Aces High Bulletin Board

Help and Support Forums => Technical Support => Topic started by: CAP1 on February 17, 2009, 09:20:21 AM

Title: possible stupid question
Post by: CAP1 on February 17, 2009, 09:20:21 AM
hi guys, geeks, and gurus(well, the geeks and gurus are one and the same, so i say that with all respect  :D)

anyway, just got a new machine.

amd athalon dual core processor 6000+
3.01 ghz, 2 gig ddr3 ram, 80 gig hard drive, and it's a high rpm one, but i forget exactly what speed.....the guy that built it for me knew though, that my only concern with this machine was aces high though.

geforce 8600gt with 256mb, although he had told me it was made by asus?

got an acer 22" lcd monitor with it.


anyway, i d/l'd the game last night, installed, and opened the main screen. it was flashing colors and grey, and the clipboard was kinda sorta spinning.

so......i read about the driver update, which i will try tonight if i get home early enough, but what else should i do to fix this? or what else can i do to take full advantage of the new system?


thanks guys!!

john
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: ImADot on February 17, 2009, 09:32:41 AM
AMD dual-cores have a hardware bug, so you'll have to run AH2 in compatibility mode, or disable one core to play.  Search for "Spinning Clipboard" or look at Skuzzy's stickied posts.
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: emanonpettes on February 17, 2009, 09:57:43 AM
You may also want to read a post that is a bit further down "skuzzy help, new system keeps freezing up".

I was in the same boat, and read that link, which in turn led me to this forum link....

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,199451.0.html

Which led me to the AMD site....

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_13118,00.html

Where you will find the dual core optimizer patch vesion 1.1.4.  This is what ultimately led to my game not freezing up, or showing gray looking screens with the spinning clipboard.

Hope this helps.

 
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: CAP1 on February 17, 2009, 10:41:38 AM
cool/.....i'll chec k these all out.......but on dot's suggestion....if i disable one core....won 't i be hurting myself performance wise?

thanks!

john
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: ImADot on February 17, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
You shouldn't see any difference.  I think I read somewhere recently (perhaps in the aforementioned Skuzzy-help post) that the second core helps with background downloads and without it you would see little freezes and/or warping during skin downloads, etc.  I believe most of the performance is realized in good graphics and sound cards which free up the bulk of the CPU's tasks.
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: Denholm on February 17, 2009, 01:30:51 PM
If you have Windows XP (Pro, Home, Media, etc...) SP3 you have the dual-core patch. Just make sure to run the game in compatibility mode, Win 98 compatibility mode to be precise.
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: CAP1 on February 17, 2009, 09:41:24 PM
If you have Windows XP (Pro, Home, Media, etc...) SP3 you have the dual-core patch. Just make sure to run the game in compatibility mode, Win 98 compatibility mode to be precise.

the machine does have windoz xp service pack 3.

 i tried the things in skuzzys sticky, on my shop puter. that was screwing up when i tried to watch a film.......did the windows update, and did the amd updat thing......the film viewer works fine now on that one. when i get home, i;ll be trying it out on that machine.

thanks!

think i'll try the easy way first, and set it to compatability as you suggest.

thanks guys!
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: CAP1 on February 18, 2009, 12:22:59 AM
If you have Windows XP (Pro, Home, Media, etc...) SP3 you have the dual-core patch. Just make sure to run the game in compatibility mode, Win 98 compatibility mode to be precise.

ok.....i set it up to run in windows98 compatability mode. it got me in, but it was like......uumm......like an inchworm. it would haul bellybutton for a few seconds, then come to a screeching halt. then run fast again, then halt......a few seconds of each. it only does it in the game, nowhere else.



i then installed the amd patch from skuzzys post, and still the same thing. i did not install the windows patch as i have xp sp3 on this machine.

 anything else i can try?


thanks!!
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: Denholm on February 18, 2009, 08:34:38 AM
Try the Windows Patch. If it is a critical update it's typically something you want on your system. However there are those few times when you have to dodge some updates for the purpose of keeping certain software applications running. For instance a game I played called, "Free Allegiance" would generate a fatal error if you had .NET Framework 1.1 (with the hotfix) and .NET Framework 2.1 (SP1) installed. So I had to avoid the SP1 update for the .NET Framework 2.0 to keep the game running.

However I don't think you'll have to avoid any updates to play AH. Hopefully you get it fixed, sounds like a real pain.
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: emanonpettes on February 18, 2009, 09:56:10 AM
If you have the SP 3 the hotfix patch (kb896256) will not install.  You will get a message saying the service pack you are using has a more recent version.

I'm at a loss where to go from here for you.   The dual core optimizer (ver. 1.1.4) seemed to be the ticket to getting my machine back to where it needed to be.  Did you try NOT playing in compatability mode with the amd patch?  I was going to try that as my last resort, but did not need to as the patch seems to have worked.

At this point I'm at the end of my "experience".   Good Luck!
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: skribetm on February 18, 2009, 10:04:17 AM
maybe you minimized the program during the first run when it was caching the planeset/textures? when i did that last time the clipboard did funky stuff so i had to reinstall.

i'd update windows xp, nvidia drivers but leave the AMD cpu alone as the windows update shouldve fixed the issue.

ever tried a clean reformat and reinstall?

good luck and hope to hear you fix it soon.

Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: AirFlyer on February 18, 2009, 12:40:43 PM
Seems they got the driver issue under control, on an other note I was under the impression the old AMD dual-cores couldn't utilize DDR3 memory, I could be wrong on this.
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: Skuzzy on February 18, 2009, 12:48:21 PM
I am not aware of any AMD dual-core CPU which can use DDR3 memory.  The first AMD CPU to support DDR3 (with some bugs/limitations) is the Phenom II CPU's.
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: CAP1 on February 18, 2009, 01:34:06 PM
I am not aware of any AMD dual-core CPU which can use DDR3 memory.  The first AMD CPU to support DDR3 (with some bugs/limitations) is the Phenom II CPU's.

HHMMM.......
does the type of ram show in the dxdiag? i could've sworn that he said ddr3. would it not run at all, or would it do silly stupid stuff like this?

he's told me that he runs diablo? on his machine, which is the exact setup as mine, with no problems.

thanks again guys.....
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: skribetm on February 18, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
I am not aware of any AMD dual-core CPU which can use DDR3 memory.  The first AMD CPU to support DDR3 (with some bugs/limitations) is the Phenom II CPU's.

i'm not sure what bugs skuzzy is talking about, 'coz just yesterday a $229 AMD CPU with DDR3 just laid the hammer down on a $1000 Nehalem Core i7 extreme.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3659852&postcount=180 (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3659852&postcount=180)

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/462737-xs-team-finland-phenom-ii-3dmark.html (http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/462737-xs-team-finland-phenom-ii-3dmark.html)

..oops, forgot the youtube vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwkzY8a8aFs&fmt=22 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwkzY8a8aFs&fmt=22)

Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: CAP1 on February 18, 2009, 02:55:36 PM
I am not aware of any AMD dual-core CPU which can use DDR3 memory.  The first AMD CPU to support DDR3 (with some bugs/limitations) is the Phenom II CPU's.

i just hung up with gary(the guy that built this). i misunderstood. not ddr3 ram......but i',m not home yet either.
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: Skuzzy on February 18, 2009, 04:08:44 PM
i'm not sure what bugs skuzzy is talking about, 'coz just yesterday a $229 AMD CPU with DDR3 just laid the hammer down on a $1000 Nehalem Core i7 extreme.

Here (http://www.techpowerup.com/84955/Phenom_II_AM3_Plagued_with_DDR3-1333_Issue.html) is the report.

Here (http://www.techpowerup.com/85093/AMD_Clarifies_Erratum_379__DDR3-1333___More_Than_a_Fix_in_Works.html) is the erratum explanation details.

Thought it was common knowledge.
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: skribetm on February 18, 2009, 04:14:31 PM
Here (http://www.techpowerup.com/84955/Phenom_II_AM3_Plagued_with_DDR3-1333_Issue.html) is the report.

Here (http://www.techpowerup.com/85093/AMD_Clarifies_Erratum_379__DDR3-1333___More_Than_a_Fix_in_Works.html) is the erratum explanation details.

Thought it was common knowledge.

step ahead of you skuzz.

if you've ever built AMD systems, the AM2+ platform is also limited to one DDR-2 1066/channel, otherwise, if all 4 mem slots were filled with DDR-2 1066 RAM they would all be underclocked to 800MHz.

it is the same in this case, DDR3 use is limited to one per channel, otherwise they would be underclocked to 1066MHz.

see the parallels?

the intel marketing machine is at work calling this a "bug" again, when it is certainly the way previous gen AMD motherboards have been designed.

ya like the video i posted?

 :D
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: Skuzzy on February 18, 2009, 04:30:24 PM
Just because it is a consistent error does not make it any less of a bug.  It is not a motherboard design issue.  It is a memory controller design flaw, according to AMD.

AMD confirms the issue as stated by the revision guide document, and is indeed working on a solution. The issue does not affect, in any way, using one DDR3-1333 memory module per channel

I cannot see anything at youtoob.  Security reasons.
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: CAP1 on February 18, 2009, 04:58:15 PM
i'm gonna continue with the stupid questions.


would the ingame resolution being different than my monitor resolution, hurt my performance? or possibly cause these problems?
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: skribetm on February 18, 2009, 05:00:51 PM
Just because it is a consistent error does not make it any less of a bug.  It is not a motherboard design issue.  It is a memory controller design flaw, according to AMD.

AMD confirms the issue as stated by the revision guide document, and is indeed working on a solution. The issue does not affect, in any way, using one DDR3-1333 memory module per channel

I cannot see anything at youtoob.  Security reasons.

it's all a matter of perception, skuzz.

sure if amd went about designing the AM3 platform to handle 4 ddr3-1333's but could only run 2(at 1 per channel), i would rightly call it a bug. but having set forth to design it to handle only one ddr3/channel, and achieved it, is hardly a bug in my dictionary.

Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: Skuzzy on February 18, 2009, 05:03:28 PM
Not perception.  What I put up in bold is what AMD said.  They seem to perceive it as a bug as well or they would not be working on a solution.
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: skribetm on February 18, 2009, 05:07:50 PM
Not perception.  What I put up in bold is what AMD said.  They seem to perceive it as a bug as well or they would not be working on a solution.

now what a way to shoot themselves in the foot!   :devil
Title: Re: possible stupid question
Post by: Denholm on February 19, 2009, 08:32:53 AM
i'm gonna continue with the stupid questions.


would the ingame resolution being different than my monitor resolution, hurt my performance? or possibly cause these problems?
Depends on if your monitor can handle it or not. The higher the resolution the less frames per second (as I understand it).