Is 4GB of RAM Enough

[TequilaChaser]

Brooke has a good point there. Your current system is on par with mine, although I don't know if your AMD CPU can use both cores. If not, that may be the culprit. A single core may suffer especially if all single core tasks have been allocated to that one.

However, knowing the number of your background processes might help.

You posted as I was typing to let him know I overlooked mentioning that his old CPU was most likely only using one core in AH

Vraciu, in the older AMD CPUs most every dual-core and at least 1/2 of some of the first quad-core CPUs, AH would only use one core.... I and Skuzzy have posted about this (along with others) but it boils down to basically instability in AMD's counter (I know that is not the correct terminology, I'd have to go look it up).. This basically causes AH to use a single core

Hope this helps and helps semi explain the AMD issue with older dual core and quad-core CPUs

TC

[Bizman]

Heh, TC, for once I beat some native English speaker in typing! 

Your explanation is far more exact than mine would have been.

[TequilaChaser]

Will that quad core run on my machine?   It’s a drop-in replacement?   Any BIOS trickery required?

I can only tell you that it would be a 50/50 chance of it using more than 1 core...

I know I have been able to use more than 1 core on that old AMD Q975 quad-core CPU I have as well as on my AMD FX4350 B.E. 4.2 GHz quad-core CPU build...

I still recommend cleaning up and tweaking your Windows 7 OS, and get your processes down in the 42 to 34 range....

TC

[Skuzzy]

How will I know if it works?   Is there a reason the second core is inop?

I up/downgraded to Windows 10.

Very old design flaw.  AMD failed to provide a dedicated high resolution timer for each core.  For applications which depend on a high resolution timer, such as Aces High, it meant the application could not use the other core(s) without corruption occurring.

AMD provided a work-around so applications, requiring those high resolution timers, could lock themselves into one core.

[Vraciu]

I can only tell you that it would be a 50/50 chance of it using more than 1 core...

I know I have been able to use more than 1 core on that old AMD Q975 quad-core CPU I have as well as on my AMD FX4350 B.E. 4.2 GHz quad-core CPU build...

I still recommend cleaning up and tweaking your Windows 7 OS, and get your processes down in the 42 to 34 range....

TC

I've had minimal processes running and still have the issue.  Sounds like, based on what you and Skuzzy posted, it's the CPU.

50/50...   I wonder why that is?  Same reason?

[Vraciu]

Very old design flaw.  AMD failed to provide a dedicated high resolution timer for each core.  For applications which depend on a high resolution timer, such as Aces High, it meant the application could not use the other core(s) without corruption occurring.

AMD provided a work-around so applications, requiring those high resolution timers, could lock themselves into one core.

Interesting.  Good info.   I'm in the market for a quad core at this point I guess.   May as well go to at least 8GB of RAM while I'm at it.

Windows 10 is doing okay, but I'm only using it so I can go to one of the newer gen CPUs.

[Vraciu]

This one, TC?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/AMD-Phenom-II-955-3-2-GHz-Quad-Core-Processor-Model-HDZ955FBK4DGM/162831209085?epid=96892233&hash=item25e97f127d:g:0lYAAOSwQcJZ7kUZ

[Brooke]

Even if it is using one core, you can see if that is OK.

Just run the task manager, click on performance, run your Aces High a bit, then go back and look at the CPU usage history.

If it is maxed out at 100%, could be CPU limited.

It it doesn't max out at all, then the issue likely isn't your CPU.

[Vraciu]

Even if it is using one core, you can see if that is OK.

Just run the task manager, click on performance, run your Aces High a bit, then go back and look at the CPU usage history.

If it is maxed out at 100%, could be CPU limited.

It it doesn't max out at all, then the issue likely isn't your CPU.

Will do.  Meanwhile I found a AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHz 95W that will work in this board.   That's gotta' be a huge step up.

[TequilaChaser]

I've always followed Skuzzy's advice regarding CPU speed and will not use anything less than a dual-core 3.2 GHz minimum or more preferable quad-core 3.2 GHz minimum (when helping build PC's over the years for different AH community members)

Depending on what you can afford....

Somewhere in this forum long ago, Skuzzy had made the recommendation of if possible to get at least a 3.0 GHz but more preferred 3.2 GHz... when selecting a CPU for building a new PC .... He made this recommendation way back when most people were still using single core CPUs and dual core CPUs were the next Big thing....

So for me, personally, I won't recommend any CPU less than 3.2 GHz regardless how many cores the CPU may have .... That goes for Intel as well as AMD CPUs

Even if you're stuck with using just one core being used by AH, an AMD 3.2 GHz  Dual-core will be strong and fast enough to keep you from having problems if you're using Windows 7 64bit or Windows 8/8.1 64bit OS

Hope this helps

TC

[TequilaChaser]

I've had minimal processes running and still have the issue.  Sounds like, based on what you and Skuzzy posted, it's the CPU.

50/50...   I wonder why that is?  Same reason?

You say you have had minimal processes running, but still have the problem?  Do a fresh boot and after your PC has been up and running for around 5 minutes, run a new DXDIAG report then copy and paste the top 1/3rd

Also, is this Computer of yours running Windows 7 64bit OS ? Windows 10 64bit OS? or do you have it configured as a dual-boot to boot up with either Windows 7 or Windows 10?

I noticed that you said you were using Windows 7 initially,  but recently think I saw where you posted that you are using Windows 10 also? 

My 50/50 response is because the only thing I know about your system is what I have read about it and I haven't seen it/researched your computer components among other things

50/50 is like a flip of the coin, I can't give you anything more than that for an answer

TC

[Vraciu]

I found a quad core 3.2 that should work on this board.   Gonna' try it.

I switched to Windows 10 via a free Win7 upgrade.

Figured it was worth a try.

[Vraciu]

Let me ask this...

Is a quad-core at 3.0 better than a dual core at 3.2?   On the surface I'd say yes, but perhaps I'm missing something.

[Skuzzy]

It just means your applications will run a tad slower, but should be able to run more applications at one time before bogging down.

[Drano]

V I'd add that your reason to go to Win10 in order to go to a newer CPU is a little flawed. CPUs, whether AMD or Intel, have changed their socket shapes over the years. If you have an older motherboard you're kinda stuck with whatever the max CPU that particular motherboard's socket will support. That's not gonna be one of the newer ones that only will work on Win10.

Better IMO to look for a newer CPU/Mobo combo that supports the newer CPUs and will allow more RAM. I'd say there's no need to break the bank. If you're not into overclocking don't go all high end. Just get what you need. Sounds like you have a decent enough video card. That's a good start especially with their prices.

Honestly from the beginning of this thread I thought 4gb of ram and a 64 bit OS a bit of a contradiction. Usually people go to the 64 bit OS so that they can utilize more ram which your mobo can't support at least as I'm understanding you. In your case going from Win7 to Win10 might actually hurt you as you'll have far less control over what's running in the background(which is a lot more) than you did with Win7. That right there is costing you clock cycles and available ram. I'll be keeping my win7/64 until I absolutely have to give it up.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk