Cool'n'Quiet under W2K help

dazberry

Has anyone managed to get the aforementioned Cool'n'Quiet working under Windows 2000 for AMD 64 x2s? On different systems I'd no problem getting it working under XP and XP64, and the XP64 system FWIW is using the same model (and bios ver) motherboard and CPU (different stepping thou') as the one I'm having problems with. Tried all the AMD downloads - is there a trick to this or some specific order I need to do things in?

TIA

D.

djmarkus

have u tried using crystal cpuid?

astrofool

2k doesn't support it afaik (just as it doesn't support hyperthreading either).

edit: apparantly it is supported try here: http://forums.amd.com/lofiversion/index.php/t65010.html (a quick google away). And you've set it to minimal power management as well?

8T8

For Cool & Quiet to work you have to have the following;
C&Q enabled CPU
C&Q enabled in bios
AMD C&Q driver installed
Thermally controlled fan*
Minimal Power management set as the power scheme in Windows control panel.

*Not required but if you want the fan to spin down to a lower speed it is.

It will kick in after that, if you want to see if it is working try CPU-Z (look at the CPU clock speed) or Rightmark RM Clock (actually has a C&Q indicator).

dazberry

Thanks lads - still not having any luck with it.

Basically I have 2 systems that run this kit:
K8N Neo2-FX, X2-3800, AC Silencer 64 Ultra TCL. Other bits are different, the Bios revisions are the same, the X2s are different steppings. For reference I'll just refer to them as the XP64 system and the W2K systems. The W2k is the upgrade, so new mobo, cpu and fan.

Under W2K (fresh install), beyond not being able to get CnQ working, temp quickly makes its way to between 50-54 idle and under load and stay there. The Silencer controls its own fan speed, runs > 1500rpm.

The XP64 runs at 29 idle under CnQ and 33 without and hits about 46 under sustained load. When idle the Silencer runs < 1000rpm.

So I backup W2K and replace it with an image of XP64. Getting temps of 32 CnQ idle, 35 without and 48 under load, Silencer < 1000rpm.

Back to W2K (sp4) and its 50-54 and Silencer maxed. So I'm looking at W2K as the culprit. Leaving it in the BIOS idles it at 34/35. Anyone any ideas - I'm a bit stumped.


Thanks

D.

8T8

Hmm, it looks like support for Win2K either worked at one point or is now simply broken, judging from various postings on the net.

They still label the driver as including support for Win2K, it is probably just broken. Not much you can do if that is the case other than emailing AMD and asking them to check there driver under Win2K in the hope they fix it.

dazberry

8T8 wrote:

Hmm, it looks like support for Win2K either worked at one point or is now simply broken, judging from various postings on the net.

Yes that seems to be the general consensus

It would appear that although the CPU load is 0% in Windows, its actually 100% in one core, so there's something buggy somewhere. I've installed RMClock and thats brought the temps back down to a more sensible level.

D.

astrofool

ooh, it could be a win2k dual core issue then. If you look on the net for AMD Dashboard Demo (it used to be on their site, might still be), its a prog that monitors the chips speed/temp/voltage and usage, it might help with this (and at least confirm that cnq isn't/is working).

dazberry

astrofool wrote:

ooh, it could be a win2k dual core issue then. If you look on the net for AMD Dashboard Demo (it used to be on their site, might still be), its a prog that monitors the chips speed/temp/voltage and usage, it might help with this (and at least confirm that cnq isn't/is working).

Neither version of the dashboard work unfortunately (I tried them yesterday). Tried different drivers, even the PowerNow ones, they all look installed but just don't work. The nice little power monitor doesn't work under 2K either . Not as fancy but there's an AMDClock application that atleast shows the core speeds.

It was in RMClock that I spotted one core at 100%. (OS reports both at 0%). If I select the "Run HLT command when OS is idle", the OS will of course go to 100% but the CPU core usage will go to 0%. The more I think about it the more I think there is something really screwie in the system idle process that isn't doing what it should

D.

dazberry

dazberry wrote:

It was in RMClock that I spotted one core at 100%.

My mistake - both are at 100%!! although OS usage is idle. I came across this, sounded good but didn't fixed it unfortunately.

The CPU temperature increases abnormally after you install Update Rollup 1 on Windows 2000 SP4-based computer

D.