System idle but CPU usage is high!!
in [Computer]
|
From: - Bobb - on 9 Jul 2010 09:35 "Colin Trunt" <colin(a)trunt.com> wrote in message news:yVuZn.11881$c85.6301(a)newsfe15.ams2... < snipped> > I though I had got rid of it by using only 1 gig of ram, and I had it went > away so I tried the other gig by itself and the problem reappeared, > worst thing is that it is the old 1 gig stick showing the problem now > not the new one so I cant even send it back as fault. > I guess running those tests should provide some answers. Test results ?? It's getting tough following this: title shows CPU yet issue is memory ? How about a brief summary of the situation as of now - and what didn't work. Also, right from your HP link I see: Video graphics are "Integrated" (on-board) so that's using some of your memory too. Someone didn't add a picture background to your display ??? If so, make the background NONE - just a color.
From: Colin Trunt on 9 Jul 2010 12:29 "- Bobb -" <bobb(a)noemail.123> wrote in message news:i178jq$eoe$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Colin Trunt" <colin(a)trunt.com> wrote in message > news:yVuZn.11881$c85.6301(a)newsfe15.ams2... > < snipped> >> 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 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 guess running those tests should provide some answers. > > Test results ?? > It's getting tough following this: title shows CPU yet issue is memory ? > How about a brief summary of the situation as of now - and what didn't > work. > Also, right from your HP link I see: > > Video graphics are "Integrated" (on-board) so that's using some of your > memory too. > Someone didn't add a picture background to your display ??? > If so, make the background NONE - just a color. > The CPU problem seemed to be related to badly installed memeory (probably) I have a grahics card with 1/2 a gg of memory. > >
From: - Bobb - on 9 Jul 2010 14:13 "using the back of a screw driver to apply pressure" !! I have had several PC's with DDR400 and none of them have a problem. You line up the memory stick in the slot, then push down slightly. IF it should bind at all ( make sure no obstruction under the levers) lift up on the lever edges as you push down and should ease right in. Maybe another pair of hands to help ? "Colin Trunt" <colin(a)trunt.com> wrote in message news:2wIZn.6591$mv6.73(a)newsfe25.ams2... > > "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message > news:i16age$ts2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Colin Trunt wrote: >> >>>>>>> Colin Trunt wrote: >>>>>>>> OK AMD 3800 X2 running XP. >>>>>>>> >> >>>> http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00378480&tmp_task=prodinfoCategory&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=uk&lang=en&product=1839474 >>>> >>>> >>>> * Four 184-pin DDR DIMM sockets >>>> * Supports dual channel, eight memory banks DDR 333/400 DDR DIMMs >>>> * Supports 2.5v DDR SDRAM DIMMs >>>> * Maximum HP/Compaq approved memory is 4 GB* without ECC >>>> >>>> It is a 939. >>>> >>>> I was running with a 256 meg stick in slot one an a 1 gig stick in slot >>>> 2 >>>> for a long time, i wondered if it would be better with one stick in >>>> there >>>> but well its 25% more memory and less paging. >>>> Now it will only be 12.5% more memory so not such a big increase. >>>> >>>> However I will try those memery benchmarks as I would be interested to >>>> see the results. >>>> The only problem is I have so much trouble getting the sticks into >>>> the slots, I think that may have been the cause of a lot of my >>>> problems, >>>> there are a lod of cables over the slots so it hard to see and hard to >>>> put >>>> pressure on the sticks to put them in properly, sometimes I think I >>>> might damage >>>> something!! >>>> Also I only have one really old back-up computer, howver so far I have >>>> not broken either yet (touch wood). >>>> >>>> It does seem to be running quite nicely at the moment though, very >>>> little paging, fan rarely comes on, nice and quiet. >>>> Still it has now gobbled up 90% of the memory but I think that >>>> is normal, it will use as much as it can. >>>> >>>> Will try those tests later. >>> >>> So it seems mine is set up as a matched pair at the moment, >>> although I do not know it what matched means, does it mean >>> the same size and type, or is there more to it than that. >>> They should be both 1 gig unbbuffered non-ecc. >>> >>> I guess running those tests should provide some answers. >>> >> >> Gobbling up 90% of memory isn't normal. I have 2GB of RAM on >> WinXP here, and a few minute ago, with Thunderbird and Firefox >> open, I was using 462MB. With your 1GB of RAM, that would be >> about half of it. > > > > > If you open a lot of windows it will use more, I think it just > leaves things in memory in case it need them again, > Try running a video youtube and see what that does to meemory. > > I currently have 770 mega avilalble but it I ran a lot of programs > it woudl eventualy gobble that up, especially it I was runnin diagnostic > programs and searchnig for a solution on the internet. > >> >> I still think something isn't right with your system, and >> that you should be looking more carefully in Task Manager, >> to see where the memory is going, and whether there is a >> memory leak. > > > > The things using memeory are Firefox and Chrome, but I > have 8 chrome and 2 firefox tabs open. > > > I also have something called jqs.exe, java quick starter, I don't > think I need this, I think I only have it because it has 'quick' in the > title. > I have killed it off and changed it's setting to not cache files, it had > been set to cache up to 1 giga byte. > I will see if that makes a diference to anything. > >> >> WinXP doesn't work the same way, as some of the later OSes. >> Some of those, make more usage of RAM, and show it that >> way in displays of status. But WinXP and Win2K don't do >> that here for me. Memory usage should be proportional to >> the usage the programs are making of it. The system >> component shouldn't be ballooning. >> >> ******* >> >> When you don't have documentation, on which slots hold the >> matched set, you can always test. And SuperPI can help you >> there. Try a DIMM configuration, and see how it benchmarks. >> >> With respect to the force required to seat modules, I have >> the most trouble with "low profile" Kingston modules. They >> have a high insertion force, that hurts my fingers when the >> modules finally seat. The lock latches on the ends, should both >> rotate into the upright position, if the thing is seated. And >> you might hear a bit of a click when it seats. > > Yes they hurt my fingers too, at one point I was using the back of > a screw driver to apply the pressure, not too sensible really. > >> >> Placing 1GB in one channel, and 256MB in the other channel, >> doesn't match them. So they'll operate in virtual single >> channel mode, at least, as long as the processor is Rev.E or >> later. >> >> If you were to place the 1GB and 256MB on the same channel >> (perhaps slot 1 and slot 3, not sure), the result would be >> even slower than just having 1GB in slot 1. When the bus >> has two loads on it, the memory clock rate is set a bit lower >> on S939 (could drop from DDR400 to DDR333). A user can tweak that, >> if the motherboard has adjustments. Whether it can be set more >> aggressively than the BIOS configures it, depends on the >> individual processor and the voltages involved. >> >> Another tool for detecting matching, might be CPUZ. It >> should be able to display "dual channel" or similar >> terminology, when showing your hardware details. Now >> that you don't have a matched set of RAM, then there >> isn't any chance of it saying "dual channel" or 128 bit >> mode. >> >> (Select one of the no-install versions) >> http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html >> >> The memory dimensions are rows, columns, banks, and ranks. >> The first three, occupy a single memory chip. The memory >> chip might have four banks, selected by BA bank bits. The >> rows, columns, and banks, account for the number of bits >> inside the memory chip. They put enough chips side by >> side, to build a 64 bit wide array, and that is a rank. >> A double sided module has room for two ranks. >> >> If you had a single sided, 8 chip, 1GB module, and a >> double sided, 16 chip, 1GB module, those modules would not >> match. > > I think I have two 16 chips modules, old 256meg module is > one sided. > >> An S939 processor would have to be set up, to run >> those sticks in virtual single channel mode. That's why, >> when buying the memory DIMMs, it pays to buy a pair in a >> package. >> >> Companies like Kingston have got into a bit >> of trouble with their customers, by forgetting about >> the matching thing, and just changing the module chip >> composition without telling anyone (as a function of >> which chip type is cheapest today). In fact, on some >> motherboards, where this practice resulted in customer >> returns on memory, they stopped recommending memory >> entirely for those motherboards, so it couldn't happen >> again. If you, as a customer, insist on buying DIMMs >> one at a time, then you have to put extra effort into >> it, to make sure your rows, columns, banks and ranks match. > > I > > >> Roughly speaking, if two modules had 16 chips, and they >> were 1GB total capacity, then chances are the dimensions >> are the same. With some RAM companies, you can't tell in >> advance, whether you're getting an 8 or a 16 chip module. >> Kingston used to be good about that sort of thing, and >> Kingston was one of the few companies that had datasheets >> for their retail products (complete with drawing of the module >> and info stating 64Mx8 for the chip). You used to be able to >> rely on the datasheet, to predict the module composition >> in advance. But there have been some products shipped, where >> they couldn't be bothered to update their documentation, >> which is a shame. If they want to play that game, it would >> have been simple enough to give the alternative products >> their own SKUs. They could price them independently, >> such that customers could decide whether they wanted the >> cheaper one, or wanted the other one because of its >> dimensions. >> > > Thanks, I am fairly sure mine should be matched, all dimensions > that are listed seem to be the same. > They are als in the same coloured slots which is necesary I belive. > > I have not got round to running the memeory tests stuff yet > but I will have a go later. > > > >> Paul > >
From: Paul on 9 Jul 2010 14:52 Colin Trunt wrote: > "- Bobb -" <bobb(a)noemail.123> wrote in message > news:i178jq$eoe$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Colin Trunt" <colin(a)trunt.com> wrote in message >> news:yVuZn.11881$c85.6301(a)newsfe15.ams2... >> < snipped> >>> 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 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 guess running those tests should provide some answers. >> Test results ?? >> It's getting tough following this: title shows CPU yet issue is memory ? >> How about a brief summary of the situation as of now - and what didn't >> work. >> Also, right from your HP link I see: >> >> Video graphics are "Integrated" (on-board) so that's using some of your >> memory too. >> Someone didn't add a picture background to your display ??? >> If so, make the background NONE - just a color. >> > > > The CPU problem seemed to be related to badly installed memeory (probably) > I have a grahics card with 1/2 a gg of memory. >> If you look at your Task Manager graphs, when there isn't any heavy user stuff running, are you still seeing one core running at 100%. Or is the system now, really "idle" ? Also, your statement about memory usage. You seem to be saying it follows program usage, which is good. If Chrome and Firefox aren't running, and the system is effectively idle, are you seeing 90% memory usage at that point in time ? Paul
From: Colin Trunt on 9 Jul 2010 16:19
"Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message news:i17r5m$5dn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Colin Trunt wrote: >> "- Bobb -" <bobb(a)noemail.123> wrote in message >> news:i178jq$eoe$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> "Colin Trunt" <colin(a)trunt.com> wrote in message >>> news:yVuZn.11881$c85.6301(a)newsfe15.ams2... >>> < snipped> >>>> 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 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 guess running those tests should provide some answers. >>> Test results ?? >>> It's getting tough following this: title shows CPU yet issue is memory ? >>> How about a brief summary of the situation as of now - and what didn't >>> work. >>> Also, right from your HP link I see: >>> >>> Video graphics are "Integrated" (on-board) so that's using some of your >>> memory too. >>> Someone didn't add a picture background to your display ??? >>> If so, make the background NONE - just a color. >>> >> >> >> The CPU problem seemed to be related to badly installed memeory >> (probably) >> I have a grahics card with 1/2 a gg of memory. >>> > > If you look at your Task Manager graphs, when there isn't any heavy user > stuff running, are you still seeing one core running at 100%. Or is the > system now, really "idle" ? Ot is OK now however before nothing was running, ie system idle 97% but one core was at 95%, however that problem now appear to be cured. Possibly related to badly seated memory or some other memery problem. > > Also, your statement about memory usage. You seem to be saying it follows > program usage, which is good. If Chrome and Firefox aren't running, and > the system is effectively idle, are you seeing 90% memory usage at > that point in time ? OK I kust closed chrome and firefox and memory available increased from 700 to 1400 meg > > Paul > |