AMD FX-9590 not showing/using all 8 cores HELP.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, bob211418 said:

Thanks. I'll just keep it at stock so it can handle Fallout 4 on ultra.

In other words your going to increase the core voltage?

[bob211418]

Not even going to risk it. Only have a Corsair H60 AIO Cooler, the CPU acts like a heater.

[-rascal-]

1 hour ago, bob211418 said:

Not even going to risk it. Only have a Corsair H60 AIO Cooler, the CPU acts like a heater.

Keep in mind, the FX-9590 is rated @ 4.7 GHz across multiple cores, but can boost up to 5.0 GHz.

 

The Gigabyte 990FX-Gaming shouldn't have too much problem with even something like the FX-9590, but it is a relatively new motherboard, so there may still be some glitches and bugs that still needs to be ironed out with BIOS updates.

 

 

In other news, Task Manager should show 4 cores, and 8 threads -- at least in Windows 10. If you switch to view "Logical Processors," you should see eight separate graphs.

CPU-Z should recognize the chip as 8-cores, and 8-threads, though.

HWMonitor should show Cores #0 ~ #7 (Eight total).

 

 

[Nate1990]

OK  chaps, first off, i'm not fucking with anyone, i don't know why someone would ask questions on how to fix something but not actually need the help.. beets me. here's the story on how i fixed the problem for future reference for others having the same problem, and i really appreciate all of your help on this..

 

THE LEAD UP INFO:

So, today, i started my pc and entered bios, i didn't know exactly what i was meant to be looking that would help but stuff to do with the CUP was my guess, i found a setting called "HCP MODE" (high performance computing) that i enabled, thinking that maybe this was the problem of not having all my cores show up.. i rebooted and on reboot, i got a BSOD with "BAD_SYSTEM_CONFIG_INFO". I  had no idea what to do, i always thought a BSOD was game over and i needed to reinstall windows, i google frantically looking for a solution on how to fix this. i tried undoing any changes i made in the UEFI but nothing made it boot, i tried restoring to a recent restore point, NOTHING.. ! last search before i was going to do a reinstall, i found a video on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKH0dGX4KeA  

On here it shows me to windows repair and select advanced, then enter Command Prompt. doing this, it also said to type "bcdedit"

this brought up a whole bunc of letters and numbers i had no idea about... it mentioned something called "truncatememory" and "numproc" saying that sometime after doing changes or even by accident that these values get lost or remembered wrong and it shows an error message. 

THE SOLUTION:

I needed to enter

"bcdedit /deletevalue {default} truncatememory"

"bcdedit /deletevalue {default} numproc"

doing this would reset the values of those 2 things to there default values. 

i types Exit and rebooted my pc. HEY PRESTO! Windows was back and running, AND with TASK MANAGER saying 4 cores 8 logical processors. CPUZ also says 8 cores 8 threads. after doing this i went to RUN typed "msconfig" went to boot and selected all 8 cores, where as before it only gave the option to select 4.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INPUT AND HELP TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THIS PROBLEM, 

im lucky that after actually fucking it up further with the BCOD i managed to fix the original problem..

thanks again to everyone with your swift and helpful replys.

Nate.

 

 

[Nena Trinity]

21 hours ago, Shimejii said:

Amd got in trouble for false advertising for this kind of thing with bulldozer. It would be similar to Intel saying the 5960x is a 16 core processor, while its really only an 8 core with 8 threads. Its a 4 core 4 thread CPU, which is a theoretical 8 core, but realistically its 4 cores and 4 threads

The only thing the CPU cores lack to be full cores is a extra FPU per module! It still has 8 ALUs, and AMD did get what a core is to legally be changed before they marketed it as a 8-core so... CMT & SMT is not the same thing far from it!

[Dabombinable]

8 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

The only thing the CPU cores lack to be full cores is a extra FPU per module! It still has 8 ALUs, and AMD did get what a core is to legally be changed before they marketed it as a 8-core so... CMT & SMT is not the same thing far from it!

Look, you know that a CPU is not using the definition of a processing core when operating systems require an update just to be able to use the CPU correctly.

[kronickiller]

check your bios options u messed up somewhere lol

[Nena Trinity]

49 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Look, you know that a CPU is not using the definition of a processing core when operating systems require an update just to be able to use the CPU correctly.

Many motherboards and operating systems needs updates silly! Even the CPUs *cough* Skylake *cough* Probably will happen more in the future to...

[Coaxialgamer]

On 3/9/2016 at 11:54 PM, Nate1990 said:

So what does that mean.. i'snt it supposed to say 8 cores not 2 or 4? in the bios it just says Processor: AMD FX-9590 8 CORE PROCESSOR. unless theres something i need to tweek or switch on to enable the 8 cores.. plus the 5ghz turbo isnt kicking in, i was told it would kick in when its under load, but its been to 100% and stayed at 4.7ghz, i'm a bit lost to be honest. hence coming here for the pro info. :-)

As long as it displays 8 threads (regardless of the number of cores),  you are fine.  Otherwise check bios. 

[Dabombinable]

4 hours ago, Nena360 said:

Many motherboards and operating systems needs updates silly! Even the CPUs *cough* Skylake *cough* Probably will happen more in the future to...

Note that they don't have scheduling issues at all, no other CPU has had them with Windows until Bulldozer came along:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2645594

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5448/the-bulldozer-scheduling-patch-tested

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/cpu/microsoft-tries-again-second-win-7-bulldozer-hotfix-now-available/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119.html

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/100583-analyzing-bulldozers-scaling-single-thread-performance

[Nena Trinity]

18 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Note that they don't have scheduling issues at all, no other CPU has had them with Windows until Bulldozer came along:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2645594

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5448/the-bulldozer-scheduling-patch-tested

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/cpu/microsoft-tries-again-second-win-7-bulldozer-hotfix-now-available/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119.html

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/100583-analyzing-bulldozers-scaling-single-thread-performance

Because it was only optimized for Intel they expected AMD to copy Intel`s solutions?

[Dabombinable]

31 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

Because it was only optimized for Intel they expected AMD to copy Intel`s solutions?

No, remember the Phenom II, and all of AMD's previous CPU that used the same base core design? Every single previous CPU from AMD and Intel did not require OS to actually have patches made to get the CPU working as it should so it is quite obvious that CMT does not have what are defined processing cores, which I might add is what their CPU are advertised as having. They pretty much sold CMT as SMT, and wondered why they got in the shit for it as CMT doesn't use processing cores but modules.

[Nena Trinity]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

No, remember the Phenom II, and all of AMD's previous CPU that used the same base core design? Every single previous CPU from AMD and Intel did not require OS to actually have patches made to get the CPU working as it should so it is quite obvious that CMT does not have what are defined processing cores, which I might add is what their CPU are advertised as having. They pretty much sold CMT as SMT, and wondered why they got in the shit for it as CMT doesn't use processing cores but modules.

Yes exactly AMD did not copy Intel so Windows was not ready, also 1 module has 1.5 cores in them!

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Nena360 said:

Yes exactly AMD did not copy Intel so Windows was not ready, also 1 module has 1.5 cores in them!

You mean that they didn't copy themselves. And its not 1.5 cores-its 1 and-less-then-a-half. Still means that they don't have processing cores by they standard definition that Intel and they themselves had been following for decades, which is why Windows required patches to have the CPU run correctly-unlike all other CPU.

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

You mean that they didn't copy themselves. And its not 1.5 cores-its 1 and-less-then-a-half. Still means that they don't have processing cores by they standard definition that Intel and they themselves had been following for decades, which is why Windows required patches to have the CPU run correctly-unlike all other CPU.

Just because they try something new does not make it wrong if all just copy paste Intel we would be stuck with shitty CPUs and probably still use Pentium 1...