Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Conroe: XP Pro 64bit or 32bit?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 25, 2006 10:20:08 AM

Hello dear power users,

I was wondering what would be the better choice for a core 2 duo cpu.
Considering that with windows XP pro 64 bit this os would run much much faster on a conroe cpu, all 32-bit applications should have to be run with a 32-bit emulator (is this correct?), which is a degradation in performance.

Now considering the performance gain from the 64bit OS and the performance degradation from running most apps in the emulator, would the result be an overall faster execution of applications then on a 32bit regular windows xp pro operating system?

My setup is a 2,4 Ghz E6600 (Intel Bad Axe MoBo)with 2 gig 667 kingston RAM that has been tested up to 3 Ghz with good stability.

Great thanks to whoever throws in his or her 5 cents.


2Cb.

More about : conroe pro 64bit 32bit

August 25, 2006 10:27:16 AM

Quote:
Now considering the performance gain from the 64bit OS and the performance degradation from running most apps in the emulator, would the result be an overall faster execution of applications then on a 32bit regular windows xp pro operating system?


The degradation you usually get for 32bit apps on a 64 bit system AT MOST 1% but you have the great advantage of installing and USING more than 4G RAM, speed advantages of 64bit apps up to 10-16% and the world is slowly but seriously moving to 64bits.
There are people who say you don't need it but it's like the famous "Who will ever nee more than 640K RAM".
August 25, 2006 10:34:09 AM

Does this mean you say go Xp pro 64 bit?

Are you expecting any compatibility issues with regular applications like messenger, virusscanners, games, peer2peerclients, etc.?
Related resources
August 25, 2006 11:56:01 AM

Quote:
Now considering the performance gain from the 64bit OS and the performance degradation from running most apps in the emulator, would the result be an overall faster execution of applications then on a 32bit regular windows xp pro operating system?


The degradation you usually get for 32bit apps on a 64 bit system AT MOST 1% but you have the great advantage of installing and USING more than 4G RAM, speed advantages of 64bit apps up to 10-16% and the world is slowly but seriously moving to 64bits.
There are people who say you don't need it but it's like the famous "Who will ever nee more than 640K RAM".

Quote:
Does this mean you say go Xp pro 64 bit?

Are you expecting any compatibility issues with regular applications like messenger, virusscanners, games, peer2peerclients, etc.?


Im running XP x64 with a C2D and it's fine. I decided on x64 b/c i have 4GB of ram, and might have more in the future.

EM64T on a Conroe runs exactly like AMD64, so there is hardware support for 32 bit apps. So there is no degredation from running 32bit apps any more.

However, there are going to be issues when it comes to drivers and antivirus. You'll have to make sure all your hardware has 64bit drivers, which shouldn't be a problem if you bought your hardware in the last 3-4 years. Most companies put out XP x64 drivers for their hardware from that timeframe. (the exception being Logitech. Only they're newer Keyboard and Mice using the SetPoint software can be run on 64bit machines...)

There is an innate lack of antivirus software for 64bit machines. The only name brand retail one i know of is the one i use, norton antivirus corporate 10. But there are a host of smaller non-name brand antivirus softwares with 64bit support.

There are no issues for messager programs, games (provided they're not uber old), p2p software, etc... However you will need to get 64bit versions of say, quicktime, or realplayer, yadda yadda.
August 25, 2006 12:10:40 PM

I think I remember reading somewhere that macro ops fusion dosn't work in 64 bit mode - it only equates to a couple of percent performance reduction afaik, but something to bear in mind when making your decision
August 25, 2006 12:13:32 PM

Quote:
Does this mean you say go Xp pro 64 bit?

Are you expecting any compatibility issues with regular applications like messenger, virusscanners, games, peer2peerclients, etc.?


It's a lot of time that I use it @ work and never had any driver issues or drawbacks. At the end of this year MS will release 64 bit versions of all their products (at least almost all). Video, 2D and 3D software are all going 64 bit mainstream pretty fast. If you should buy a new system from now on, it HAS to be 64bit.
August 25, 2006 12:37:59 PM

Would 2 gig ram be sufficient to support Pro x64 in a performant way?
August 25, 2006 1:31:50 PM

i've heard many applications do not work on the 64bit version of windows xp. Many applications do not work correctly. Lots of hardware do not have drivers for it.

Save your money for vista.

Quote:
Hello dear power users,

I was wondering what would be the better choice for a core 2 duo cpu.
Considering that with windows XP pro 64 bit this os would run much much faster on a conroe cpu, all 32-bit applications should have to be run with a 32-bit emulator (is this correct?), which is a degradation in performance.

Now considering the performance gain from the 64bit OS and the performance degradation from running most apps in the emulator, would the result be an overall faster execution of applications then on a 32bit regular windows xp pro operating system?

My setup is a 2,4 Ghz E6600 (Intel Bad Axe MoBo)with 2 gig 667 kingston RAM that has been tested up to 3 Ghz with good stability.

Great thanks to whoever throws in his or her 5 cents.


2Cb.
August 25, 2006 2:07:17 PM

Quote:
i've heard many applications do not work on the 64bit version of windows xp. Many applications do not work correctly. Lots of hardware do not have drivers for it.

Save your money for vista.

Hello dear power users,

I was wondering what would be the better choice for a core 2 duo cpu.
Considering that with windows XP pro 64 bit this os would run much much faster on a conroe cpu, all 32-bit applications should have to be run with a 32-bit emulator (is this correct?), which is a degradation in performance.

Now considering the performance gain from the 64bit OS and the performance degradation from running most apps in the emulator, would the result be an overall faster execution of applications then on a 32bit regular windows xp pro operating system?

My setup is a 2,4 Ghz E6600 (Intel Bad Axe MoBo)with 2 gig 667 kingston RAM that has been tested up to 3 Ghz with good stability.

Great thanks to whoever throws in his or her 5 cents.


2Cb.


Um, well in case you didn't get the memo... the main versions of vista will be 64bit..... There will be 32 bit versions, but they'll be the "lower tier" versions. When Vista comes out, the push will be for 64bit.

As for many applicatations do not work and not working correctly? that's hogwash. less than 5% of mainstream apps have any issues whatsoever on XP x64, and 99% of the time the issues can be solved easily. The only thing that does work on x64 is arceaic 16bit applications.
August 25, 2006 2:52:42 PM

Quote:
Does this mean you say go Xp pro 64 bit?

Are you expecting any compatibility issues with regular applications like messenger, virusscanners, games, peer2peerclients, etc.?


It's a lot of time that I use it @ work and never had any driver issues or drawbacks. At the end of this year MS will release 64 bit versions of all their products (at least almost all). Video, 2D and 3D software are all going 64 bit mainstream pretty fast. If you should buy a new system from now on, it HAS to be 64bit.

Just to put in my 2 cents; Netgear, as stated on their website, will not be making any 64-bit drivers. Although I can see how a definitive statement makes sense since future computing will certainly be 64-bit.
August 25, 2006 3:15:22 PM

I'd say XP 32-bit, for the better hardware support and drivers. Then when Vista comes out 64-bit (after service pack 1).
August 25, 2006 3:19:07 PM

Quote:
Any amount of ram is supported > 512 kB or whatever Microsoft states, 1-2 gig will be pretty much the norm for now that you will find in systems released from OEMs or people build -- this is because for decent memory, 4 gigs will run 400 to 700 bucks and this is simply too expensive.


Don't think 512 would be a good idea; already tried it and it's crippling like having 256 on 32bit

Quote:
Also, M25 says it HAS to be 64 bit and this is not necessarily true, you don't have to do anything. But I do strongly strongly encourage you to get a 64 bit capable system as once Vista hits the migration to 64 bit will increase in pace quite quickly.


I was talking about professional work (would be a sin to have the money and not installing 4-8M RAM) and the 10-15% boost is something you feel @ those levels.
August 25, 2006 3:31:20 PM

Quote:
Would 2 gig ram be sufficient to support Pro x64 in a performant way?


Any amount of ram is supported > 512 kB or whatever Microsoft states, 1-2 gig will be pretty much the norm for now that you will find in systems released from OEMs or people build -- this is because for decent memory, 4 gigs will run 400 to 700 bucks and this is simply too expensive.

Also, M25 says it HAS to be 64 bit and this is not necessarily true, you don't have to do anything. But I do strongly strongly encourage you to get a 64 bit capable system as once Vista hits the migration to 64 bit will increase in pace quite quickly.

I pretty much agree with this. If I was building a computer now, I'd buy 2 gig of ram, configured so that I could easily go to 4 gig when needed. Ok, the price may not be easy, I mean the hardware. Its like when I first went to 2 gig on my present system. I simply added two 512 sticks to the two 512 sticks that I had. Then I realized the performance hit that had occured, so I bought two 1 gig sticks. I'm not sure if four 1 gig sticks would be all that bad performance wise compared to two 2 gig sticks, but its something to think about.

Likewise, if I was building a new computer at the moment, I'd go for the XP 64 Pro OS. Then I'd be buying 64 bit programs and make an easier and cheaper transition when Vista finally does appear. May not be the best way to do it, but that's what I would do.
August 25, 2006 3:35:50 PM

m25, how stable is your x64 installation? I really want to make the switch but I have been dragging my heels.
August 25, 2006 4:14:56 PM

Wait for Vista.
There are VERY few x64 apps available now. Also don't expect any big speed increase yet. You can make a x64 partition if you want to play with FarCry 64 for example. I did that, but no big proformance increase. Don't go 64bit yet unless you want to do something very specific.

I expect FarCry2 (Crysis) with DX 10 will be a completely different story.
August 25, 2006 4:36:20 PM

If you are debating which OS to use, 64-bit or 32-bit... I say you should hands down go with the 64. Have you ever used a 64-bit OS? I have been using XP x64 for about a year and a half and I'm very pleased with it. Regardless of the processor, if it supports a 64-bit OS then there is no reason for you to install a 32 OS, IMO.
August 25, 2006 4:48:37 PM

Ive been doing the third pro64 install now and every time something is wrong:

- computer hangs during windows update
- after installing Geforce EN7950GX2 driver, the hourglass stays on the screen and i dont get the cursor + booting windows takes ages
- ... it is SO slow...

It seems there is something seriously wrong.

I might try the 32 bit version ... unless someone knows what is going on here? Why did it hung during windows update, could it be the 7950gx2 that is causing trouble?

darn...not sure what to do
August 25, 2006 4:51:11 PM

p.s. I'm running this config on an intel 975xbx mobo.

Jup, now when i boot, it hangs once it enters windows X64. Thats all it does. It keeps reading HD. This is after installation of the x64 en7950gx2 drivers.

Also I noticed after a clean install, when i enter windows and move around a window, its pretty laggy.
August 25, 2006 5:05:38 PM

Quote:
p.s. I'm running this config on an intel 975xbx mobo.

Jup, now when i boot, it hangs once it enters windows X64. Thats all it does. It keeps reading HD. This is after installation of the x64 en7950gx2 drivers.

Also I noticed after a clean install, when i enter windows and move around a window, its pretty laggy.


you did install the forceware drivers for Windows x64 right?? the newest (only) one that's out that can run on XP x64 is 91.31.

It shouldn't be laggy at all, unless someting is wrong. did you put some kind of antivirus software on?

Make sure all your drivers are SPECIFICALLY for Windows XP Pro x64, not windows XP, and NOT Windows XP 64 bit edition (this is not the same as Windows XP Pro x64).
August 25, 2006 5:14:00 PM

I have almost the exact same internal hardware set running 64 with no problems installing and running any application. I have ran Bitdefender, panda, Kaspersky, and e-trust anti-virus'. All hardware is running, even bluetooth enabled devices and software are running. I have had only one issue with respect to compatibility [Dell A940] printer, didn't have any drivers. No issues with game play or degradation of system performance on my 2 gigs of DDRII 667 with 64. Go with the 64x, you'll feel a lot better.
August 25, 2006 5:23:47 PM

Quote:
I have almost the exact same internal hardware set running 64 with no problems installing and running any application. I have ran Bitdefender, panda, Kaspersky, and e-trust anti-virus'. All hardware is running, even bluetooth enabled devices and software are running. I have had only one issue with respect to compatibility [Dell A940] printer, didn't have any drivers. No issues with game play or degradation of system performance on my 2 gigs of DDRII 667 with 64. Go with the 64x, you'll feel a lot better.


That's the typical kind of reaction i've had with x64. Almost no problems at all. Except i had to get a new keyboard and mouse combo from logitech b/c their old ones dont have 64bit drivers. I've only had One game not work on x64, and it's an old game that has very little support built in.

to the topic's poster:
if you are still having video card issues, DOWNLOAD THESE drivers from nVidia.com, they are the newest drivers available for x64. Format your HDD, reinstall winXP x64, and be4 you do anything else install those video drivers.


P.S.
you said you are using a 7950gx2, are you sure your motherboard supports the 7950gx2? is it listed on nvidia's website as compatible?
August 25, 2006 6:30:08 PM

OK,

it seems the cause of the problem is an unrecoverable error on the hard disk. Somewhere around the 2 gig(of 300 gb hd) there is an unrecoverable error causing the instability. Once the os writes there, the comp hangs etc.

Is there any way you know of to disable the first 3 gig of the hard disk (with the windows recovery) and let the disk "start" from the 3rd gig and on?

This before i send the HD back to the shop :( 
August 25, 2006 6:44:59 PM

do you guys even realize what you're saying?

512Kb reads "five-hundred twelve kilabits"
512KB reads "five-hundred twelve kilabytes" or "five-twelve K" for short

it takes 8 bits to make a byte. divide 512Kb by 8 and thats your kilabytes.

gigabyte, megabyte, kilabyte, byte (me)

ass! learn your terminology for christ sakes!

Quote:
Any amount of ram is supported > 512 kB or whatever Microsoft states, 1-2 gig will be pretty much the norm for now that you will find in systems released from OEMs or people build -- this is because for decent memory, 4 gigs will run 400 to 700 bucks and this is simply too expensive.


Don't think 512 would be a good idea; already tried it and it's crippling like having 256 on 32bit

Quote:
Also, M25 says it HAS to be 64 bit and this is not necessarily true, you don't have to do anything. But I do strongly strongly encourage you to get a 64 bit capable system as once Vista hits the migration to 64 bit will increase in pace quite quickly.


I was talking about professional work (would be a sin to have the money and not installing 4-8M RAM) and the 10-15% boost is something you feel @ those levels.

512 kB -- yep, would not go below 1 gig myself, 2 gigs is affordable so most people will drive there.

MS quotes minimums so people with existing systems will buy the upgrade, minimums mean it will slow to a minimum :) 
August 25, 2006 6:49:40 PM

run recovery console and type "chkdsk /p" .. or /r ... w/e it is to scan the drive for bad sectors.

and no you cannot do that ...

Quote:
OK,

it seems the cause of the problem is an unrecoverable error on the hard disk. Somewhere around the 2 gig(of 300 gb hd) there is an unrecoverable error causing the instability. Once the os writes there, the comp hangs etc.

Is there any way you know of to disable the first 3 gig of the hard disk (with the windows recovery) and let the disk "start" from the 3rd gig and on?

This before i send the HD back to the shop :( 
August 25, 2006 7:18:17 PM

Quote:
Wait for Vista.
There are VERY few x64 apps available now. Also don't expect any big speed increase yet. You can make a x64 partition if you want to play with FarCry 64 for example. I did that, but no big proformance increase. Don't go 64bit yet unless you want to do something very specific.

I expect FarCry2 (Crysis) with DX 10 will be a completely different story.


The best response in this entire thread.

Do not go XP-64 at the moment, there are too many potential software and driver conflicts. Feel free to dual-boot into XP64 to try it out.

Pesonally, I not even bother with XP-64. There is so little official support out there. I would dual boot into the Vista Beta so I would be ready to go full Vista shortly after it ships. (But long enough to let the 1st lemmers jump to their death and I can land on their soft cushy fur.)
August 25, 2006 9:08:06 PM

Quote:
m25, how stable is your x64 installation? I really want to make the switch but I have been dragging my heels.


Is 100% enough :D 
Sincerely I haven't had any problems at all... a solved one to tell the truth: My PCI modem i a really rare and old one (no OEM drivers for W2K up) and on the 32bit XP used to freeze the connection occasionally (once each 3-4 connections) and I had to restart the PC to have it working again. Now with the 64 bit this problem is simply GONE :D 
August 25, 2006 9:22:46 PM

Quote:
Hello dear power users,

I was wondering what would be the better choice for a core 2 duo cpu.
Considering that with windows XP pro 64 bit this os would run much much faster on a conroe cpu, all 32-bit applications should have to be run with a 32-bit emulator (is this correct?), which is a degradation in performance.

Now considering the performance gain from the 64bit OS and the performance degradation from running most apps in the emulator, would the result be an overall faster execution of applications then on a 32bit regular windows xp pro operating system?

My setup is a 2,4 Ghz E6600 (Intel Bad Axe MoBo)with 2 gig 667 kingston RAM that has been tested up to 3 Ghz with good stability.

Great thanks to whoever throws in his or her 5 cents.


2Cb.


I still have to get drivers for my printer with XP64. And for some of my other devices. My advice is to make sure that the devices you already have are supported before deciding. That's the best thing to do because after that, youi won't really feel any differences in performance for day to day usage. I have Vista 32 bits installed as dual boot and it is fast.. especially with a dual core CPU and and good video card. And a RAID array.

So, just make sure you have all the drivers you need and you should be ok.
August 25, 2006 11:19:42 PM

Quote:
do you guys even realize what you're saying?

512Kb reads "five-hundred twelve kilabits"
512KB reads "five-hundred twelve kilabytes" or "five-twelve K" for short

it takes 8 bits to make a byte. divide 512Kb by 8 and thats your kilabytes.

gigabyte, megabyte, kilabyte, byte (me)

ass! learn your terminology for christ sakes!

Any amount of ram is supported > 512 kB or whatever Microsoft states, 1-2 gig will be pretty much the norm for now that you will find in systems released from OEMs or people build -- this is because for decent memory, 4 gigs will run 400 to 700 bucks and this is simply too expensive.


Don't think 512 would be a good idea; already tried it and it's crippling like having 256 on 32bit

Quote:
Also, M25 says it HAS to be 64 bit and this is not necessarily true, you don't have to do anything. But I do strongly strongly encourage you to get a 64 bit capable system as once Vista hits the migration to 64 bit will increase in pace quite quickly.


I was talking about professional work (would be a sin to have the money and not installing 4-8M RAM) and the 10-15% boost is something you feel @ those levels.

512 kB -- yep, would not go below 1 gig myself, 2 gigs is affordable so most people will drive there.

MS quotes minimums so people with existing systems will buy the upgrade, minimums mean it will slow to a minimum :) 


Did you just call JumpingJack an ass????
Gutsy move Mav.


BTW

Quote:
divide 512Kb by 8 and thats your kilabytes


Dividing KB by 8 gives KB? Must be the new math
August 27, 2006 4:35:07 AM

Quote:
Dividing KB by 8 gives KB? Must be the new math

Actually, he's right because he's saying that dividing 512 kilabits by 8 gives you kilabytes, which is correct.
August 27, 2006 5:23:43 AM

Quote:
Dividing KB by 8 gives KB? Must be the new math

Actually, he's right because he's saying that dividing 512 kilabits by 8 gives you kilabytes, which is correct.

Ah yes, you are right. I stand corrected
I didnt read closely enough as I was so flabberghasted by himcalling JJ an ass.

Thankyou
August 27, 2006 7:00:16 AM

Quote:
OK,

it seems the cause of the problem is an unrecoverable error on the hard disk. Somewhere around the 2 gig(of 300 gb hd) there is an unrecoverable error causing the instability. Once the os writes there, the comp hangs etc.

Is there any way you know of to disable the first 3 gig of the hard disk (with the windows recovery) and let the disk "start" from the 3rd gig and on?

This before i send the HD back to the shop :( 


As someone else already mentioned, there is no way to "disable" the first 3 gigs of a hard drive. However, there is a way to ensure that the first 3 gigs of any drive will not be used, which is simply to create a 3 (or whatever number you want) gig partition and leaving it unused.

You probably have one or more bad sectors that are causing the problem. Doing a "chkdsk /r" will result in those sectors being isolated (marked bad and therefore left unused by Windows).

As far as your 64 bit Windows question, my $0.02 are,

I would plan on using Win32 as the main O/S for some time (probably another year or so), in the meantime (as someone else judiciously suggested), I would simply have another partition with Win64 installed to play with in the meantime.

What should determine your preference for Win64 over Win32 is what software will you be using the most. If the software you use the most is still 32 bits then it makes little sense to use Win64. Conversely, if the app you use most of the time is a 64 bit app (full fledged 64 bit apps are still few and far between) then it does make sense to go with Win64.

A few apparently "not so well understood" points I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify follow.

The 64bit instruction set is an extension to the 32 bit instruction set. Therefore, 32bit programs are not emulated, they run exactly the same way as they run on a processor that is 32bit only.

About the "performance hit" which can be perceived in a Win64 installation. This comes from the fact that in protected mode (which is the mode Win32, Win64, Linux and all capable O/Ses run in) the structures shared by the CPU and the O/S must be modified to reflect the bitness of the code to be executed.

The "bitness" affects quite a number of things, among them, the effective size of the CPU registers, particularly the CS (code segment), DS (Data Segment) and the pair SS:SP (Stack segment: Stack pointer - this one is the most delicate one). It takes over 100 CPU instructions to setup all the structures properly in order to switch from one bitness to another (that's 100+ each way, one time to go to 16, 32 or 64 and another to return to the bitness it came from). That's over 200 CPU instructions per switch, the larger the number of times the switch has to occur the larger the perceived performance penalty. Obviously, on Win64, the number of switches will increase with the number of 32bit apps running.

For completeness' sake (and for those who may wonder), I didn't list 8bit protected mode because such thing does not exist.

The decision to use a 64 bit O/S should be based on the applications being used. Applications that benefit from a 64bit O/S are, among others, heavily graphical apps that must perform a lot of calculations (Photoshop, Autodesk VIZ, Maya, 3DS Max), large database systems which benefit from the larger address space (4+ billion times larger), this allows the database system to map its storage space onto linear address space which is an extremely desirable feature. Some simulators also benefit greatly (like weather simulation and, any other such kind of simulation that deals with extremely large data sets).

64bit also has disadvantages. The main one is that memory is not used as efficiently (spacewise). To clarify, 16bit code is denser than 32bit code which in turn is denser than 64bit code. What this means is that a program that uses 100KB worth of 32bit code to do its thing, will likely use 200KB+ to do the same thing in 64bit mode. A good example of this is the size of the MS C library, the 64bit version is a little bit over 3 times larger than the 32bit version (it's a bit of an extreme case though). The offshoot of that is, a 64bit setup with 1GB of memory is roughly equivalent to a 32bit setup with 300 to 400MB of memory.

By now it should be obvious that it makes no sense whatsoever to use a 64bit O/S to run MS Office or surf the net.

Consider this a 64bit post, in 64bit, my $0.02 turned into $0.06 :wink:
August 27, 2006 2:38:15 PM

Nice !

Im testing x64 now and I noticed the "multi-GPU"mode for the GeForce 7950GX is not available in the nvidia control center.
Any reason I can't turn on multi-GPU mode(not much point in having the gx2 then)? Might it be x64-related?

Mobo is an intel 975XBX.

Maybe it needs some kind of update/patch, anything. I dont seem to find an answer to this.
August 27, 2006 2:42:34 PM

Hm. I might step back to win xp pro 32 if I can't get the multi-gpu mode to work under the 64 bit version.

I'm just not sure if its OS-related...
August 27, 2006 3:51:25 PM

Looking for people with a 975XBX board with a 7950GX2 for help!
August 27, 2006 3:51:43 PM

Looking for people with a 975XBX board with a 7950GX2 for help!
August 27, 2006 4:50:29 PM

Unfortunately i have the latest bios update.
There are people even running sli on these boards, so i cant imagine a 7950gx2 cant work in dual-gpu mode...Its what the card is made for.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.............
August 27, 2006 4:55:58 PM

Quote:
Nice !

Im testing x64 now and I noticed the "multi-GPU"mode for the GeForce 7950GX is not available in the nvidia control center.
Any reason I can't turn on multi-GPU mode(not much point in having the gx2 then)? Might it be x64-related?

Mobo is an intel 975XBX.

Maybe it needs some kind of update/patch, anything. I dont seem to find an answer to this.


it's an known issue with the 91.31 drivers. You're going to have to wait until they release the next driver update for Forceware (x64) in order to get rid of that message. I beleive you can still turn on SLI in the nVidia Control Panel???

The new forceware beta drivers, and quad-sli drivers already fixed the popup message, but to my knowledge those drivers aren't available in 64 bit. You might check on that tho. So i would imagine the next 64 bit forceware update will fix the popup too.
August 27, 2006 5:12:43 PM

SLI cannot be turned on, neither can be multi-pgu mode for the gx2.

So it's fixed for win32 but not for win64? I see....
August 27, 2006 5:25:53 PM

The nvidia control center says "PCI Express 4x" for "Bus".
Is this normal?[/img]
August 27, 2006 6:48:39 PM

You probably have one or more bad sectors that are causing the problem. Doing a "chkdsk /r" will result in those sectors being isolated (marked bad and therefore left unused by Windows).

Is it worth it? Back when I paid five hundred bucks for a 20 meg hdd it seemed fine to mark off a few k and keep using it. But I wouldn't trust one nowadays with any bad sectors. Soon it's going to die on you. Storage is too cheap to risk your data.
August 27, 2006 6:52:39 PM

Quote:
You probably have one or more bad sectors that are causing the problem. Doing a "chkdsk /r" will result in those sectors being isolated (marked bad and therefore left unused by Windows).

Is it worth it? Back when I paid five hundred bucks for a 20 meg hdd it seemed fine to mark off a few k and keep using it. But I wouldn't trust one nowadays with any bad sectors. Soon it's going to die on you. Storage is too cheap to risk your data.


No. If the drive has bad sectors then I'd get a new one too. I suggested the chkdsk to determine if that is the cause of the problems he is having.
August 27, 2006 6:55:20 PM

I reinstalled 32 bit windows version to see what it does.
I dont see any option to turn on dual-gpu mode nor to turn on SLI.

The popup told me that my system does not allow SLI so it is being disabled. I know people ARE running GX2 and SLI on this mobo so what is that I am missing...I'm tired of looking. Will it ever end?


P.s. HD problem is solved.[/img]
August 27, 2006 6:58:34 PM

Jack,

which drivers should I try for winxppro32 then?
August 27, 2006 7:01:31 PM

I'd use the 32-bit version because of the lack of 64-bit drivers and software. Windows Vista is a 64-bit OS; by the time that that comes out, there should (finally) be more 64-bit apps available.
August 27, 2006 7:06:15 PM

Quote:
I reinstalled 32 bit windows version to see what it does.
I dont see any option to turn on dual-gpu mode nor to turn on SLI.

The popup told me that my system does not allow SLI so it is being disabled. I know people ARE running GX2 and SLI on this mobo so what is that I am missing...I'm tired of looking. Will it ever end?


P.s. HD problem is solved.
[/img]

i assume you updated your mobo BIOS to the latest huh?
August 27, 2006 7:17:12 PM

Yes the very latest, which has just been released.

The nvidia site even says how to activate the dual-gpu mode but its lacking in the menu + i keep getting the SLI error message.

I know this doesn't belong in this topic anymore but I feel ripped off not being able to use dual-gpu, while nvidia clearly stating this mobo to be compatible.

Must find a way to make it work.

I got nvidia driver forceware version 91.45.

I think thats the one that should work...so many drivers there.
August 27, 2006 8:01:57 PM

I can switch between screens and use dual-screen now.
So I think both cards work since i can make a horizontal desktop across two screens.

Odd. No dual-gpu mode though.
August 27, 2006 8:20:45 PM

Im getting warning that the cpu core is getting only 1.1 volts instead of te required 2 volts. Could this be causing my problems? Not enough watts?
August 27, 2006 11:26:51 PM

I found it !! I finally f***ing found it, after three days of formatting, booting and almost annihalating my own new hardware....

Thank god and thank you guys for all the help :]
August 28, 2006 12:00:57 AM

Quote:
I found it !! I finally f***ing found it, after three days of formatting, booting and almost annihalating my own new hardware....

Thank god and thank you guys for all the help :]


what was the problem?
!