MHz clock. So, I believe any RAM from PC1600 upwards should be golden, I know I'll stock mine with spare PC2100.
 
ElaborateDream said:
mikelz85: The Gigabyte part will only address the RAM with a 100MHz clock. So, I believe any RAM from PC1600 upwards should be golden, I know I'll stock mine with spare PC2100.
Click to expand...
where'd you see that?

So it will work with any kind of ram, but clock it at DDR200? PC-3200 is probably cheaper than PC-2100/1600 anyways.
 
I've read a decent amount on the ramdrive, and nowhere did I see a release date (other than Q3 05) a spec on the kind of RAM it would use, or how it would use the ram (ie. SPD settings, latency, dual channel, interleave/weave or whatever, mismatch/mixmatch, etc).

All I know is that I'm likely to have two of them with a whole lot of "refurbed" newegg memory in them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top