• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1 core of CPU pegged 100%

A

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
So, I have a laptop with TK-53 (AMD X2) processor. It is dual boot. Vista side works fine. The XP side boots, but the second core of the CPU stays at close to 100% all of the time. I look in task manager and there are only 26 processes running, none of which are really taking any cpu time. Any ideas? Yes, drivers are up to date and all that.
 
In task manager, click on View > Show Kernel Times. See if the red line that's now on the usage graph is up near 100%. The only time I've seen this is a system that had an external device that would just bombard the serial port with incoming data, and if the program that is supposed to retrieve the data was not open, the kernel would jump to near 100%. But that's probably not the situation for you.

I take it the "System Idle Process" is near 0% too?
 
Alright...it is showing the kernel as taking up 100% of the second core. Anyone have any ideas how to either trouble shoot this? Would a clean install be the best way to go?
 
it'll run but you'll not make use of both cores, which is what is happening, all of the process's are only running on one and not being shared between the 2 cores.

oh, and another thing, do not give me an attitude, if you know the answer, don't post stupid questions.
 
Originally posted by: robisbell
it'll run but you'll not make use of both cores, which is what is happening, all of the process's are only running on one and not being shared between the 2 cores.

oh, and another thing, do not give me an attitude, if you know the answer, don't post stupid questions.
Click to expand...
:roll:
No, you are the one who is wrong on the subject. No further arguing.


As for the subject matter at hand, I'm just throwing out a suggestion, give the AMD cpu driver & dual-core optimizer software a shot from here:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Proce..._182_871_14098,00.html
 
I have isolated it to the chipset driver. I downloaded the nvidia driver from the website and used the latest from them, which caused the kernel to use 100% of one core (indicator that the XP kernel isn't multithreaded?) I uninstalled and no problems. I'm trying different revs of the driver, and hopefully find one that doesn't cause the thing to crawl.

Edited for clarity.
 
Originally posted by: robisbell
it'll run but you'll not make use of both cores, which is what is happening, all of the process's are only running on one and not being shared between the 2 cores.

oh, and another thing, do not give me an attitude, if you know the answer, don't post stupid questions.
Click to expand...

Please, oh God please, don't tell me you work as a computer tech somewhere. Unless it is Best Buy.

Give you an attitude? I don't know the answer (well, I didn't) but I fully know the difference between 64-bit and dual core. Do you understand the difference between multithreaded applications, dual core, and 64-bit instructions/address space?

This is hardly a stupid question, by the way. Probably something people rarely see. When was the last time you installed a driver and you saw your kernel eat up your processor?
 
I've seen everything from 8080 cpu's to the servers they used in Cheyenne Mountain, so I do know the difference.

jack, you are so wrong in that statement, but anyway.

as for the issue, I'd like to see the usage of both cores before you run anything on XP, and the list of what each core is handling.
 
Originally posted by: robisbell
I've seen everything from 8080 cpu's to the servers they used in Cheyenne Mountain, so I do know the difference.

jack, you are so wrong in that statement, but anyway.

as for the issue, I'd like to see the usage of both cores before you run anything on XP, and the list of what each core is handling.
Click to expand...

And I've seen everything from a Boeing 747 to an F-16. It doesn't mean I know how to fly. If you did know the difference, you wouldn't have made ignorant statements about how you need 64-bit processors to run both cores. Please, do tell me what 64-bit means and what a dual core processor does. Explain to me what you think it does. Maybe you could learn something.

The issue has been resolved. A bad chipset driver was causing the kernel to use the resources. My guess is that since the kernel isn't multithreaded, it hogged only one core, not both.

I suggest you take some computer architecture courses before you start spilling rhetoric.

Good day.
 
Originally posted by: robisbell
I've seen everything from 8080 cpu's to the servers they used in Cheyenne Mountain, so I do know the difference.

jack, you are so wrong in that statement, but anyway.

as for the issue, I'd like to see the usage of both cores before you run anything on XP, and the list of what each core is handling.
Click to expand...

robisbell, your comments on dual core 64 bit CPUs not both working on a 32 bit OS is absurdly wrong. Intel dual-core CPUs have been 64 bit for a long time, and they clearly work on 32 bit OSs - both cores. I don't know why you'd even post such horribly wrong information, but please check your facts.
 
Originally posted by: dclive
Originally posted by: robisbell
I've seen everything from 8080 cpu's to the servers they used in Cheyenne Mountain, so I do know the difference.

jack, you are so wrong in that statement, but anyway.

as for the issue, I'd like to see the usage of both cores before you run anything on XP, and the list of what each core is handling.
Click to expand...

robisbell, your comments on dual core 64 bit CPUs not both working on a 32 bit OS is absurdly wrong. Intel dual-core CPUs have been 64 bit for a long time, and they clearly work on 32 bit OSs - both cores. I don't know why you'd even post such horribly wrong information, but please check your facts.
Click to expand...

I agree, I would suggest apologizing for posting factually false information and never ever post again. Ever.

As for the OP, there's a tool called procexp from Sysinternals which can go into a LOT more detail then the default windows Task Manager. There's an article about it on MS's site.

http://technet.microsoft.com/e...nternals/bb896653.aspx

I use it as aid for simple debugging for .NET applications it might help you try and figure out exactly is causing the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top