My P4 Desktop

edited February 2010 in Hardware
OK the system board is some Gateway motherboard. I have gone to the Gateway site and tried to detect it. Came back some weird name. No serial number was listed like it should have listed. This system is weird on the post screen it shows P4 1.2 Ghz. In windows it shows
2 P4 2.4 Ghz CPU'S.
Someone suggested before I look on the CPU itself. I still have not done that because I have not been able to find some grease to put back on the CPU. As soon as I can get some grease I will check what is on the CPU. But why would windows show different than the BIOS?
«1

Comments

  • Its a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with "HyperThreading" which makes it show up as two CPUs, but its really just one single CPU with one core...

    Im not sure why its saying its two 1.2GHz though... it should say its two 2.4GHz.
  • Ka0s wrote:
    Its a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with "HyperThreading" which makes it show up as two CPUs, but its really just one single CPU with one core...

    Im not sure why its saying its two 1.2GHz though... it should say its two 2.4GHz.

    Yes I thought it should show two 2.4 GHZ.
  • Maybe underclocking / overclocking?
  • thats what im thinking... its severely underclocked... OR hes using an OS that doesnt properly support hyperthreading
  • Yes I just remembered the guy I got it from said he under clocked it.
    Not sure why. He said I could clock it back up but he was not sure what he did to under clock it. I am running XP Professional SP3.
    I have not been able to find Vista Drivers. Not sure how well Vista would run. XP seems OK so I will keep XP. I have just begun to like Vista.
  • edited February 2010
    Err, that gateway mobo and it's problems again... I think it's a BIOS glitch because if windows shows the correct speed, it's already running @ 2.4ghz.. I don't think it's the OS, as the last time he had posted about this problem (remember on OABW), he was using XP SP3, and it has got HT support.

    You can use Everest and CPUZ to see the real clock speed that your PC is having...

    That's what I think. Good luck ;)
  • Its in the BIOS... You need to increase the FSB speed probably.
  • FedeArg wrote:
    Err, that gateway mobo and it's problems again... I think it's a BIOS glitch because if windows shows the correct speed, it's already running @ 2.4ghz..

    You can use Everest and CPUZ to see the real clock speed that your PC is having...

    That's what I think. Good luck ;)


    ...as far as im aware windows just reports what the CPU reports.
  • Ka0s wrote:
    Its in the BIOS... You need to increase the FSB speed probably.

    I have looked in the BIOS did not see it. Maybe I will look again later.
    But he said it was a program he used. I have took the jumper in maintenance mode on the motherboard and looked in the BIOS also.
    My system is a little slow. I may do a Rioter soon. :lol:
  • The guy you got it from told you it was more stable that way. but you
    could clock it back up. I told you if he underclocked it then it was for
    some reason and you'd have problems with it if you raised it again.

    I can't swear you would but see no other reason he would have
    underclocked it except to cure a problem. Maybe it was just overheating
    but I don't know.

    Thump
  • If it came from Gateway running @ 2.4 Ghz then it should be OK running at that speed. I will have to look again at the BIOS.
  • Most P4 motherboards I have seen, if it's a Skt478 give you an option to autodetect proc and Memory speeds. If so then restting the BIOS should have put it back to automatic. If not then it's like some AMD boards where there are Jumpers to set the speeds.

    But as Fede said use CPUz and everest to get some more information before you change anything really.
  • CPU-Z Shows 1196.2 and it seems to change lower. I believe the BIOS shows it at 1.2. I guess I will reboot and check the BIOS now.
    It also shows it is a Intel motherboard. No mention of Gateway on CPU-Z. But there is a Gateway logo on the post screen. Ive seen other Gateway's that have the serial number in the BIOS but this board does not. That is strange to me.
  • Just out of curiosity you could try some more programs. I like System
    Information Wizard (SIW) and it gives a ton of information in web
    page form.

    SIW Download

    SIW HTML Report on my tiny emachine

    List of other good Tools

    Thump
  • XpUser wrote:
    CPU-Z Shows 1196.2 and it seems to change lower. I believe the BIOS shows it at 1.2. I guess I will reboot and check the BIOS now.

    The BIOS rounds it up. For those lacking basic math skills, 1196.2 rounds to 1.2.
    XpUser wrote:
    It also shows it is a Intel motherboard. No mention of Gateway on CPU-Z. But there is a Gateway logo on the post screen. Ive seen other Gateway's that have the serial number in the BIOS but this board does not. That is strange to me.

    Then it's an Intel motherboard. Gateway doesn't make their own motherboards.

    Best thing is to just reset the CMOS and see if that restores it to the factory clock rate. If not, there could be jumpers to change it, but I doubt it. Most modern boards don't use jumpers for that.
  • There is a Jumper. All it does is give an option in the BIOS for maintenance mode. And I have tried resetting it and it didn't do anything. Also L.O.L I knew it rounded to 1.2 Ghz. I do have basic math skills.
  • There is almost *always* a jumper on the board to reset the CMOS. Which is what you need to do.

    Failing that, just pop out the battery, wait a minute and then pop it back in.
  • BlueSun wrote:
    There is almost *always* a jumper on the board to reset the CMOS. Which is what you need to do.

    Failing that, just pop out the battery, wait a minute and then pop it back in.

    There is indeed a jumper to reset the CMOS. I just remembered. Also a jumper for the maintenance mode. I have reset the CMOS and pulled the battery out. It just did not do anything. Also a few months back I tried to flash the BIOS with an Intel BIOS as someone suggested. The system was really messed up then. Then I tried flashing it back with the original flash. I managed to get it back working. I will try pulling the battery again and messing with the jumper it want hurt anything trying a second time I guess.
  • I wouldn't do that XP, does it run that badly? What was it, $100?
    I'll say again, I don't think you're going to gain much for the trouble.

    "I am not the only person who uses his computer mainly for the
    purpose of diddling with his computer." - Dave Barry

    Thump
  • Thump wrote:
    I wouldn't do that XP, does it run that badly? What was it, $100?
    I'll say again, I don't think you're going to gain much for the trouble.

    "I am not the only person who uses his computer mainly for the
    purpose of diddling with his computer." - Dave Barry

    Thump

    I figured I would not gain much. The max memory is 2 GB. I have 1 GB. I will gain more by adding memory.
  • Not really. You probably wont notice any improvement especially since youre only running XP anyway. You need to remember that not only is the OS you're running nearly 10 years old now, but so is the hardware.

    I'd keep saving your pennies untill you can get a Core 2 Duo or whatever comes next.
  • I sort of hate when people always assume that adding more RAM will speed up their computer. There are obviously a few cases where it will help, but most of the time people don't even use half the RAM they have. Then SuperFetch comes along and people bitch about it using all their RAM. It's just going to waste otherwise.

    Anyways, I used to have 512 MB of RAM in my desktop and when I upgraded to 2 GB, I didn't notice any difference at all. The only time I even use more than half of my RAM is when I'm running a VM or something.

    EDIT: Oh and I wouldn't waste the money on that P4 unless it's parts you can reuse in a new build. Like, when I upgraded my RAM, I got DDR2 instead of DDR so that I could use it in a future build.
  • Ka0s wrote:
    Not really. You probably wont notice any improvement especially since youre only running XP anyway. You need to remember that not only is the OS you're running nearly 10 years old now, but so is the hardware.

    I'd keep saving your pennies untill you can get a Core 2 Duo or whatever comes next.

    Call me an idiot if you want. But I plan on running XP for a while core 2 duo or whatever. As for Windows 98 I still miss it a lot.
  • Windows 98 is from 12 years ago now... Its designed for like a 200MHz with 32MB RAM...
  • Minimum requirements for 98 was like, a 486 66mhz with 16 MB of RAM. Although, who could stand using it on those specs?

    As far as missing 98 goes, nope. I don't miss that shit at all. 9x can rot in hell where it belongs. I sometimes miss the simplicity of the old explorer, but that's why we have NT 4.

    The only old version of Windows I do miss is 2000 and 2000 is still the only annoyance-free version of Windows in my opinion. XP and higher have various annoyances that you have to turn off. It's annoying... >_>
  • 8)

    TYhe simplicity of the old explorer? Whats wrong with Vista+'s breadcrumbs style browsing... God Ilove that.. its one of the best thigns that happened SINCE Windows 95's updated shell.
  • Meh, I don't really like Vista / 7's explorer. It's alright, nothing wrong with it really. It's just not my cup of tea.

    In XP/2000 I always had the full path in the address bar, so it was never a big deal to jump to a parent directory.
  • BlueSun wrote:
    Meh, I don't really like Vista / 7's explorer. It's alright, nothing wrong with it really. It's just not my cup of tea.

    In XP/2000 I always had the full path in the address bar, so it was never a big deal to jump to a parent directory.
    Well.. On Vista/7 you can get the full path by clicking on the address bar's empty space... :T

    Anyway, I like the Vista/7 navigation scheme a lot, I didn't got lost with it even at the first-time usage of Vista, back in 2008 :)
  • I never got lost in the first place. It's just a new face to a feature that's always been there. Now said feature exists redundantly, but for some users, it's now easier. To me, it makes no difference.
  • Yea but with breadcrumbs you dont have to highlight and delete anything, you jst click it.
Sign In or Register to comment.