PDA

View Full Version : AMD Athlon 64 question



Tony
26-05-2007, 09:25 PM
My PC has an Athlon 64 X2 dual-core 4400 processor. It all seems to be running OK, but when I look in Device Manager (Windows Vista Business) I see two instances of the processor, with the exclamation mark against one of them. If I check the properties on that one, it says "This device cannot start. (Code 10)".

Is this something I should be worried about?
Should I try uninstalling the marked instance?
Is it because I am running 32-bit Vista ona 64-bit processor?

Basically, *** is going on?

Tony
26-05-2007, 09:43 PM
Update: I uninstalled the instance with the exclamation mark and rebooted.

Windows "found new hardware", and installed a driver, and asked me to reboot. After rebooting, the two instances were still there, but both OK.

So what has been happening? I can't see any difference in performance or anything like that.

motorbyclist
27-05-2007, 12:25 AM
i think this was a case of vista being a new os with dodgy hardware support.

the reason you have two instances, just like i do with a Athlon 64 X2 4600 running XP pro, is because your dual core processor is actually two processors on the same die. if you look at task manager (in xp this is, i don't know about vista, just try pressing ctrl, alt and delete at the same time), under the performance tab you'll see two graphs showing CPU load, one for each core

see pic (http://www.imagef1.net.nz/files/x2.JPG)

running a 32bit os on a 64bit cpu will not cause any problems, you just won't be taking advantage of the benefits of 64 bit processing.

Tony
27-05-2007, 07:52 AM
the reason you have two instances, just like i do with a Athlon 64 X2 4600 running XP pro, is because your dual core processor is actually two processors on the same die.I thought that might be the case.


under the performance tab you'll see two graphs showing CPU load, one for each coreIndeed I do, and what is interesting is that before I didn't, so presumably I was running at half-speed (sort of).


running a 32bit os on a 64bit cpu will not cause any problems, you just won't be taking advantage of the benefits of 64 bit processing.I chose 32-bit Vista because of a reported lack of 64-bit drivers.

Pete O'Neil
27-05-2007, 12:00 PM
i think this was a case of vista being a new os with dodgy hardware support.

***? Vista has far superior support for dual cores than any previous Windows version. Good to see someone whose never used Vista making ignorant assumptions. :rolleyes:

Sweep
27-05-2007, 12:11 PM
***? Vista has far superior support for dual cores than any previous Windows version. Good to see someone whose never used Vista making ignorant assumptions. :rolleyes:

And we remember posts and threads about installing service pack 2 on WinXP do we not? Stay with Win98SE for example.

There are reasons why you would dual boot.

motorbyclist
27-05-2007, 05:51 PM
I chose 32-bit Vista because of a reported lack of 64-bit drivers. that too. does anyone know of any software limitations? i kinda assumed that there was otherwise why still sell/buy 32bit versions?


***? Vista has far superior support for dual cores than any previous Windows version. Good to see someone whose never used Vista making ignorant assumptions. :rolleyes:

well vista was pretty successful at screwing it up, so i speculated that it may be vista's so far unimpressive driver support, being a new os this is to be expected of course and bugs may be present an ANY software. that's why i said
i think this was a case of vista being a new os with dodgy hardware support.

i never thought i'd see someone defending vista this early in the game lol

motorbyclist
27-05-2007, 05:54 PM
oh and i have used vista, but on friend's machines. from their experiences, and the beta *shudder* i have decided not to install it onto my machines until i see a compelling reason to "upgrade" from xp. i'll have another look come sp2 for vista, but by then vienna will be out anyway

supersi
27-05-2007, 09:13 PM
I'm running an Athlon 4200 x2 chip with Vista Ultimate 64 and it rocks!

The only thing I havn't got working is my Netgear wireless NIC.

Tony
27-05-2007, 09:24 PM
So if I install a 64-bit version of Vista, will my current 32-bit apps run?

autechre
28-05-2007, 09:27 AM
So if I install a 64-bit version of Vista, will my current 32-bit apps run?

They should work fine provided they're Vista compatible. There may be the odd one or 2 that don't work properly under Vista 32 or 64 bit, but there is bound to be a newer version of the app that does.

pctek
28-05-2007, 02:26 PM
So if I install a 64-bit version of Vista, will my current 32-bit apps run?

Some of them should. No 16bit ones at all.
Some 32bit may have problems.
Good isn't it?

supersi
28-05-2007, 09:32 PM
I don't know if that's sarcasm from PCtek but Vista 64 has been pretty good so far with 32bit applications.

wratterus
29-05-2007, 10:39 AM
The only way to run vista is dual or triple booting with another OS, preferably Linux.:badpc:

Tony
29-05-2007, 11:02 AM
The only way to run vista is dual or triple booting with another OS, preferably Linux.It is early days, but so far Vista has been pretty good for me. Where is the advantage in multi-booting, unless you want to run some OS-specific apps?

pctek
29-05-2007, 11:21 AM
I don't know if that's sarcasm from PCtek but Vista 64 has been pretty good so far with 32bit applications.

Nah, just vague dithering.
From a review:

Software compatibility: Most 32-bit software should be running on Vista x64. However, 16-bit programs are not supported, anymore. Note that some 32 apps still use 16-bit installers. Even though the program itself might work under Vista x64, you might not be able to install it. Another problem is that Vista x64 doesn’t support registry and folder virtualization. Some legacy apps need to write in security sensitive areas like C:\Windows or C:\Programs and Files. Vista x86 can present a virtual version of these folders to apps for compatibility reasons. Essentially, this means that some 32-bit apps might not work properly if you run them with standard user rights in Vista x64. There are workarounds, though.


I especially liked the bit that says even though it might run, you might not be able to install it.

wratterus
29-05-2007, 11:59 AM
It is early days, but so far Vista has been pretty good for me. Where is the advantage in multi-booting, unless you want to run some OS-specific apps?

That is part of it.. running apps that aren't designed for vista. Also gaming is a big thing.. although it will improve.

Tony
29-05-2007, 01:25 PM
That is part of it.. running apps that aren't designed for vista. Also gaming is a big thing.. although it will improve.But that doesn't make it the only way to run it... your avatar reveals your prejudice, I think.

wratterus
29-05-2007, 01:31 PM
Yes.. you are right. There is such a thing as a joke though.... but yes :thumbs: i am prejudiced.

Tony
29-05-2007, 01:33 PM
There is such a thing as a joke though...Absolutely. I should have added a smiley.

motorbyclist
29-05-2007, 04:47 PM
if you have to dual/triple boot, why bother in the first place? just stick to linux/xp/mac/vista/msdos/solaris or whatever it is that does all of what you want