Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Dual-Core doesn't Dual-Core

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 5, 2007 6:12:55 PM

AMD Athlon 64 X2 D-C 4200+ on a K8N Neo4 Plat. Dual booting XP and Vista Ultimate.
Didn't realize I was only using Core1 until I installed a Vista gadget in the Sidebar that shows CPU Usage and RAM.
I kicked this around over at "Experts-Exchange" and found that by booting in to BIOS, taking a look, "That's all", at the Core settings, and than booting into Vista did I get the Core2 to work.
Here's the post over there.
http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_...
If I go back and reboot to XP, reboot to Vista, I'll only have Core1 until I do the BIOS thing.
Here's what one of the guy's said:
"the x2 sometimes req's you to boot in to the bios to activate the second core even if you dont touch anything its a weird glitch with some motherboards which you may have encountered it does seem to be fixed now so you should be good and by the way to get true dual core processing the application has to be designed for it other wise it just splits the tasks up between the processor's cores most app's and games will take either core but will not actually use them both so it may help a little to have the second core take some task's but you wont notice to much of a diffrence in running single apps or games untill they are made to take advantage of the dual cores and use them both"

I'm still bouncing between the 2 OS's and really don't like the BIOS boot hassle.
Anyone got any ideas?
Pete
March 5, 2007 6:18:28 PM

Quote:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 D-C 4200+ on a K8N Neo4 Plat. Dual booting XP and Vista Ultimate.
Didn't realize I was only using Core1 until I installed a Vista gadget in the Sidebar that shows CPU Usage and RAM.
I kicked this around over at "Experts-Exchange" and found that by booting in to BIOS, taking a look, "That's all", at the Core settings, and than booting into Vista did I get the Core2 to work.
Here's the post over there.
http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_...
If I go back and reboot to XP, reboot to Vista, I'll only have Core1 until I do the BIOS thing.
Here's what one of the guy's said:
"the x2 sometimes req's you to boot in to the bios to activate the second core even if you dont touch anything its a weird glitch with some motherboards which you may have encountered it does seem to be fixed now so you should be good and by the way to get true dual core processing the application has to be designed for it other wise it just splits the tasks up between the processor's cores most app's and games will take either core but will not actually use them both so it may help a little to have the second core take some task's but you wont notice to much of a diffrence in running single apps or games untill they are made to take advantage of the dual cores and use them both"

I'm still bouncing between the 2 OS's and really don't like the BIOS boot hassle.
Anyone got any ideas?
Pete



Interesting problem. Maybe the driver version for CPU is different. I have almost the exact same setup with the Neo4 SLI and a 4400+. I think I checked the DevMgr in Vista and saw two CPUs. I assume you installed to different partitions.

Did you clean install from inside XP or did you boot from the CD?
March 5, 2007 6:32:40 PM

that sounds like a bios issue, amd chips normaly work realy well with windows, and ive never heared of that problem, try updateing the bios to one that says vista compatible
Related resources
March 5, 2007 6:46:56 PM

i agree. from what you said it points to your bios. try flashing to latest version.
March 5, 2007 6:57:32 PM

Were they both CLEAN installs, id est, did you have a single-core processor in there, install the OSes, then put in a dual-core CPU? If so...

-Update to the latest BIOS and check settings
-Do clean installs
March 5, 2007 8:51:07 PM

Quote:
you need to download amd's dual core optimiser in that case, that was needed for most of the 939 x2's with older mobos, that should do the trick if a bios flash doesn't
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/...

What do you mean by 'old 939 mobo'; I thought my A8V-MX was ancient and except from charging an extra 0.05V (which I level with RMClock) it works just fine with my 4200+ and even overclocks well :?: :!:
March 5, 2007 10:31:22 PM

Installed the D-C when I built the system. New board, new CPU.
I didn't notice the single core problem until I installed the Vista gadget.
Could have been like this since installation.
MSI says board is Dual qualified.

BIOS is current and the "Optimizer" made no difference.

Vista is a clean new install on a second HDD. Gold version, not my beta RC2.

Fooling around here, noticed that all I have to do is access the BIOS, just hit F10, and Core2 works.

If I go back to XP, only Core 1. Boot to BIOS than Vista, Core1 & 2.
March 5, 2007 10:53:20 PM

Quote:
Installed the D-C when I built the system. New board, new CPU.
I didn't notice the single core problem until I installed the Vista gadget.
Could have been like this since installation.
MSI says board is Dual qualified.

BIOS is current and the "Optimizer" made no difference.

Vista is a clean new install on a second HDD. Gold version, not my beta RC2.

Fooling around here, noticed that all I have to do is access the BIOS, just hit F10, and Core2 works.

If I go back to XP, only Core 1. Boot to BIOS than Vista, Core1 & 2.



I'd say when you bott into XP go into the BIOS first and check the CPU settings. Then when you go to Vista check the settings again. I can't see why Vista would do that unless the ACPI implementation is screwed. When you go into Vista, check the Computer device and see if it says "ACPI Multiprocessor PC."

If it does then it's a Microsoft issue. If it doesn't then it's a HW/driver issue.
March 5, 2007 10:58:53 PM

Quote:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 D-C 4200+ on a K8N Neo4 Plat. Dual booting XP and Vista Ultimate.
Didn't realize I was only using Core1 until I installed a Vista gadget in the Sidebar that shows CPU Usage and RAM.
I kicked this around over at "Experts-Exchange" and found that by booting in to BIOS, taking a look, "That's all", at the Core settings, and than booting into Vista did I get the Core2 to work.
Here's the post over there.
http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_...
If I go back and reboot to XP, reboot to Vista, I'll only have Core1 until I do the BIOS thing.
Here's what one of the guy's said:
"the x2 sometimes req's you to boot in to the bios to activate the second core even if you dont touch anything its a weird glitch with some motherboards which you may have encountered it does seem to be fixed now so you should be good and by the way to get true dual core processing the application has to be designed for it other wise it just splits the tasks up between the processor's cores most app's and games will take either core but will not actually use them both so it may help a little to have the second core take some task's but you wont notice to much of a diffrence in running single apps or games untill they are made to take advantage of the dual cores and use them both"

I'm still bouncing between the 2 OS's and really don't like the BIOS boot hassle.
Anyone got any ideas?
Pete


i had the same (kinda) problem with a msi k8neo4 sli mobo.
it would not read 2 cores.

i tried an x24600 and a 4400.

gave the mobo to a friend who is now using a 3500 single core.

??
March 5, 2007 11:20:41 PM

Quote:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 D-C 4200+ on a K8N Neo4 Plat. Dual booting XP and Vista Ultimate.
Didn't realize I was only using Core1 until I installed a Vista gadget in the Sidebar that shows CPU Usage and RAM.
I kicked this around over at "Experts-Exchange" and found that by booting in to BIOS, taking a look, "That's all", at the Core settings, and than booting into Vista did I get the Core2 to work.
Here's the post over there.
http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_...
If I go back and reboot to XP, reboot to Vista, I'll only have Core1 until I do the BIOS thing.
Here's what one of the guy's said:
"the x2 sometimes req's you to boot in to the bios to activate the second core even if you dont touch anything its a weird glitch with some motherboards which you may have encountered it does seem to be fixed now so you should be good and by the way to get true dual core processing the application has to be designed for it other wise it just splits the tasks up between the processor's cores most app's and games will take either core but will not actually use them both so it may help a little to have the second core take some task's but you wont notice to much of a diffrence in running single apps or games untill they are made to take advantage of the dual cores and use them both"

I'm still bouncing between the 2 OS's and really don't like the BIOS boot hassle.
Anyone got any ideas?
Pete


i had the same (kinda) problem with a msi k8neo4 sli mobo.
it would not read 2 cores.

i tried an x24600 and a 4400.

gave the mobo to a friend who is now using a 3500 single core.

??


You may just have gotten a bad board cause I game with my 4400+ in that board loving that SB 24. I can't see why it wouldn't work unless you are not getting the BIOS updated. Check the latest BIOS on MSI and make sure that it flashes to it.
March 5, 2007 11:28:16 PM

that board works fine. (except for the dualcore thing)

it is a long story with that board :cry: 

i got the first one 2 years or so ago.
worked fine and could do anything but turn it off.

if i turned it off weather through windows or by the pwswitch.
nothing?

had to reset cmos to get it up agian.

anyway got it rma,d and the new one works fine too.
but it couldnt read a d/c.

other than the both/seperate problems on each board they worked fine.
March 5, 2007 11:42:44 PM

As sirheck says, the board works fine except fot the D-C problem.
He's sent one back and has the same problem.
I answered a ways back that the BIOS is updated. 8)

Looks like a quirk with this board and this CPU.
Guy over at E-E has the same problem.
Thanks to all who chipped in.
Pete
!