Is it possible? 10 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Acualy Is Confusingkid

Keep honking im reloading

50 XP

19th September 2006

0 Uploads

4,563 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

Well, here recently on my newish PC (2 months) I have noticed quite a bit of slowdown, especially in gaming. When looking at my CPU monitor, only core 1 seems to have "stress" put on it. So, I was wondering, is it possible for only 1 core of a dual core cpu to fail? Or did I accidentally do something to only allow one core to work? It also seems that on my CPU monitor, it used to say 2x86, where as now it only says 1x86. Once again, is it due to core failure? Thanks in advance to anyone who helps.

Also, if it is only one core that fails, will AMD cover that on the warranty since it's technically not "broken" :p




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

No, if one core went down then the entire unit will cease to function.

I'll bet that your problem is that your bought a cheap CPU and are running a single-threaded, resource-hogging game on it. The game is only able to utilise one core, so the second one sits idle. How close am I?




Revenge VIP Member

Shizzle my nizzle

117,165 XP

28th July 2004

0 Uploads

10,354 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

Windows doesn't utilise the second (or third, or fourth, if applicable) core until the first is pretty much maxed out. It was written in a time when multi-core processors weren't widespread.

Games using the latest engines such as the newest Quake 4 one usually utilise more than one core if possible, like C38368 said.




Acualy Is Confusingkid

Keep honking im reloading

50 XP

19th September 2006

0 Uploads

4,563 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago

C38368;4235021No, if one core went down then the entire unit will cease to function.

I'll bet that your problem is that your bought a cheap CPU and are running a single-threaded, resource-hogging game on it. The game is only able to utilise one core, so the second one sits idle. How close am I?[/quote]

Uhm, no, it's not a cheap CPU, I mean sure it didn't cost hundreds, but it's decent. It's an AMD 64 X2 5600+ (2.8 Ghz). Games I play are: BF2, COD4, and 2142..Not really resource hogging imo. (With the exception of COD4) And BTW: On the cpu monitor, it used to range from 5%-15%, now it sits at 0%.. all the time. And, like I said, my Cpu monitor also used to say 2x86. Now, it says 1x86

[quote=Revenge;4235027]Windows doesn't utilise the second (or third, or fourth, if applicable) core until the first is pretty much maxed out. It was written in a time when multi-core processors weren't widespread.

Games using the latest engines such as the newest Quake 4 one usually utilise more than one core if possible, like C38368 said.

I know this, but Core 2 sits idle 100% of the time now. Even when Core 1 is 100% and memory is at around 60%, it sits idle. Everyone else I asked said that 1 core can fail, and I'm assuming that's what happened. But, we'll see what others say.

BTW:In speedfan, my core 2 temp is about 20 degrees cooler. making me think it got ownd.

I guess my next question then is, does anyone know of a good free cpu diagnostic for AMD cpus?




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

I'm looking around here. The Tech Report site seems to indicate that it is possible, but not for AMD CPUs. Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 840 processor - The Tech Report - Page 2

So I'm goning to go with C38368.

Most of the information I've come across regarding "failed", or "failing" cores, has to do with power requirements, and overclocking. These are only temporary, and perceived failures of the second core. Not a real permanent failure.

The secondary core seems to be less "stable" than the primary core.




UNDIESRULES

Waffle-Sprocket is broke

11,795 XP

24th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,097 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

It doesnt sound right to me, try running a program and setting affinity to the core that doesnt seem to be working, if the program runs after that then the core , i would assume, is ok.




RadioShackRob

Radio Shack, Do Shit

50 XP

30th October 2007

0 Uploads

725 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

Check your BIOS, cores can be shut down inside of it, and it is possible it did. Or perhaps a BIOS update?




ikyojo

AKA Daxs

50 XP

26th July 2007

0 Uploads

411 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago

Just a shot use msconfig and make sure both cpus are enbaled with when windows starts




Acualy Is Confusingkid

Keep honking im reloading

50 XP

19th September 2006

0 Uploads

4,563 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago

Monster_user;4235300I'm looking around here. The Tech Report site seems to indicate that it is possible, but not for AMD CPUs. Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 840 processor - The Tech Report - Page 2

So I'm goning to go with C38368.

Most of the information I've come across regarding "failed", or "failing" cores, has to do with power requirements, and overclocking. These are only temporary, and perceived failures of the second core. Not a real permanent failure.

The secondary core seems to be less "stable" than the primary core.

Bingo! you hit it right on the nose, it was only a temporary problem. It's working fine now. Though I REALLY wish I was able to custom build, this prebuilt PC has so many problems its not even funny. Thanks all for your help and advice. ;)




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago

Are you running the AMD dual core optimizer patch?




  • 1
  • 2