100% and slowing

[timot]

hey guys, i have evga780i mobo and q6600 oc'd to 3.4ghz, i m transferring huge files to my partitioned drives. Right now, 1st core is at 100% and my computer is running really slow. I thought the thing with quad core is that u can multitask? by the way, i have TRUE and my highest temp is 44C, so that shouldnt be the thing. HELP Me!!!! 🙁

EDIT: this problem occurs
http://i5.photobucket.com/albu...161/t_mo_t/problem.jpg

 

[Quiksilver]

Are all your partitions on the same drive? Also you not missing much with that movie 😉

 

[ShadowFlareX]

How much RAM do you have?
What wattage is your PSU?

Yes, multi-cored CPUs can multitask at processing data, but when it comes to data transfers, it's the harddrive working. I'm kind of guessing you may insufficient amount of RAM and the PC is resorting to Virtual Memory. Are you transferring those huge file between partitioned drives on the same harddisk? If yes, and the conditions above are correct, then it's your harddisk working overtime.

 

[timot]

haha... well, that's just 1 of the many movies i m trying to relocate. Yes, i m using seagate 7200.11 1TB partitioned into 4 equal size. My raptors are strictly for programs and OS only.

I got GSkill 4gb ddr2-1000 and Ultra x2 750W PSU.

Hmmm so if i m moving within the hdd, it would be normal to do this? like cpu1 core is 100% where it realli slows my computer down although the rest of the 3 cores are at 0-5%. Btw, how come my vista HP onli sees my ram at 2.8GB? I m only using a 8800GT 512MB as video card.

 

[timot]

shoot.. another question, my q6600 retail box says something about the voltage, is that the maximum voltage i can supply to my q6600? cz it's only 1.3 something.

 

[Quiksilver]

Originally posted by: timot
haha... well, that's just 1 of the many movies i m trying to relocate. Yes, i m using seagate 7200.11 1TB partitioned into 4 equal size. My raptors are strictly for programs and OS only.

I got GSkill 4gb ddr2-1000 and Ultra x2 750W PSU.

Hmmm so if i m moving within the hdd, it would be normal to do this? like cpu1 core is 100% where it realli slows my computer down although the rest of the 3 cores are at 0-5%. Btw, how come my vista HP onli sees my ram at 2.8GB? I m only using a 8800GT 512MB as video card.

Now sames the partitions are on the same drive it would be the reason why it's slowing down. I would bet that if you were to copy some of the stuff over to another hard drive it would be much faster. Just take like one of the files and move it onto the raptor just for an example and see.

Read/Writing files from hard drive to hard drive does not really meet the definition of multitasking anyway. Multitasking would be more less, browsing the internet, listening to music, messing around in photoshop, all while rendering a movie at the same time.

The reason why your not seeing the full 4 GB is probably because you are using a 32 bit windows OS, which are limited to seeing about 3GB (so your missing out 1GB already) and you only have 2.8GB due to that is what is left after memory addressing. So I would assume about 192/256MB is assigned to onboard sound or something.

Edit:

shoot.. another question, my q6600 retail box says something about the voltage, is that the maximum voltage i can supply to my q6600? cz it's only 1.3 something.

Should be the maximum voltage required for it to be stable at 2.4Ghz but that doesn't mean it can't be lower than that amount.

 

[timot]

dang that sux...... i had 3gb in my other computer and it sees full amount under My Computer. And the video card was 8600gt 250mb...

ok, so i guess i should transfer them to raptors first, then to the partition......

so i can go above that voltage if i wanna overclock right? 1.45v is good and safe enuff?

 

[Quiksilver]

Originally posted by: timot
dang that sux...... i had 3gb in my other computer and it sees full amount under My Computer. And the video card was 8600gt 250mb...

ok, so i guess i should transfer them to raptors first, then to the partition......

so i can go above that voltage if i wanna overclock right? 1.45v is good and safe enuff?

Well, like I said about the memory thing, 64 bit OS will let you use and see all 4GB. I would be interested in why you only see 2.8GB instead of 3GB limitation of 32 bit OS's, wonder what is addressed to the other 192/256MB.

That could be your best option, if the problem is indeed the hard drive, I suggest trying it with just a handful of files first to be sure.

When it comes to overclocking your mileage my vary but if you on air chances are you don't want to exceed 1.45V, it also helps to have the G0 revision of the q6600 (I would really hope the B3's are all sold by now).

 

[timot]

i heard that video card can take some of the allocated memory away, dont know where i heard this, but i thought video card has their own dedicated memory? how do i check what uses my memory that windows wont detect?

ok i'll try that method.

i have the g0 revision, but i dont understand what is the difference between stepping and revision, cz cpuz states my stepping B revision G0.... i m on air TRUE with 2 fans and a good airflow IMO.. i reali wanna hit 3.6ghz, so i can 1:1 to my memory (downgrade to 800MHz that is)

 

[Quiksilver]

Originally posted by: timot
i heard that video card can take some of the allocated memory away, dont know where i heard this, but i thought video card has their own dedicated memory? how do i check what uses my memory that windows wont detect?

i have the g0 revision, but i dont understand what is the difference between stepping and revision, cz cpuz states my stepping B revision G0.... i m on air TRUE with 2 fans and a good airflow IMO.. i reali wanna hit 3.6ghz, so i can 1:1 to my memory (downgrade to 800MHz that is)

I wouldn't know the answer to the first question but video cards to have the own dedicated memory.

As far as revisions, there's only 2 I believe, B3 and G0, G0 being the newer revision. G0 runs cooler, uses less power, has higher thermal ceiling, and overclocks better than B3 did. 9x 400 would give you the 3.6ghz @ 1:1 ratio with DDR2-800, now if you have say DDR2-1066 or something, you might be able to tighten the timings some sames you would be running the speed lower than what the sticks are rated for.

bryanW1995 and aigomorla would know more about quad core overclocking than I, so I would see if they pop into this thread.

 

[timot]

yeah i know there are only 2 steppings/revision, but look at this cpuz image i took off my office computer, it shows 2 different labels
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y161/t_mo_t/cpuz.jpg

except mine is B for stepping and G0 for revision.

yah, that is what i wanna achieve, getting my ddr2-1000 lower to 800 and have lower timings, but i m not sure if my q6600 cant handle that much fsb or my ram or my board.... cz my core temp max at 50C and i m sure i can push it some more when i lap cpu and TRUE, but yeah, we're getting off topic here.. haha... but yeah i think the HDD problem is solved now...

 

[Quiksilver]

G0 Stepping (as Intel calls it) = Revision G0 in CPU-Z

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: timot
i heard that video card can take some of the allocated memory away, dont know where i heard this, but i thought video card has their own dedicated memory? how do i check what uses my memory that windows wont detect?

ok i'll try that method.

i have the g0 revision, but i dont understand what is the difference between stepping and revision, cz cpuz states my stepping B revision G0.... i m on air TRUE with 2 fans and a good airflow IMO.. i reali wanna hit 3.6ghz, so i can 1:1 to my memory (downgrade to 800MHz that is)

windows 32 bit was never envisioned to use 4gb of ram. They use the last ~1.0gb or so for virtual memory mapping iirc. devices like video cards, audio cards, etc "virtually" take up part of your memory when you try to use 4gb on them.

 

[timot]

so basically, 3gb > 4gb(actually 2.8gb) on a 32-bit windows? =.="'

 

[timot]

ok... this is weird. I tried to transfer them to my raptors first, then to my seagate, went by pretty slow, but my comp didnt become slow.

So, i tried 3 folders at a time and damn it was fast, prob like 3-4 mins transfer. So i thought it might be a glitch the last time, so i cut 5 folders and transferred them, then it went by 3x slower.... so basically, it would go much faster if i do 3 folders at a time, but i just want to know why is it not linear but kinda exponential in terms of the time and the number of folders.....

anyway, yeah my windows onli shows 2.8gb where in my old pc i put 3gb on vista hp and it still detects them as 3gb..... i also wanna know why....

by the way, and now even if i transfer 6gb worth of files, my cpu wont reach 30%

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: timot
anyway, yeah my windows onli shows 2.8gb where in my old pc i put 3gb on vista hp and it still detects them as 3gb..... i also wanna know why....

Because your operating system is 32-bit, and it has only 4GB worth of address space, and everything in your entire case (that's being used) takes up a portion of that address space, including floppy drives, USB ports, SATA ports, parallel ports, serial ports, sound card, and video card. Although your video card has dedicated memory, it doesn't have dedicted address space, so you lose the capability to use the amount of RAM that's on the card. Put a 64MB video card in that system, and you'll "magically" have more than 3GB of system RAM left.*

*It's not nearly as simple as I made it sound here. For more information, feel free to read all 25 pages of this thread.

edit: And no, having less RAM is worse than having more RAM, 100% of the time.

 

[timot]

Humm i c..... so basically, all i have in my case is using up all my ram.... but how come i can see 3gb in my old pc running vista hp, but when i m running 4gb, i can see less than that?

 

[PolymerTim]

Originally posted by: timot
Humm i c..... so basically, all i have in my case is using up all my ram.... but how come i can see 3gb in my old pc running vista hp, but when i m running 4gb, i can see less than that?

Originally posted by: timot
dang that sux...... i had 3gb in my other computer and it sees full amount under My Computer. And the video card was 8600gt 250mb...

Originally posted by: timot
Btw, how come my vista HP onli sees my ram at 2.8GB? I m only using a 8800GT 512MB as video card.

Looking at your previous posts, I'd say it is simply because you also switched to a video card with more video RAM. If you install 4GB RAM into a 32-bit system, it is typical to only see anywhere from 2.8-3.3GB of it depending on what's in your system. Notice that range is about 0.5GB wide, which happens to be about the amount of RAM in upper end video cards. I think it is safe to say that your video card RAM primarily determines this typical difference.

With a 250MB video RAM, you probably had address space for about 3.0-3.1GB of RAM, so you saw all 3 GB. If you had upgraded to 4 GB RAM with that video card, you probably wouldn't have seen any increase in available RAM. Now that you have upgraded to an additional 256 MB of video RAM, it only makes sense that your available address space has gone down to about 2.8 GB.

Here's another link for more details on this topic if you're curious.
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

Essentially, your computer needs to assign an address to every block of memory in the entire computer, no matter where that memory is physically. This is because programs running on your computer need a single address system that can communicate with all te devices and their memory. A 32-bit system can only create addresses for 2^32 bytes (4 GB) of total memory. Apparently, when the system is assigning addresses, if their is more memory to address then available address space, the difference is taken out of your system RAM.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: timot
Humm i c..... so basically, all i have in my case is using up all my ram.... but how come i can see 3gb in my old pc running vista hp, but when i m running 4gb, i can see less than that?

Because you've doubled your VRAM (video card RAM). Put a 1GB card in your current system, and you'll lose another 512MB of system RAM.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: timot
EDIT: this problem occurs
http://i5.photobucket.com/albu...161/t_mo_t/problem.jpg

That error shouldn't be happening, no matter what speed your computer or HDs are. Something is wrong.

Did you install Vista SP1 yet?

 

[timot]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
Looking at your previous posts, I'd say it is simply because you also switched to a video card with more video RAM. If you install 4GB RAM into a 32-bit system, it is typical to only see anywhere from 2.8-3.3GB of it depending on what's in your system. Notice that range is about 0.5GB wide, which happens to be about the amount of RAM in upper end video cards. I think it is safe to say that your video card RAM primarily determines this typical difference.

With a 250MB video RAM, you probably had address space for about 3.0-3.1GB of RAM, so you saw all 3 GB. If you had upgraded to 4 GB RAM with that video card, you probably wouldn't have seen any increase in available RAM. Now that you have upgraded to an additional 256 MB of video RAM, it only makes sense that your available address space has gone down to about 2.8 GB.

Here's another link for more details on this topic if you're curious.
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

Essentially, your computer needs to assign an address to every block of memory in the entire computer, no matter where that memory is physically. This is because programs running on your computer need a single address system that can communicate with all te devices and their memory. A 32-bit system can only create addresses for 2^32 bytes (4 GB) of total memory. Apparently, when the system is assigning addresses, if their is more memory to address then available address space, the difference is taken out of your system RAM.

hummm but that was in my old pc and now i m using a whole brand new built up from scratch. My old pc was amd64 with 2x512mb + 2x1gb ddr400 = 3gb, and vista still sees it as 3gb under My Computer properties. I was using 8600gt 256mb in this old pc.

Originally posted by: myocardia
Because you've doubled your VRAM (video card RAM). Put a 1GB card in your current system, and you'll lose another 512MB of system RAM.

see above response...🙂

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
That error shouldn't be happening, no matter what speed your computer or HDs are. Something is wrong.

Did you install Vista SP1 yet?

Not yet, i thought the sp1 still has lots of bugs as well? should i update it?

 

[PolymerTim]

Originally posted by: timot
hummm but that was in my old pc and now i m using a whole brand new built up from scratch. My old pc was amd64 with 2x512mb + 2x1gb ddr400 = 3gb, and vista still sees it as 3gb under My Computer properties. I was using 8600gt 256mb in this old pc.

Hmmm, either you're not understanding us, or we're not understanding you. Let me make sure I understand the situation.

Old computer:
32-bit operating system
256MB video card
3GB system RAM installed
OS recognized 3GB

New computer:
32-bit operating system
512MB video card
4GB system RAM installed
OS recognized 2.8GB

If this is correct then the above posts (both mine and myocardia's) explain your situation and you haven't understood us. If the above is not correct, please clarify.

Originally posted by: timot

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
That error shouldn't be happening, no matter what speed your computer or HDs are. Something is wrong.

Did you install Vista SP1 yet?

Not yet, i thought the sp1 still has lots of bugs as well? should i update it?

Vista SP1 may not be perfect, but it's primary purpose is to correct bugs in Vista. I strongly recommend you upgrade to SP1, especially if you are having problems with bugs. 🙂

 

[timot]

yep, that's my new and old system spec.

ok, i've re-read yours and myocardia's posts, and still dont understand. Ok, let's say i use my 3gb and install the 512mb vid card, how much can i see in windows? and if i re-use my old 256mb vid card in my new system, how much would i see?

going to update to vista sp1 tonight.. 🙂

 

[Quiksilver]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim

Originally posted by: timot
hummm but that was in my old pc and now i m using a whole brand new built up from scratch. My old pc was amd64 with 2x512mb + 2x1gb ddr400 = 3gb, and vista still sees it as 3gb under My Computer properties. I was using 8600gt 256mb in this old pc.

Hmmm, either you're not understanding us, or we're not understanding you. Let me make sure I understand the situation.

Old computer:
32-bit operating system
256MB video card
3GB system RAM installed
OS recognized 3GB

New computer:
32-bit operating system
512MB video card
4GB system RAM installed
OS recognized 2.8GB

If this is correct then the above posts (both mine and myocardia's) explain your situation and you haven't understood us. If the above is not correct, please clarify.

Bolded is why you are seeing less memory within windows, 256MB more memory is being addressed than what was in your old computer.

Edit:
Now I see why you are confused because I am now too.
If you were using 3GB of memory and a 256MB card before, how come you weren't seeing it at 2.8GB on the old machine. While on the new one your limited to basically 3.3GB and your seeing 2.8GB after addressing. I mean I can see how 3.3GB is becoming 2.8GB after 512MB of address space, but shouldn't his older machine of been 2.8GB after 256MB of address space too? Does this have something to do with Intel's northbridge compared to AMD's on die memory addressing?

Edit 2:

shouldn't it be the same amount :/

3328 - 512 = 2816
3072-256 = 2816

 

[PolymerTim]

Ok, it's not really that complicated. The thing to remember is that you're not subtracting the 512MB from the amount of installed RAM, but rather from the 4GB address limit that is in place for all 32-bit systems regardless of how much RAM you have installed. I'm no expert and not sure how the numbers work out, but here is my hypothesis. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can confirm or clarify.

32-bit OS allows 4GB - 768MB (apparently for other things we are not considering) = 3.3GB - 256MB video card = 3.0GB available for RAM addressing.
-Scenario A: You install 3 GB system RAM. Since this is less than or equal to 3.0GB, your system sees all of it.
-Scenario B: You install 4 GB system RAM. Since this is more than 3.0 GB, your system only sees 3.0 GB of it because that is all the address space left after other system addresses.

Now you install a 512MB video card and the 3.0GB number above drops to 2.8GB. Now when you install 3GB memory, you only see 2.8GB. Upgrading to 4GB still only lets you access 2.8GB, because there is no address space left over for any more RAM. And as myocardia hinted at earlier, imagine if you put one (or two!) of those 1GB video cards in! (Note that SLI'd cards do not double the address space requirement since their video RAM is essentially duplicated with the same addresses).

I'm not certain about the numbers, but I'm pretty sure I've got the concept right. Maybe that 768MB for the system is comprised of many things that vary from one system to another... I really don't know.