|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 5, 2007 15:16:41 GMT -5
Check you have 2 CPUs listed in your administrador de dispositivos...
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 5, 2007 17:53:53 GMT -5
This is what I have in Device Manager (Administrador de dispositivos) and also in System Properties where it seems like the Dual Core is detected: Kind regards, SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 6, 2007 10:25:26 GMT -5
mmm, that doesn't show the right thing...In device manager there should be a row about PROCESSORS...if you expand it, there should be two CPUs listed...if so, then your CPU is well identified as a dualcore one..even though I can't understand why Windows Task Manager does not show two graphs...Is it possible that you have changed your CPU and not reformatted your hard disk?
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 6, 2007 11:47:31 GMT -5
No because I got the PC with a trial version of Windows they installed to test it (and forgot uninstalling it), so first thing I did was uninstall it and install my Win XP Pro with SP2. In one of my HDDs, I have Winx XP 64 installed, will check if I also have one graph there, just curiosity.. Cheers, SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 8, 2007 4:29:31 GMT -5
I was right !!! In XP-64 appeared 2 graphs for the uPs, aslo the device manager is different and there appear a "Processor" section where 2 uPs are detected. Screenshot: So, as testing some games in XP-64 some time ago and getting a light lower performance than with XP-32, I would swear that both uPs are working using XP-32. Anyway, would be much better having the graphs to check the performance of each one.. PN: You'll get a PM mate as I wanna ask you several questions I need for a new project I have in mind. Kind regards, SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 8, 2007 9:34:58 GMT -5
Well, that is probably because of some drivers in XP 32 missing...just reformat your HD, then install Win XP 32 SP2, then install all the drivers for your chipset... Windows needs to choose the right kernel to use (single or multiprocessor kernel), and this happens during the installation. It looks like your windows 32 is working with its single processor kernel.
Regards
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 8, 2007 13:44:40 GMT -5
Today I've asked for it in a shop and they said that use to happen with Win XP instead of XP 64, but also that if System Properties says that my system is a Dual Core and so on.. it must be working ok.
As I also mentioned, in XP 64 it showed me 2 graphs, but when testing some game the performance was a little bit lower than with XP 32, so both uPs are supposed to be working, anyway, they suggested me to test "Everest" software to confirm it.
Cheers,
SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 8, 2007 16:48:06 GMT -5
Good suggestion...let me know!
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 11, 2007 7:47:49 GMT -5
I have finally installed Everest but I don't know how to "read" the results, as at some points says there are 2uPs but at others only 1. Here you're some screenshots: Only 1 CPU. 1 CPU with 2 Cores. 1 CPU. Regards, SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 12, 2007 9:14:08 GMT -5
It's really strange...your processor is A CPU with 2 cores...so everest seems to work fine...in doubt, format and reinstall XP SP2, and you'll probably see 2 graphs again in task manager.
Regards
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 12, 2007 10:40:56 GMT -5
But at some points Everest only detects 1 core.. I mean, it doesn't allow me check other core than #1 even in picture 2 says I have 2 cores.
I have also tried to "stress" the CPU, and the only core which temp changed was core 1, core 2 suffered a very low change in temp.
Looking for in different forums, I've seen that there is a microsoft hotfix for Win XP SP2, also "new" AMD drivers and also an AMD optimizer. I have installed all of them but still 1 graph in task manager..
I've got a tunned Windows XP Pro SP2 updated, will try installing it in a 20G HDD (IDE) to test it, will also check the same Windows I have installed in my main HDD to find out if it's something of the O.S. or of it's installation.
Checking the BIOS, I've seen this:
Advanced/Chipset Settings/Primary Graphics Adapter=PCI
And my card is a GeForce 7600GT PCIe.. should that be set to PCIe ? If so, will I notice any difference or not so much.. ?
Regards,
SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 12, 2007 12:36:16 GMT -5
The PCI you see in the BIOS is referred to PCIe, I think...in case, just see what choises appear, then select the most appropriate..anyway, that setting tells the BIOS where to first look for graphic cards, so it does not affect performances.
As for hotfixes and drivers, it is always reccomended to install the latest versions, so do it as soon as you can.
As for the two graphs, you'll never see them until you reinstall windows. The reason is simple: Windows needs to autoconfigure its kernel as a multicore kernel, at the time it is installed...if it was installed on a singlecore CPU, it configured as a singlecore kernel, at the time you installed it. That's why you still see one graph, even after you've installed those patches.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 12, 2007 14:15:10 GMT -5
You're completely right mate !!! I've talked with some professionals and have said exactly teh same about the BIOS fact, anyway, I'll change it to PCIe so that the card is found earlier ;D Regarding the 2 cores, they say that XP Pro has some problems with Dual Cores. XP Pro doesn't use 2nd core as much as it should, so even XP detects both cores, they aren't used as much as it should because of the O.S. They suggested me installing Vista to avoid this kind of problems and have full performance of both cores.. but obviously, I won't pay for Vista at least by now.. They also said that most important thing to check (more than Everest, task manager and so on software) is that in "System Properties" I can read "Physical Address extension".. I haven't understood very well what about that, but I think it makes sure that 2nd core work by forcing it even it won't work as much as it should because of the O.S. as I said. They also recommended me to avoid installing tunned versions of Windows XP Pro with SP2 O.S.s which seems to perform much better than standard ones, suggesting me once again to get Vista.. but maybe was just to ensure a new bought from me.. (but I won't ). Kind regards and once again, you were right ZannaBianca !!! SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 13, 2007 8:49:18 GMT -5
PAE (Phisical Address Extension) is a feature of 32bits CPU, that allows them to "see" more than 4GB of phisical memory. That statement says that your OS has correctly recognized the CPU as a 64bit CPU.
Between XP and Vista, Vista is made to use dualcore CPUs as XP, there are no differences. You could install XP in 2002 on two CPUs systems, and it worked as it works now with dualcores.
The main problem is that today's programs are not optimized to use both CPUs, yet (apart few ones), and rFactor is one of them. I suppose rFactor to be a single thread application, or mostly, so the load division between the two cores is made by the OS.
I have a dualcore CPU and works fine both with XP and Vista, and both the OSs show me 2 graphs in task manager.
Have a look around in google, and search for screenshots or articles on this subject...you'll get more precise info!
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 13, 2007 10:00:16 GMT -5
P.S.: Is your XP HOME EDITION or PROFESSIONAL? HOME EDITION doesn't support multicore processors...upgrade to windows xp professional in case!
Regards
|
|