weird computer problem

[deadrats]

as the title suggests, i ran into a weird issue with my computer that for the life of me i can't solve. today i decided to upgrade my cpu from a E7400 to a Q9550 (mother board is the gigabyte G31M-ES2L, claims it supports quad core cpu's) and so pulled out the old processor and dropped in the new one, thinking i would just have to update the HAL in order for windows to see all the cores on the new cpu.

everything went smoothly, i boot up the computer, launch task manager and notice that under "cpu usage history" (xp 64) it's only showing 2 graphs, meaning windows is only seeing 2 cores out of 4. ok, no big deal i think, i'll just go into msconfig, and change the /numproc value from 2 to 4 only to discover that the only options are 1 or 2 processors.

so, i figure i have to bite the bullet and decide to do an "upgrade" of windows, so i pop in the cd and 30 minutes later i have what i think is a properly configured windows installation only no such luck, it still only shows 2 cores.

son of a b#tch, i decide to do a windows repair install, so i boot from the cd and after another God knows how many minutes i am back at the desktop, check task manager and still only 2 cores are showing.

crap, i figure something must be misconfigured in the BIOS, i check, i can't see anything that would prevent windows from seeing all 4 cores.

i decide to blow away my current install and do a clean install of xp 64 and after about 40 minutes or so, as soon as the fresh install is back at the desktop i check task manager and mother flower, it still only shows 2 freaken cores!!!

now i start thinking that maybe the cpu is defective so i reboot the pc to see what the BIOS identifies the cpu as and everything seems to be ok, it sees it as a Q9550 @ 2.83ghz. then i decide to check something i should have thought of before, i go into device manager and check to see under "processors" to see how many cores device manager sees. guess what? it sees 4!!!

so here i am having effectively re-installed xp 64 3 times in the last 4 hours, having to reset everything up like i had it before and for the life of me i can't seem to understand why device manager would see all 4 cores but task manager and /numproc would only see 2 as being available.

i have scoured microsoft's knowledge base and i have installed the latest drivers and updates for everything, and yet still i can't get task manager to see all 4 cores.

so, does anyone have any ideas before i start hitting my head against the wall?

[redwudz]

Have you upgraded the BIOS? That would have been what I would have checked first when changing CPUs. If you have, write down any BIOS settings you have customized and reset the BIOS to default via jumper or pulling the BIOS battery and try it again. The problem sounds like it's in firmware, not software or the OS.

[Dv8ted2]

The BIOS was my first thought as well. You may need to upgrade the BIOS to fully utilize all four cores.

[budz]

Go to the mobo bios and DISABLE CPU Enhanced Halt (C1E), CPU Thermal Monitor 2 (TM2), CPU EIST Function, & Virtualization Technology. Make sure CPU Multi-Threading is ENABLED. Then hit F10 to save and reboot. See then if all 4 cores show up.

NOTE: Don't ever upgrade the mobo bios via windows. Always use QFLASH.

I own the same mobo that's actually gonna be sent back to Gigabyte for a repair. It was my fault for not checking out the mobo well when I first got it from Newegg. I was busy building another pc for a relative and put my stuff on the back burner. I did a build with it last year and the mobo was amazing able to overclock ddr2-800 ram to 1066mhz. All I did was up the fsb.

[minidv2dvd]

like the other guys said, unless you have upgraded the motherboard bios to the latest stable version F8 or beta F9c, that cpu isn't supported.

[deadrats]

Have you upgraded the BIOS? That would have been what I would have checked first when changing CPUs. If you have, write down any BIOS settings you have customized and reset the BIOS to default via jumper or pulling the BIOS battery and try it again. The problem sounds like it's in firmware, not software or the OS.

when i first read this i thought "of course, how could i be so stupid?", but i just downloaded and loaded up the latest BIOS and still the same symptoms, i did notice that the wording that gigabyte used for this motherboard is "Intel Core 2 multi-core and upcoming 45nm processors" which means this is a fairly old motherboard.

i just updated to the latest stable BIOS but still no dice, i downloaded CPU-Z to see what it says and it identifies the cpu as a Q9550 @ 2.83Ghz but it also only sees 2 cores and only sees 6mb L2 cache, it's like half the processor isn't even there.

so i'm wondering if it's possible the cpu is on fact defective, but i really doubt it because it's performing the way i would expect a Q9550 to perform: i.e doing a divx encode at 3mb/s at "insane" quality settings the E7400 would take roughly 2.5 hours to convert a 27 min 46 sec 1920x1080p to 720x480 16:9, this cpu does the same encode in roughly 1.5 hours, i find it hard to believe only 2 cores are working and a small speed bump from 2.8ghz to 2.83ghz, with a modest jump in fsb (1066 versus 1333) and a doubling of L2 cache resulted in that kind of performance jump.

i just don't get it, i really don't think the chip is defective, i think you are most likely right and these clowns at gigabyte don't fully support quad core penryns with this board despite their claims that they do.

bastards.

[budz]

like the other guys said, unless you have upgraded the motherboard bios to the latest stable version F8 or beta F9c, that cpu isn't supported.

That may not be true because that mobo is actually a revision of G31M-S2L. The only difference between the models is the G31M-ES2L just has the energy feature. As I stated in my first post those things I mentioned has to be disabled/enabled before all the cores will show up. When I got my first Core 2 duo E2160 it only showed one core. I checked out other computer forums and saw that those items in the mobo bios had to be disabled/enabled before all cores will show up in windows.

[budz]

Have you upgraded the BIOS? That would have been what I would have checked first when changing CPUs. If you have, write down any BIOS settings you have customized and reset the BIOS to default via jumper or pulling the BIOS battery and try it again. The problem sounds like it's in firmware, not software or the OS.

when i first read this i thought "of course, how could i be so stupid?", but i just downloaded and loaded up the latest BIOS and still the same symptoms, i did notice that the wording that gigabyte used for this motherboard is "Intel Core 2 multi-core and upcoming 45nm processors" which means this is a fairly old motherboard.

i just updated to the latest stable BIOS but still no dice, i downloaded CPU-Z to see what it says and it identifies the cpu as a Q9550 @ 2.83Ghz but it also only sees 2 cores and only sees 6mb L2 cache, it's like half the processor isn't even there.

so i'm wondering if it's possible the cpu is on fact defective, but i really doubt it because it's performing the way i would expect a Q9550 to perform: i.e doing a divx encode at 3mb/s at "insane" quality settings the E7400 would take roughly 2.5 hours to convert a 27 min 46 sec 1920x1080p to 720x480 16:9, this cpu does the same encode in roughly 1.5 hours, i find it hard to believe only 2 cores are working and a small speed bump from 2.8ghz to 2.83ghz, with a modest jump in fsb (1066 versus 1333) and a doubling of L2 cache resulted in that kind of performance jump.

i just don't get it, i really don't think the chip is defective, i think you are most likely right and these clowns at gigabyte don't fully support quad core penryns with this board despite their claims that they do.

bastards.

Did you even try what I posted earllier? My bet is your Q9550 is not the culprit nor is the G31M-ES2L mobo which isn't that old. Go into the mobo bios and disable/enable what I said in my other post. Only then will I truly believe there's something wrong with the mobo or the Q9550. What's the stepping on the Q9550? E0 or C1? I also own a Q9550 cpu.

[Bjs]

Worth working ... Open device manager, select the item shown under computer and update
the driver and reboot.

[deadrats]

Did you even try what I posted earllier? My bet is your Q9550 is not the culprit nor is the G31M-ES2L mobo which isn't that old. Go into the mobo bios and disable/enable what I said in my other post. Only then will I truly believe there's something wrong with the mobo or the Q9550. What's the stepping on the Q9550? E0 or C1? I also own a Q9550 cpu.

i absolutely did, no effect. i updated the BIOS to the both the latest non-beta version and the current beta version, no effect.

then i decided to shut it down, shut down the power supply via the switch on the back of it, and that's when the "fun" started and by "fun" i mean my computer refused to start up again. if i hit the power button enough times the cpu fan would spin up for about 10 seconds, making me think it would boot and then bam! it would just power off again.

after messing around with it for the past 1/2 hour i decided to pop in my E7400 again and make sure everything worked fine and sure enough, boot up on the first try and in fact that's the machine i am posting from right now.

as for the stepping it's an E0.

now i'm trying to decide whether to simply return this or buy a new motherboard and take the chance that all this is a simple compatibility problem.

[deadrats]

Worth working ... Open device manager, select the item shown under computer and update
the driver and reboot.

tried that too, no effect.

i've never had this many problems upgrading a cpu, the board has the latest bios revision, the chipset and board supposedly support this cpu, yet now the damn combo won't even boot up.

pisses me off so hard i almost can't see the vodka i'm about to gulp down.

[budz]

now i'm trying to decide whether to simply return this or buy a new motherboard and take the chance that all this is a simple compatibility problem.

Don't buy a new motherboard since your E7400 works. IMHO it sounds like the Q9550 is defective you should RMA the Q9550 back to where ever you purchased it from. Newegg has a 7 day policy on CPU'S for full refund...or within 30 days a replacement can be made.

Once at the advice of a Gigabyte tech dude he told me to RMA back to Newegg a E8500 that had a unusual high cpu temp. Because along with that cpu I also had a brand new Gigabyte mobo and it would have been a PITA to figure out if it was the cpu or the mobo that was defective. He told me it was easier to just RMA the cpu and mobo back to Newegg for a refund.

[RabidDog]

Get yourself a a Nice Linux live CD or even a copy of the windows 7 Thing. Load that up and check with a different OS that the Cpu really has four working cores. Cant say I am surprised as despite their somewhat glowing? rep I have found Gigabyte to be less than stellar ... My own MB wont overclock worth a damn and to cap all that hardly any newer CPU's are supported.
One of which IS the q9550, so if you want to get rid??

[budz]

^^^On my Q9550 I run XP PRO w/SP3 on it with no problems in recognizing all 4 cores. It's also on a Gigabyte E45-UD3P motherboard. From what I gather at overclock.net the nvidia chipset mobo's aren't the best for overclocking Quads.
Get a UD3P or a UD3R mobo for your Q9550 and you'll be able to overclock it well.

[ocgw]

I have held my peace up until this point but...

I run a Gigabyte AMD board and I get 3.8Ghz out of a AMD Quad cpu and have reigned supreme and unchallenged in these forums w/ the highest fps in the x264 benchmark to date, highest oc on air, and fastest BD Rebuilder screen shot, so I seriously doubt Gigabyte or AMD is your problem

I do feel however that XP could be limiting factor in this case, too bad you aren't running Vista, I know that would cost, but you could run Windows 7 for free right now

Then you could stick in a cheap F'n POS memory stick and w/ memory boost have 8 gigs of memory. problem solved, schedule the "ticker tape parade", johnny will be comin' home

Horah!, Horah!

then you could "be like mike"

in my most freackin' humble of opiniions

ocgw

peace

[budz]

I do feel however that XP could be limiting factor in this case, too bad you aren't running Vista, I know that would cost, but you could run Windows 7 for free right now

Odd because I run XP PRO w/SP3 on my Q9550 system and I have no problems at all with it seeing all 4 cores.

[ocgw]

I do feel however that XP could be limiting factor in this case, too bad you aren't running Vista, I know that would cost, but you could run Windows 7 for free right now

Odd because I run XP PRO w/SP3 on my Q9550 system and I have no problems at all with it seeing all 4 cores.

Lol I was drinkin' scotch last night and I read guys bad mouthin' AMD and Gigabyte and "went off"

I was commenting solely on the amount of memory not on the main problem of recognizing all the cpu cores

ocgw

peace

[deadrats]

I do feel however that XP could be limiting factor in this case, too bad you aren't running Vista, I know that would cost, but you could run Windows 7 for free right now

i appreciate all the help everyone has offered but xp is most definitely not the problem, i used to run xp with my athlon 9500 (quad core) with no problems, xp 64 supports 2 physical sockets but within each socket there is no practical limit to the number of cores (it actually maxes out at 256 cores, regardless of whether it's 1 socket or 2 that are used).

furthermore the fact device manager saw all 4 cores should be a clear indication that xp 64 is capable of using quad (and above) cores.

regardless, i return the cpu and received a full refund, which may turn out for the best because i found out today from another computer hardware reseller that all intel cpu's will be getting a price cut within the next 2 weeks and it's supposed to be a pretty decent cut, so maybe i'll pick up a really cheap Q8200 for the time being since i plan on going with clarkdale sometime early next year, i.e. after prices on those start coming down.

[deadrats]

I do feel however that XP could be limiting factor in this case, too bad you aren't running Vista, I know that would cost, but you could run Windows 7 for free right now

Odd because I run XP PRO w/SP3 on my Q9550 system and I have no problems at all with it seeing all 4 cores.

Lol I was drinkin' scotch last night and I read guys bad mouthin' AMD and Gigabyte and "went off"

I was commenting solely on the amount of memory not on the main problem of recognizing all the cpu cores

ocgw

peace

that must have been a shit load of scotch because nobody other than you mentioned AMD, the Q9550 is an intel processor and as for the memory, xp 64 supports up to 128 gigs of ram and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, so i fail to see how that could be the issue.

[budz]

regardless, i return the cpu and received a full refund, which may turn out for the best because i found out today from another computer hardware reseller that all intel cpu's will be getting a price cut within the next 2 weeks and it's supposed to be a pretty decent cut, so maybe i'll pick up a really cheap Q8200 for the time being since i plan on going with clarkdale sometime early next year, i.e. after prices on those start coming down.

The Q8200 is $119.99 at Microcenter.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0309580

If you can wait 2 weeks get the Q9550 or Q9400 and you won't regret it.

[DarrellS]

ocgw, those i7's @ 2.8Ghz are encoding x264 at 26.63 fps. That's a lot faster than the Phenom II 940 @ 3.8 Ghz with 21.87 fps. My Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz encoded at 22.71 fps. That's comparable to the Phenom II 940 @ 3.8Ghz. You're gonna have to up your clock or get an i7 if you want to be the x264 benchmark king.

My friend has a 920 i7 on a Gigabyte GA-EX58. I'd like to see his encode speeds at 3.8Ghz but I can't talk him into doing even a mild clock. Wish I could afford to build one.

Gigabyte boards are great for overclocking. With a better cooler, I'm sure I could get 3.8Ghz easily out of this chip. Not bad for a 2.4Ghz chip.

[ocgw]

I do feel however that XP could be limiting factor in this case, too bad you aren't running Vista, I know that would cost, but you could run Windows 7 for free right now

Odd because I run XP PRO w/SP3 on my Q9550 system and I have no problems at all with it seeing all 4 cores.

Lol I was drinkin' scotch last night and I read guys bad mouthin' AMD and Gigabyte and "went off"

I was commenting solely on the amount of memory not on the main problem of recognizing all the cpu cores

ocgw

peace

that must have been a shit load of scotch because nobody other than you mentioned AMD, the Q9550 is an intel processor and as for the memory, xp 64 supports up to 128 gigs of ram and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, so i fail to see how that could be the issue.

I was mixing 2 different threads in my head

ocgw

peace

[ocgw]

ocgw, those i7's @ 2.8Ghz are encoding x264 at 26.63 fps. That's a lot faster than the Phenom II 940 @ 3.8 Ghz with 21.87 fps. My Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz encoded at 22.71 fps. That's comparable to the Phenom II 940 @ 3.8Ghz. You're gonna have to up your clock or get an i7 if you want to be the x264 benchmark king.

My friend has a 920 i7 on a Gigabyte GA-EX58. I'd like to see his encode speeds at 3.8Ghz but I can't talk him into doing even a mild clock. Wish I could afford to build one.

Gigabyte boards are great for overclocking. With a better cooler, I'm sure I could get 3.8Ghz easily out of this chip. Not bad for a 2.4Ghz chip.

Chit I am the x264 benchmark King as I am the only poster to top 80fps lol (if you let me tell the story)

but i will begrudgingly admit that performance on the 2nd pass is more important than performance on the first pass

I believe I have rung all the performance out of my Phenom II that I am going to get, and I not dissappointed

still not bad for a sub $200USD cpu, running on recycled DDR2

btw good luck to you deadrats

ocgw

peace

[deadrats]

regardless, i return the cpu and received a full refund, which may turn out for the best because i found out today from another computer hardware reseller that all intel cpu's will be getting a price cut within the next 2 weeks and it's supposed to be a pretty decent cut, so maybe i'll pick up a really cheap Q8200 for the time being since i plan on going with clarkdale sometime early next year, i.e. after prices on those start coming down.

The Q8200 is $119.99 at Microcenter.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0309580

If you can wait 2 weeks get the Q9550 or Q9400 and you won't regret it.

i went ahead and picked up the Q8200 (was going to get the Q9400 for $130 but they sold out of them before i even found out about the sale) thinking i might have better luck with that cpu, but guess what? still the same shit, obviously both the Q9550 and this processor can't possibly be defective, so clearly this motherboard doesn't support quad core cpu's despite what they claim on their website.

i still dropped gigabyte's tech support a line to see what they have to say about this but haven't gotten a response yet.