Solved

4th Core/Thread missing

Yeh,

Is there a way to know for sure, whether it be in BIOS or under Windows, to know if my CPU has fried? I want to know so I can be 100% sure that the 4th Core is unrecoverable! Or is there a way to bring it back to life?!

Fill me up with information.
20 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about core thread missing
  1. We need to know what processor and motherboard you have before we can say anything.
  2. Dekasav said:
    We need to know what processor and motherboard you have before we can say anything.

    ok, my CPU is a Q8400 and MotherBoard's an ASUS P5Q
  3. What does cpu-z say (threads/cores). Try setting the bios back to default settings.
  4. SV_Bubbles said:
    What does cpu-z say (threads/cores). Try setting the bios back to default settings.




    and what do you mean by resetting? I know that I've touched nothing there! Do you mean by taking out that round battery on the motherboard for a while before to place it back there?
  5. SV_Bubbles said:
    What does cpu-z say (threads/cores). Try setting the bios back to default settings.

    hey, under the Processors tab in Device Manager, it shows me all my 4 cores and they are working properly! I've tried updating those Processors and even my bios, but they are both already up to date! Then, I've reset the Bios and Msconfig/CPUZ still sees 3 cores/threads.
  6. What does system task manager show under the performance tab does it show all four cores working or does it only show 3?
  7. saaiello said:
    What does system task manager show under the performance tab does it show all four cores working or does it only show 3?

    It shows 3.
  8. Burn a live linux cd like ubuntu and boot up with it. See how many cores show up in there. It its 4 cores I would do a clean install of windows. If its 3 I would contact Intel for a replacement.
  9. Best answer
    In that "boot advanced options" menu, uncheck "number of processors".
  10. cjl said:
    In that "boot advanced options" menu, uncheck "number of processors".

    Dude, please don't take it too personal because... I'd like to give you a hug of success!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!
  11. Best answer selected by thrunthru.
  12. No problem :)

    I've encountered that several times - that menu lets you limit the number of processors, but once you've set a limit, it won't let you select more than the number that you limited it to. The solution is to just disable the limit. The same is true if you limit the RAM using that menu.

    (For reference for anyone else having this problem, that menu is accessible by typing "msconfig.exe" in the start search, then going to "advanced options" under the "boot" tab).

    Oh, and by the way, is there any reason you're running your CPU underclocked?
  13. cjl said:
    No problem :)

    I've encountered that several times - that menu lets you limit the number of processors, but once you've set a limit, it won't let you select more than the number that you limited it to. The solution is to just disable the limit. The same is true if you limit the RAM using that menu.

    (For reference for anyone else having this problem, that menu is accessible by typing "msconfig.exe" in the start search, then going to "advanced options" under the "boot" tab).

    Oh, and by the way, is there any reason you're running your CPU underclocked?

    By definition of "underclock", do you mean not overclocked?
  14. Nope. I mean that according to CPU-Z there, your CPU is running 33% slower than rated. Assuming I'm remembering correctly, your CPU should have a 1333FSB, but CPU-Z only shows it as 890.
  15. cjl said:

    Oh, and by the way, is there any reason you're running your CPU underclocked?


    Maybe speed step? :whistle: Im sure if the OP used prime 95 while watching cpu-z the cpu will run at stock speed.


    Quote:
    By definition of "underclock", do you mean not overclocked?


    Well underclock means running a cpu at slower speed. Like for example, a cpu stock speed is 3Ghz but you lower it to 2.6Ghz.

    Im sure the 1.3Ghz that we see on cpu-z is a result from speed step.

    Speed step is a feature on intel cpu. What it does is when your computer is idle (not doing anything), it will lower the cpu speed to reduce power consumption and heat. Now when you start asking for more cpu power, the cpu will increase it speed until it reach it's max speed.

    in your case, looks like your cpu underclocks its self to 1.3 ghz when idle and will run a max speed of 2.66Ghz.
  16. warmon6 said:
    Maybe speed step? :whistle: Im sure if the OP used prime 95 while watching cpu-z the cpu will run at stock speed.


    Quote:
    By definition of "underclock", do you mean not overclocked?


    Well underclock means running a cpu at slower speed. Like for example, a cpu stock speed is 3Ghz but you lower it to 2.6Ghz.

    Im sure the 1.3Ghz that we see on cpu-z is a result from speed step.

    Speed step is a feature on intel cpu. What it does is when your computer is idle (not doing anything), it will lower the cpu speed to reduce power consumption and heat. Now when you start asking for more cpu power, the cpu will increase it speed until it reach it's max speed.

    in your case, looks like your cpu underclocks its self to 1.3 ghz when idle and will run a max speed of 2.66Ghz.

    I know about speedstep. Check out the FSB though. It should be 1333 on that CPU, not 890 (which isn't even a standard speed).
  17. cjl said:
    Nope. I mean that according to CPU-Z there, your CPU is running 33% slower than rated. Assuming I'm remembering correctly, your CPU should have a 1333FSB, but CPU-Z only shows it as 890.


    Didn't notice the FSB was lowered.

    http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGT6
  18. cjl said:
    I know about speedstep. Check out the FSB though. It should be 1333 on that CPU, not 890 (which isn't even a standard speed).


    Hmm that is a little baffling. :??:
  19. warmon6 said:
    Hmm that is a little baffling. :??:

    http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/7504/recent.png

    This one should be when it's running at full speed! Is any one of you suggesting that it is better to run without SpeedStep for performance?
  20. Speedstep is fine. What's odd is that your FSB was lower in the earlier shot. That one that you just posted looks fine though.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Core BIOS