churin wrote:I have just noticed that there are only three(3) core as indicated by system utility(CPUZ, etc) for Phenom II x4 970. Does this mean one of the four cores is dead?
churin wrote:Thanks everyone for your responses.
I have determined that this problem has something to do with installed W7.
There are three separate installations of W7 SP1 on the same mobo. The installed apps are not the same among them. The problem happens on one of them. I was using Windows Live Movie Maker to stitch 13 mp4 video clips and burn a DVD. While waiting for it to complete, I fired up Task Manager to see how hard the cpu was working. And there one core was missing.
Now how can it be fixed?
Arclight wrote:You say you have installed W7 SP1 3 times on the same motherboard? Surely you meant HDD (but i suspect not the same partition)?
Arclight wrote:Also why would you need 3 separate W7 installations? I'm sorry, i'm getting tired but it makes little sense to me.
DPete27 wrote:Arclight wrote:Also why would you need 3 separate W7 installations? I'm sorry, i'm getting tired but it makes little sense to me.
I agree. It sounds like some twisted type of user profile management to me. Perhaps the OP can comment on this. I also see no reason to have W7 installed 3 times even if its on 3 different hdds.
TurtlePerson2 wrote:You can disable cores in AMD processors if you have the right motherboard. Personally, I run my 6 core chip with only 4 cores enabled because I don't do anything more CPU intensive than gaming, and I haven't found any games that benefit from the extra cores.
just brew it! wrote:Try running msconfig, click the "Advanced options..." button on the "Boot" tab, and see whether the "Number of processors" option has been set.
Arclight wrote:Well, it could also be 3 different HDDs in the same computer...p
Could be, just that HDD prices made me skeptical of such a config
Arclight wrote:and even so, it would still be strange. WHY would you want/need this?
just brew it! wrote:Arclight wrote:and even so, it would still be strange. WHY would you want/need this?
Maybe he'll tell us.
UberGerbil wrote:I'd be strongly tempted to use VMs for that, rather than actual separate OS installations, unless the base hardware was old and highly memory-constrained (or the apps were so performance-critical that VM overhead was unacceptable). Especially in the case where you just need to keep app versions separate, and don't need separate/different OS images.
churin wrote:Aside from the speed problem mentioned by just brew it!, what I do not much care for about VM is reliability issue. What I have is a redundancy system. With the VM, you are relying on ONE os installation which hosts the VM.
just brew it! wrote:churin wrote:Aside from the speed problem mentioned by just brew it!, what I do not much care for about VM is reliability issue. What I have is a redundancy system. With the VM, you are relying on ONE os installation which hosts the VM.
Modern OSes are reliable enough that IMO this is a misplaced concern. If you're really worried about redundancy, they should be on separate computers.
Users browsing this forum: TheEmrys and 2 guests