Dual core, only sees one

[Bill Leary]

I'm running Vista Ultimate 32 bit.

I've had a single-core AMD Athlon in here since I build the machine and
installed Vista.

I just updated to a Dual core AMD Athlon.

When I first powered up, the BIOS reported an unknown model AMD with two
cores. Vista, in System Information, reported an unknown AMD with a single
core. So, I updated the BIOS. The BIOS now reports the correct AMD with
two cores. Vista, in System Information, now reports the correct AMD, but
with one core, one logical processor. Performance meter and other things
which would normally show two dials or scales for a dual core still show
only a single display.

Someone suggested I check Processors under Device Manager. That shows "AMD
Processor unknown model" twice. They suggested that Vista is "stuck" from
the start up with the BIOS that didn't ID the CPU and I should delete the
two entries under Processor and reboot to let it rediscover them. I've seen
this work for other things, but I'm feeling a bit cautious about doing it to
the CPU.

Is this the right way to go? Any other ideas?

- Bill

 

[Earle Horton]

Though that may work,
you can treat the cpu as any other hardware device and opt to "update
drivers"

then choose the appropriate one

Yeah, he needs the right driver. Since it's a home-built machine maybe
there's a driver on the CD that came with the motherboard?

Cheers,

Earle

 

[Michael Walraven]

It is possible that Vista has not properly detected your hardware changes.
I suggest
msconfig
boot tab
advanced options button

check the box for detect HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) and reboot, Vista
MAY find the two cores.

If that didn't find the two cores, and the 'bad' ones are in device manager
then I would try the suggestion to delete them.

Good Luck,
Michael

 

[Bill Leary]

Though that may work,
you can treat the cpu as any other hardware device and opt to "update
drivers"

then choose the appropriate one

Didn't work. It claimed I already had the latest drivers.

- Bill

 

[Bill Leary]

It is possible that Vista has not properly detected your hardware changes.
I suggest
msconfig
boot tab
advanced options button

check the box for detect HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) and reboot,
Vista MAY find the two cores.

I don't know if that would have worked.

I tried "update" as someone else suggested, and that didn't work.

If that didn't find the two cores, and the 'bad' ones are in device
manager then I would try the suggestion to delete them.

Then I deleted them and rebooted. Upon reboot, it's again got two listings
under Processors, but this time they're correctly listed.

System Information, however, still says "1 Cores(s), 1 Logical Processor(s)"

- Bill

 

[Richard G. Harper [MVP]]

The only dependable way to fix this is to reinstall Windows. As it was
installed with a uniprocessor core, it sees one processor. Reinstalling
Windows will allow it to see two processors and install the multiprocessor
core.

 

[Bill Leary]

The only dependable way to fix this is to reinstall Windows. As it was
installed with a uniprocessor core, it sees one processor. Reinstalling
Windows will allow it to see two processors and install the multiprocessor
core.

I was afraid it would come to that.

Before I go that far, since a re-install would be such a pain, I've got it
to seeing two processors, correctly identified, in Device Manager. Is there
another approach that might work?

Or, perhaps, something like install on another drive (I've got a pair of
these) and copy all of C:\Windows\system32? Or the key files or
directories? Or something similar?

Either way, thanks.

- Bill

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Desktop] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/

I'm running Vista Ultimate 32 bit.

I've had a single-core AMD Athlon in here since I build the machine and
installed Vista.

I just updated to a Dual core AMD Athlon.

When I first powered up, the BIOS reported an unknown model AMD with two
cores. Vista, in System Information, reported an unknown AMD with a
single core. So, I updated the BIOS. The BIOS now reports the correct
AMD with two cores. Vista, in System Information, now reports the
correct AMD, but with one core, one logical processor. Performance meter
and other things which would normally show two dials or scales for a dual
core still show only a single display.

Someone suggested I check Processors under Device Manager. That shows
"AMD Processor unknown model" twice. They suggested that Vista is
"stuck" from the start up with the BIOS that didn't ID the CPU and I
should delete the two entries under Processor and reboot to let it
rediscover them. I've seen this work for other things, but I'm feeling a
bit cautious about doing it to the CPU.

Is this the right way to go? Any other ideas?

- Bill

 

[mikeyhsd]

might think about a REPAIR install instead of a full one.

it might help.


(e-mail address removed)

The only dependable way to fix this is to reinstall Windows. As it was
installed with a uniprocessor core, it sees one processor. Reinstalling
Windows will allow it to see two processors and install the multiprocessor
core.

I was afraid it would come to that.

Before I go that far, since a re-install would be such a pain, I've got it
to seeing two processors, correctly identified, in Device Manager. Is there
another approach that might work?

Or, perhaps, something like install on another drive (I've got a pair of
these) and copy all of C:\Windows\system32? Or the key files or
directories? Or something similar?

Either way, thanks.

- Bill

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Desktop] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/

I'm running Vista Ultimate 32 bit.

I've had a single-core AMD Athlon in here since I build the machine and
installed Vista.

I just updated to a Dual core AMD Athlon.

When I first powered up, the BIOS reported an unknown model AMD with two
cores. Vista, in System Information, reported an unknown AMD with a
single core. So, I updated the BIOS. The BIOS now reports the correct
AMD with two cores. Vista, in System Information, now reports the
correct AMD, but with one core, one logical processor. Performance meter
and other things which would normally show two dials or scales for a dual
core still show only a single display.

Someone suggested I check Processors under Device Manager. That shows
"AMD Processor unknown model" twice. They suggested that Vista is
"stuck" from the start up with the BIOS that didn't ID the CPU and I
should delete the two entries under Processor and reboot to let it
rediscover them. I've seen this work for other things, but I'm feeling a
bit cautious about doing it to the CPU.

Is this the right way to go? Any other ideas?

- Bill

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

you must reinstall since the proper HIVE is not loaded

I think you mean HAL, and unless things have changed with Vista you are
right, a reinstall is required to get Windows to swtich from
uniprocessor to multiprocessor.

 

[Bill Leary]

There used to be a way to do this. I don't know if it still works with
Vista.

I changed a Windows 2000 Server box from single processor to dual
processor several years ago without re-installing 2000. You need to
change the "Computer" section of Device Manager, not the CPU section. In
that case, I changed from "X86 uniprocessor" to "X86 multiprocessor" and
re-booted. It worked fine.

The only thing under "Computer" on my machine is "Advanced Configuration and
Power Interface (ACPI) PC".

In the numerous items under "Properties" for that, there are none which
mention the processor type, number, or anything of that nature. HAL is
mentioned frequently, but that's all that seems in any way related.

- Bill

 

[Bill Leary]

Here is what I'd do....though it's up to you:

First I'd back everything up and assume that I was going to do a fresh
install...
then I'd force a driver update to a dual core or multiprocessor PC.

Tried that. I got the "Processors" section in Device Manager to show both
cores and correctly identify them, but it didn't have any impact on anything
else.

just note: it might work or it might hose your entire system in the
process!

It's still running fine, as a uniprocessor.

- Bill

 

[Bill Leary]

I have my doubts that would do it.

On the other hand, I have a twin for my active drive. I could clone the HD and give that a go.

Ultimately, though, I think I'm going to end up doing a fresh install. But there's no rush so I'll see if any other ideas come in before I do.

- Bill

might think about a REPAIR install instead of a full one.

it might help.


(e-mail address removed)

The only dependable way to fix this is to reinstall Windows. As it was
installed with a uniprocessor core, it sees one processor. Reinstalling
Windows will allow it to see two processors and install the multiprocessor
core.

I was afraid it would come to that.

Before I go that far, since a re-install would be such a pain, I've got it
to seeing two processors, correctly identified, in Device Manager. Is there
another approach that might work?

Or, perhaps, something like install on another drive (I've got a pair of
these) and copy all of C:\Windows\system32? Or the key files or
directories? Or something similar?

Either way, thanks.

- Bill

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Desktop] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/

I'm running Vista Ultimate 32 bit.

I've had a single-core AMD Athlon in here since I build the machine and
installed Vista.

I just updated to a Dual core AMD Athlon.

When I first powered up, the BIOS reported an unknown model AMD with two
cores. Vista, in System Information, reported an unknown AMD with a
single core. So, I updated the BIOS. The BIOS now reports the correct
AMD with two cores. Vista, in System Information, now reports the
correct AMD, but with one core, one logical processor. Performance meter
and other things which would normally show two dials or scales for a dual
core still show only a single display.

Someone suggested I check Processors under Device Manager. That shows
"AMD Processor unknown model" twice. They suggested that Vista is
"stuck" from the start up with the BIOS that didn't ID the CPU and I
should delete the two entries under Processor and reboot to let it
rediscover them. I've seen this work for other things, but I'm feeling a
bit cautious about doing it to the CPU.

Is this the right way to go? Any other ideas?

- Bill

 

[Earle Horton]

You do a "reinstall" or a "repair" over the same installation. I did this last week with XP when I got a dual core AMD cpu and motherboard to replace my old socket 370. It worked like a charm. I didn't have to go looking for software and drivers to reinstall, because XP just used what was on disk. I did have to redo all the updates and SP3, but that isn't such a big deal. A repair install "should" work fine in your case.

Earle
I have my doubts that would do it.

On the other hand, I have a twin for my active drive. I could clone the HD and give that a go.

Ultimately, though, I think I'm going to end up doing a fresh install. But there's no rush so I'll see if any other ideas come in before I do.

- Bill

might think about a REPAIR install instead of a full one.

it might help.


(e-mail address removed)

The only dependable way to fix this is to reinstall Windows. As it was
installed with a uniprocessor core, it sees one processor. Reinstalling
Windows will allow it to see two processors and install the multiprocessor
core.

I was afraid it would come to that.

Before I go that far, since a re-install would be such a pain, I've got it
to seeing two processors, correctly identified, in Device Manager. Is there
another approach that might work?

Or, perhaps, something like install on another drive (I've got a pair of
these) and copy all of C:\Windows\system32? Or the key files or
directories? Or something similar?

Either way, thanks.

- Bill

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Desktop] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/

I'm running Vista Ultimate 32 bit.

I've had a single-core AMD Athlon in here since I build the machine and
installed Vista.

I just updated to a Dual core AMD Athlon.

When I first powered up, the BIOS reported an unknown model AMD with two
cores. Vista, in System Information, reported an unknown AMD with a
single core. So, I updated the BIOS. The BIOS now reports the correct
AMD with two cores. Vista, in System Information, now reports the
correct AMD, but with one core, one logical processor. Performance meter
and other things which would normally show two dials or scales for a dual
core still show only a single display.

Someone suggested I check Processors under Device Manager. That shows
"AMD Processor unknown model" twice. They suggested that Vista is
"stuck" from the start up with the BIOS that didn't ID the CPU and I
should delete the two entries under Processor and reboot to let it
rediscover them. I've seen this work for other things, but I'm feeling a
bit cautious about doing it to the CPU.

Is this the right way to go? Any other ideas?

- Bill

 

[Bill Leary]

I don't know what more to do other than reinstall.

If you have a spare drive, you may want to perform a test install first
just to be sure you can really get both cores detected...
and if so perhaps you can use your (hopefully) working installation
to see how to modify the one showing just a uniprocessor.

I asked one of the MVP's about that possibility. If I really do have to
install, it will be to the second drive. I got an identical pair intending
to RAID mirror them, but I didn't the MB manual closely enough. It will
only RAID on SATA and I'm using PATA drives. I've been using the second as
a hot backup so far.

- Bill

 

[Earle Horton]

My idea (FWIW) was to temporarily disconnect the drive you have Vista
installed on,
then put in another drive and perform a "test" install.

First, confirm that the CPU is properly recognized...
and if you could use the info from that system to properly configure your
other drive.

There are typically several choices for CPU's and if you have a fully
functioning system
for reference, it will save the guess work.

Now, if your original installation cannot be configured for the dual core
cpu
then you might as well go ahead and activate and configure the "new"
installation

I did this with XP last week. Repair install worked like a charm. No
reason it shouldn't work with Vista. A "test" install or an image backup of
the system partition isn't such a bad idea though. Trust MSFT to screw
something up when they don't have to. But "using the info from the other
system" is going to be hard to do, for the following reason.

The dual processor version has a differently compiled kernel. That is why
you need to reinstall. There is a place in the kernel where processes,
mostly drivers, make a call to acquire a spin lock when they want exclusive
access. In the uniprocessor kernel that call is a no-op. In the
multiprocessor version it does what it says, waits on the other
processor(s).

Earle

 

[Richard G. Harper [MVP]]

Nope, if I had known one I would have said, "Try this first, then reinstall
if it doesn't work."

 

[Bill Leary]

My idea (FWIW) was to temporarily disconnect the drive you have Vista
installed on,
then put in another drive and perform a "test" install.

First, confirm that the CPU is properly recognized...
and if you could use the info from that system to properly configure your
other drive.

There are typically several choices for CPU's and if you have a fully
functioning system
for reference, it will save the guess work.

Now, if your original installation cannot be configured for the dual core
cpu then you might as well go ahead and activate and configure the "new"
installation

Just what I was thinking.

- Bill

 

[Bill Leary]

Nope, if I had known one I would have said, "Try this first, then
reinstall if it doesn't work."

Thanks.

I asked because sometimes people offer a solution they KNOW will work and
don't offer ones that might or might not work.

Now, here's one someone just suggested to me.

In MSCONFIG go to Boot then Advanced Options and select "Detect HAL" and
reboot. The claim is that it'll redetect the CPU, rebuild the HAL features,
and I'll be in business. The person offering the suggestion claims to have
used this to take a uniprocessor Vista Ultimate to multiprocessor
successfully. After you've done this, you go back into MSCONFIG and turn it
off again.

I haven't tried it yet, and with everyone saying the only solution is to
reinstall, I'm not going to until I've got a full system backup done. It
also seems as though if this were going to work, more people would know
about it.

- Bill

 

[Bill Leary]

OK...hang on a second!!!
There may not be a problem at all.
I think I missed something.

I'd like to start over here as I do have a Vista machine here with a dual
core cpu
so just had a look.

Since you have *two* listings for Processor
you infact do have both cores detected!!!!

Yes, that's what I thought too.

The only possible problem is that yours are listed as "unknown type".

Not any more. They were listed as "Unknown" when I first started up after
installing the processor. The BIOS also said it was an unknown AMD, but the
BIOS said it had two cores.

After I updated the BIOS, the BIOS correctly identified the processor, and
still said it had two cores. Vista then, in System Information, correctly
identified the processor but said it had ONE core. In Device Manager, under
Processors, it listed TWO AMD processors, of "unknown type." I deleted the
two processor entries, rebooted, and it now correctly identifies two AMD
processors correctly. System Information (and everything else) continues to
think there's only one core.

When you tried to update the driver, did you right click

go to "properties"

"driver"

"update driver"

"browse my computer"

"let me pick from a list of drivers on my computer"

If you do that perhaps the correct choice will be there.

If so, you'd probably have to do the same for the other core.

They're already running "K8 Processor." I selected it anyway, just to be
sure, and it's the correct one for this processor.

BTW: Have a look at "driver details"
to see what driver is actually being used.

If it shows amdk8.sys
then it's probably the right one and my guess is that it's irrelevant
that it's simply listed as "unknown"

Ah, you missed the message where I got it from "Unknown" to the correct ID.

It's possible that even if properly ID'd there'd be no additional
functionality...
but at least I see that that is the way a dual core CPU is supposed to be
identified.
Right.

Now on my machine my CPU is listed as an AMD Athlon 64x2 dual core
processor 3800+ (There are two such listings)

Right. I've got "AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000+", twice.

- Bill

 

[Earle Horton]

Yes, that's what I thought too.


Not any more. They were listed as "Unknown" when I first started up after
installing the processor. The BIOS also said it was an unknown AMD, but
the
BIOS said it had two cores.

After I updated the BIOS, the BIOS correctly identified the processor, and
still said it had two cores. Vista then, in System Information, correctly
identified the processor but said it had ONE core. In Device Manager,
under
Processors, it listed TWO AMD processors, of "unknown type." I deleted
the
two processor entries, rebooted, and it now correctly identifies two AMD
processors correctly. System Information (and everything else) continues
to
think there's only one core.


They're already running "K8 Processor." I selected it anyway, just to be
sure, and it's the correct one for this processor.


Ah, you missed the message where I got it from "Unknown" to the correct
ID.


Right. I've got "AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000+", twice.

- Bill

You need a new operating system kernel to be able to use both cores. You
get this by running install in repair mode. It is useless for me to keep
saying so.