Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Technical Support => Topic started by: Mobius_1 on October 01, 2008, 03:58:02 PM
-
Hello, I have just installed an AMD quad-core processor :aok and the game will not boot. I installed it, and every time i go to start it, it immediately quits and tells me to send an error report. Do I need to do the same type of thing as the dual core pcus? Please help...I've been away for months and can barely wait any longer.
Thanks
-
Yes, the quad core AMD's have the same issues as the dual-core AMD's.
But I think there is something else going on here. Typically the game does not crash like that. Thos crashes are normally related to drivers.
-
what drivers would be at fault?
-
Try pulling a dxdiag report and posting the top hardware portion here in this thread. That may help.
-
haha, i have not the slightest idea how to do that?
-
Windows desktop: Start->Run->DXDIAG. Save it as a test file, open it with Notepad and copy the contents, then paste it to a response here.
-
ok, i just realized that i forgot to install the vid drivers. I'll do that and then check back in
-
ok, i installed the vid drivers and it is still doing the same thing.
Time of this report: 10/1/2008, 19:45:18
Machine name: MURFF
Operating System: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (5.2, Build 3790) Service Pack 1 (3790.srv03_sp1_rtm.050324-1447)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Unknow
System Model: Unknow
BIOS: Default System BIOS
Processor: AMD Phenom(tm) 9600 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs), ~2.3GHz
Memory: 4096MB RAM
Page File: 356MB used, 5536MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.3790.1830 32bit Unicode
------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
DirectX Files Tab: No problems found.
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No sound card was found. If one is expected, you should install a sound driver provided by the hardware manufacturer.
Music Tab: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.
Network Tab: No problems found.
this is after the new drivers are installed. I have a sound card, but It is old and I'm not sure that it is x64 supported. my mobo has onboard sound
What should I do?
-
Im not sure the game will start if it cant find sound... and Windows isnt finding sound. In the very least you should run the game in Win98 compatibility mode which will solved the dual/quad core problem.
-
ou do not have to run in win 98 compatability mode. I have the same processor. You have an issue in your computer. Email diagnostic report to skuzzy he will let you know.
-
You need to install the native sound card drivers. The game will not run without a sound card installed.
-
AMD Phenom can run AH without using compatibility mode?
-
Theoretically, AMD was going to fix the clock issues which has been the problem with the dual-core family, but I thought those fixes were not coming until the end of the year.
I would like more confirmation about this,
-
Okay Skuzzy considering the source and all I believe more conformation will be slow in coming.
-
Let me clarify. I would like to hear from others who have the quad corre Phenom CPU about this before making changes to documentation.
-
Let me clarify. I would like to hear from others who have the quad corre Phenom CPU about this before making changes to documentation.
I am running an AMD Phenom 9850 Black Box edition under Winblows XP Pro and have NOT run AH in compability mode. I have been running it for about 5-6 months now without incident.
All the Best...
Jay
-
Thank you. <S>
-
SKUZZY,
I am running AMD 9850 black edition quad core. No problems with aces high at all and I actaully built it myself. LOL/ I think the fix has been addressed with tri core and quad core from amd.
AMD 9850 quad core(oc'd to 2.8g)
Thermaltake 760i liquid cooled(running 29 deg idle 34 deg full load)
MSI k9a2 motherboard
4g Corsiar CM2x2048 ram (800 oc'd to 1066)
Windows xp pro 32 bit
Nvidea gtx 280(1g)
Thermaltake 700w power supply
Seagate 3500320as sata 500g hard drive partitioned
-
My research indicates that AMD (the source I was indicating) is still selling quad core phenoms that have a bad core as a triple core phenom. So if it is the translation lookaside buffer (TLB) that causes the problem with AHII then X3 cores will still cause a problem and the kernel patch WILL NOT fix the problem which will force users to run in 98 compatibility mode.
This and other problems with AMD (that they are not open about) led me to the conclusion it was time to move into an Intel system.
-
quad cores have been fixed. As you see I am running same processor and have no problems. I do not think they had problems with tri core but I may be wrong. Been running 9850 for 4 months and perfect processor.
-
you may have other issues... In your software or drivers. You need to give skuzzy a ring. It is not your processor.
-
Challenge,
Your research is absolutely wrong about AMD quad cores. Although it is AMD's first try at quad core they got a nice rating for the price. Intel has pretty much owned the processor world for some time now. They are way ahead of AMD but... If you look at the price of the new intel technology they are a bit more pricey so thats why Amd's first gig was OK. All the duo and tri core issues haven't been a problem as my research has show. There have been 2 replies to this guys posts that have the 9850 and pooof no problems. The 9850 can be overclocked to 3.0g which is not bad but intels are racing at 3.0-3.5 right now which is at least 10% faster. The AMD northbridge does allow for much faster bandwith. I run my AMD 9850 at a nice 2.9g. This guy has a different problem.
-
You cannot compare Intel and AMD clock-for-clock. Intel's CPU's are now about 30% to 50% faster, clock-for-clock. If you price compare. You will find you are paying more for an AMD that performs the same as the Intel, and for more money, you can simply run away from AMD. For example, AMD has nothing, performance wise, to compete agains the Intel E8500 no matter what the price.
Quad core CPU's are a bit of a waste, unless you are doing real time video and/or audio encoding. Those are the major reasons for quad core, and there are a couple of other applications that could get 15% to 25% better performance from a quad core CPU, but for the price, the dual core CPU's offer far more band-for-the-buck to the general user. If you go top end, the dual core will simply blow away a quad core CPU in raw performance in most applications.
-
I stand by what I said.
-
I was just responding to challenges reply about the tri cores and quad cores having a bad core. Intels are much faster and there is no comparison. I would like to read any blog about the amd quad cores having a bad core.
-
I think you know how to use a search engine just like anyone else so I will link to just a single site and you can do any furhter searching yourself. It really pays to do some research on these things when you are responsible for the acquisition of equipment for the people that pay your salary.
Then we have Phenom. At 285 mm^2, Phenom is huge and AMD can't make that many per wafer, plus with such a large die the yield is lower than on a smaller chip. The triple-core Phenom X3 gives AMD something to do with those quad-core die that have a single defective core, rather than throwing the entire chip away it can now be repackaged and sold as a triple-core processors.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3293&p=2
-
No... really just post the link its rather easy.
-
No... really just post the link its rather easy.
:huh :huh While I am puzzled that you didnt seem to see the link I believe what you really want to do... in fact always seem to want to do... is to start an argument. Since I am not a moderator on these forums I will wait for Skuzzy to deal with you.
-
oooh i know how to use a search engine. I did 100 x more research than your post and never saw any blogs or posts in any forums so.... Why waste my time. If you want to back it up simply prove it. And it better not be an isolated cause like I suspect. If there is a problem I will simply "bow" down.
-
As I suspect English is not your native language (or one you are too young to have mastered yet) I will ignore your naive attempt to entice me into an argument. The problem I mentioned has been ongoing for some time (years) and even a poor search will find numerous discussions on the topic. I must therefore assume you replied falsely with pure lack of genuineness and so I will ignore everything you say in the future as non-germaine and non-substantive. Have a nice day.
-
Look dude give the blog or forum not looking for an argument. Plain and simple. Quit dancing.
-
Look dude give the blog or forum not looking for an argument. Plain and simple. Quit dancing.
Hey Dude, he did give it, bout 3 or 4 post ago............here it is below, quoted from his post .....
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3293&p=2
-
The original quad core design had performance problems. So instead of decreasing frequencies and increasing voltage like some manufacturers would do, they disabled 1 core and sold them as tri core(Again they were not defective). The problem is now fixed that is why they are now quad cores. If you read about the intel quad core the performance was about 8% greater with quad core opposed to duo core and they probably did some frequency or voltage correction to obtain that . This is all interpretation. The reply in this post was amd was shipping tri cores with a bad core. Its a disabled core and if the research was done fully... well I will leave it alone.
Intel has been much better in performance than AMD. I am not saying that AMD is better. I am very happy with the 9850 and it was a nice start for AMD in quad core technology and they were priced a bit under the Q6700. The new quad cores will be out soon from both AMD and Intel. It will be interesting to see how they fair.
AMD had good write ups with the venture into quad core. They scored decently. Most testers gave them about a 90% score as far as performance and a thumbs up.
-
Then we have Phenom. At 285 mm^2, Phenom is huge and AMD can't make that many per wafer, plus with such a large die the yield is lower than on a smaller chip. The triple-core Phenom X3 gives AMD something to do with those quad-core die that have a single defective core, rather than throwing the entire chip away it can now be repackaged and sold as a triple-core processors.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3293&p=2
-
sheesh a writers interpretation go to amd and read why they disabled 1 core. It is not a bad core(performance issue) or defective. This is old news. Anyway like i said the issue is fixed and these were used as tri cores like i said. It is all interpretation. Some body threw the word defective out there and it is being used. The original testing of the quad core had performance isses so AMD disabled 1 core.
They are indeed quad cores that have failed to meet standards so the bad core is disabled. This saves them from having to throw away otherwise perfectly good tri-core processors and make some money. Intel has been doing the same thing for many years turning failed Pentiums into Celerons typically with reduced clock speeds and memory cache. Same with the Semprons.
-
Thank you for finally acknowledging the situation.
-
That the cores WERE NOT BAD. Disabled for performance issues. Terminolgy and interpretation. Some dissed Intel many years ago for basically the same deal. AMD is trying and the new quads will be out soon. Hopefully they will catch up. I wish they would because AMD always seemed to put out a product that wa more affordable. Again the current quad cores got a decent review.
By the way,check your video card. I returned mine. Both gpus were not working(only 1 was working) on the 4870 x 2. I benchmarked higher with 2 (512) 3870's crossfired(15500 compared to 14700 with 3dmark06) I should have benchmarked 17000 - 18000 so I called Diamond. The tech acknowledged only 1 gpu was semed to work and we could not figure it out why(pc wizard and 3dmark showed both working).The benches were too low for a 2g card. The entire 3800 and 4800 series seems to have heat, bios, driver and gpu issues. Check amd forums and you will see a lot of problems. Remember, those posts only go back only so far. 1-3 months ago, there was litterally 5-10 posts a day on various issues. The card did out perform anything on the market but..... The Nvidea gtx280 seems to have absolutely no problems so I eexc'd the 4870 for the nvidea. Same deal for ATI, they always put a more affordable product than Nvidea.
-
I dont use 3Dmark06 but I do use games to see how video cards compare and on my new system using the 4870 X2 I tried FSX with all settings maxed and with Active Sky X loaded and X Graphics (DX10) too I normally get 47-57 fps which is as smooth as I have seen. Flying from the Auburn airfield is tougher and framerates drop to about 38-48 but all things considered I find that acceptable and far beyond anything the 8800s I was using could deliver (12-22 at Auburn).
AHII has always been at whatever the refresh rate of my monitor is (I typically use 60).
-
search your frame rates compared to gtx280 and other 4870's.. Also check temps... they are running in the 70's unless you have updated bios. If the frame rates are better than gtx280 you are good if not your paying for 2 gpu's and only using 1. I get a consistant 75 fps. In heavy heavy traffic, my frame rate went as low as 38 for a short time with the card maxed out with smooth as can be. I would check it out.
download video card stability test from this link its free quick d/l
http://freestone-group.com/video-card-stability-test.htm
I bench 478 fps with Nvidea gtx 280... With the 4870 x 2 I was benching barely 300fps. Let me know what your score is.