Sstem idle but CPU usage is high!!
in [Computer]
|
From: Colin Trunt on 8 Jul 2010 14:03 OK AMD 3800 X2 running XP. Just installed an extra gig of ram, I had problems it it got some beeps, I reinstalled and booted up OK. ThenI notice one core is running 90% CPU when system is idle other core should a few % 1-5 rrange. In task manager, system idle shows 98% as it should becasue nothing is running however I am still getting shown CPU usage of about 50% overall ie one core running almost flat out and the other idle!! Help. I though I had got rid of it by using only 1 gig of ram, and I had it went away so I tried the other gig by itself and the problem reappeared, worst thing is is that it is the old 1 gig stick showing the problem now not the new one so I cant even send it back as fault. I am going to but the new 1 gig in again and see if the problem goes away again.
From: Colin Trunt on 8 Jul 2010 16:16 "Colin Trunt" <colin(a)trunt.com> wrote in message news:QpoZn.55362$cJ6.24855(a)hurricane... > OK AMD 3800 X2 running XP. > > Just installed an extra gig of ram, I had problems it it got some > beeps, I reinstalled and booted up OK. > > ThenI notice one core is running 90% CPU when system is idle > other core should a few % 1-5 rrange. > > In task manager, system idle shows 98% as it should becasue > nothing is running > however I am still getting shown CPU usage of about 50% overall ie > one core running almost flat out and the other idle!! > > > Help. > > > I though I had got rid of it by using only 1 gig of ram, and I had it went > away > so I tried the other gig by itself and the problem reappeared, > worst thing is is that it is the old 1 gig stick showing the problem now > not the new one so I cant even send it back as fault. > > > I am going to but the new 1 gig in again and see if the problem goes away > again. REsolved!! >
From: Paul on 8 Jul 2010 16:20 Colin Trunt wrote: > OK AMD 3800 X2 running XP. > > Just installed an extra gig of ram, I had problems it it got some > beeps, I reinstalled and booted up OK. > > ThenI notice one core is running 90% CPU when system is idle > other core should a few % 1-5 rrange. > > In task manager, system idle shows 98% as it should becasue > nothing is running > however I am still getting shown CPU usage of about 50% overall ie > one core running almost flat out and the other idle!! > > > Help. > > > I though I had got rid of it by using only 1 gig of ram, and I had it went > away > so I tried the other gig by itself and the problem reappeared, > worst thing is is that it is the old 1 gig stick showing the problem now > not the new one so I cant even send it back as fault. > > > I am going to but the new 1 gig in again and see if the problem goes away > again. > > The information shown in Task Manager, should have consistency, so check it again, to make sure you aren't mixing up some busy thing, versus some idle thing. Look in the Process list, for what is using the cycles. For an alternative tool, you can try Process Monitor. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx There are things that can loop in an OS, but I'd expect what you're seeing in Task Manager to add up in the "bank balance" sense. It is possible to turn the Task Manager display into nonsense, by installing your own Idle Task using something like RMClock. But if you were doing something like that, you'd remember setting that up. ******* And when you buy new memory, you should test it *before* booting into Windows. Bad memory can lead to registry corruption, as the registry can be read into RAM, corrupted, and then written back out later. Use a memory test program and run it for a couple complete passes. You could do a run, with just the good stick present. And a run with the bad stick present, just to confirm your suspicions. Then, one final run, with all the sticks present that will be your permanent configuration. No errors are acceptable. (Scroll half way down...) http://www.memtest.org/ Since System Restore in WinXP allows you to return to a time before the bad RAM was installed, you can repair your registry that way. But be careful, because System Restore tracks changes in areas other than "My Documents", and if you store your downloads outside that folder, using System Restore to an older date, could result in some downloads being lost. If in doubt, do a backup first, then run System Restore to a previous date in time (having the backup, you know you can't lose anything). You can "undo" a Restore point, if done in normal mode. But doing it in Safe Mode, you may lose the undo feature. And don't do that sort of stuff, until your memory is fixed :-) You need to keep those Restore points in good condition, for when your RAM is "known good". http://web.ncf.ca/ez554/Travel/Info/restore.jpg Paul
From: Colin Trunt on 8 Jul 2010 17:00 "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message news:i15bur$bm3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Colin Trunt wrote: >> OK AMD 3800 X2 running XP. >> >> Just installed an extra gig of ram, I had problems it it got some >> beeps, I reinstalled and booted up OK. >> >> ThenI notice one core is running 90% CPU when system is idle >> other core should a few % 1-5 rrange. >> >> In task manager, system idle shows 98% as it should becasue >> nothing is running >> however I am still getting shown CPU usage of about 50% overall ie >> one core running almost flat out and the other idle!! >> >> >> Help. >> >> >> I though I had got rid of it by using only 1 gig of ram, and I had it >> went away >> so I tried the other gig by itself and the problem reappeared, >> worst thing is is that it is the old 1 gig stick showing the problem now >> not the new one so I cant even send it back as fault. >> >> >> I am going to but the new 1 gig in again and see if the problem goes away >> again. > > The information shown in Task Manager, should have consistency, so check > it again, to make sure you aren't mixing up some busy thing, versus some > idle thing. Look in the Process list, for what is using the cycles. > > For an alternative tool, you can try Process Monitor. > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx > > There are things that can loop in an OS, but I'd expect what you're > seeing in Task Manager to add up in the "bank balance" sense. > > It is possible to turn the Task Manager display into nonsense, by > installing your own Idle Task using something like RMClock. But if you > were > doing something like that, you'd remember setting that up. > > ******* > > And when you buy new memory, you should test it *before* booting > into Windows. Bad memory can lead to registry corruption, > as the registry can be read into RAM, corrupted, and then written > back out later. Use a memory test program and run it for a couple > complete passes. You could do a run, with just the good > stick present. And a run with the bad stick present, just > to confirm your suspicions. Then, one final run, with > all the sticks present that will be your permanent configuration. > No errors are acceptable. > > (Scroll half way down...) > http://www.memtest.org/ > > Since System Restore in WinXP allows you to return to a time > before the bad RAM was installed, you can repair your registry > that way. But be careful, because System Restore tracks changes > in areas other than "My Documents", and if you store your downloads > outside that folder, using System Restore to an older date, could > result in some downloads being lost. If in doubt, do a backup first, > then run System Restore to a previous date in time (having the backup, > you know you can't lose anything). You can "undo" a Restore point, > if done in normal mode. But doing it in Safe Mode, you may lose > the undo feature. And don't do that sort of stuff, until your > memory is fixed :-) You need to keep those Restore points in > good condition, for when your RAM is "known good". > > http://web.ncf.ca/ez554/Travel/Info/restore.jpg > > Paul I would expect the system to do a memory test on start-up. Infact i think it does, I got beeps at start-up sometime, this was becasue I had badly seated memory. I am not sure of the numberof beep I powered off after 3 or 4. It might have been 1 long beeep repeated. Anyway the problem is cured, I woudl say when I had the CPU usage problems there were no beeps (IIRC). I think carefully inserting the memory properly may have been the cure. I also have a graphics card which is badly secured and that cause problems sometimes as it can become badly seated, however usually results in no boot-up at all just the fan on maximum speed and very loud which immediately make you want to poser off (at that stage only pulling out the plug will work, the power switch on the front will not work). Anyway, thanks for the help however it does seem to be cured for the time being, that stuff will come in useful in the future I think. Also I have to add the last stick of ram, the last 256meg I have never got it to boot with the full 1.0 + 1.0 + 0.256 = 2..256 GIG memory. I always got beeps with all three stciks in, I will have to carefully count the beeps next time, I have tendancy to just power off incase damage is being done. Maybe I was not seating the ram properly, I have great problems doing that. Also the mobo is dirty and full of fluff and dirt all covered in tobacco smoke deposits so that does not help, a bit of dirt will cause an open circuit it it gets in a slot. But I am OK at the momoent, I have both cores working properlly and 2 gig of ram, the last 256gig is not a major concern really, a marginal ammount extra.
From: Paul on 8 Jul 2010 20:06 Colin Trunt wrote: > "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message > news:i15bur$bm3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Colin Trunt wrote: >>> OK AMD 3800 X2 running XP. >>> >>> Just installed an extra gig of ram, I had problems it it got some >>> beeps, I reinstalled and booted up OK. > > I would expect the system to do a memory test on start-up. > Infact i think it does, I got beeps at start-up sometime, this > was becasue I had badly seated memory. > I am not sure of the numberof beep I powered off after 3 or 4. > It might have been 1 long beeep repeated. > > Anyway the problem is cured, I woudl say when I had the CPU > usage problems there were no beeps (IIRC). > I think carefully inserting the memory properly may have been > the cure. I also have a graphics card which is badly secured and that > cause problems sometimes as it can become badly seated, however > usually results in no boot-up at all just the fan on maximum speed and > very loud which immediately make you want to poser off (at that stage > only pulling out the plug will work, the power switch on the front will > not work). > > Anyway, thanks for the help however it does seem to be cured > for the time being, that stuff will come in useful in the future I think. > > Also I have to add the last stick of ram, the last 256meg I have > never got it to boot with the full 1.0 + 1.0 + 0.256 = 2..256 GIG memory. > > I always got beeps with all three stciks in, I will have to carefully count > the > beeps next time, I have tendancy to just power off incase damage is > being done. > > Maybe I was not seating the ram properly, I have great problems > doing that. > > Also the mobo is dirty and full of fluff and dirt all covered in tobacco > smoke deposits so that does not help, a bit of dirt will cause an open > circuit it it gets in a slot. > > But I am OK at the momoent, I have both cores working properlly > and 2 gig of ram, the last 256gig is not a major concern really, a marginal > ammount extra. > > I don't know the details of your motherboard (make and model), but I would recommend sticking with the 2x1GB configuration, and just leave the 256MB in your junk pile for now. On a dual channel capable motherboard, the 2x1GB can be plugged in, in a dual channel configuration. And that will do a better job on memory bandwidth. With AMD, there is a performance penalty due to bus loading, so some of the four stick configurations won't be quite as fast as a two stick configuration. It sounds to me, like you may have an S939 system, in which case I'd stick with the 2x1GB. If we go back far enough in time, there are revisions of S939 processor, that will ignore that third stick. As far as I know, Revision E or later, on S939, should be fully flexible (i.e. allow three sticks installed of four available), but there would still be a performance penalty associated with that. As an "inquiring mind", you should test your system in single channel and dual channel modes, to see what the impact is. Plug in a single 1GB stick. Run SuperPI benchmark, which has elements of CPU performance as well as memory performance. The 1 million digit benchmark has a 8MB memory footprint. The 32 million digit benchmark has a 256MB memory footprint. You want to run a test case, where the memory footprint is significantly larger than the processor cache (so any memory accesses while calculating PI, hit main memory). Now, plug in 2x1GB in dual channel, and repeat the same benchmark. How much difference did it make ? If the results are the same as with a single stick, you haven't put the two sticks in dual channel slots. Then, you could install the 256MB, and see what the third stick costs you in practical performance. You can get SuperPI benchmark here. http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/366/Super_PI_Mod_v1.5.html super_pi_mod.exe is 104,960 bytes and has an MD5SUM of ca977a1cd46b170ddea7adc4e19bd6ba . A virustotal.com scan of the file should take you here. http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/c6bfdcb2de4612103a132c956006dc993232e291eb180e846695fc8937b69932-1278443869 To understand that benchmark, you have to consider how it was built. It was written maybe 15 years ago, by a guy in Japan. The source code may have been lost. The original program, might not have given very accurate timings, due to the software method used to do timing. Someone modified the executable code file with a hex editor. They painstakingly added code, to make the program more robust (harder to create fake results), as well as increasing the digits of accuracy. And part of those efforts, may have resulted in the triggering of heuristic AV detection. I've been using that particular copy for some time. The benchmark used to be staged here, after it was hand modified. But it isn't there any more. http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip There may be a copy on archive.org , which snapshots the file when it was on Extremesystems. http://web.archive.org/*/http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip The MD5SUM of that one, seems to be the same. You really should use memtest86+, and test your memory :-) Have fun, Paul
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Which is better: Driver Detective or Driver Cure? Next: System idle but CPU usage is high!! |