It must be 8.1, except it's Win7 x64.TechReverso wrote:I'm still observing this thread, intel 930 x58 chipset, working no 100% cpu load using Advantech drivers AND Startech, interesting.
I'm bent on the chipset vs firmware being the equalizer.
What version of windows ?
If he followed my tutorial, it must be 8.1...
RGB32E wrote:It must be 8.1, except it's Win7 x64.TechReverso wrote:I'm still observing this thread, intel 930 x58 chipset, working no 100% cpu load using Advantech drivers AND Startech, interesting.
I'm bent on the chipset vs firmware being the equalizer.
What version of windows ?
If he followed my tutorial, it must be 8.1...
You did well, it works on win7 x64, so it must be chipset MOBO and firmware. 
I see sometimes people are SOL, not possessing a desktop wit ertain spex. 
I had the same issue when i had the PEXHDCAP, and in the time i had that capture card i went from windows 7 to windows 8.1 and built a new PC and still had the same issue on the new PC....which i was sure would have fixed the 100% CPU issue but sadly it didnt.BuckoA51 wrote:Those are my specs and yes I'm on 8.1 (not much point staying on 8 when it's a free update). I wasn't using anything in particular, I just noticed it while running regular desktop apps. Firefox, Thunderbird, Notepad ++, uTorrent, day to day stuff. I have been periodically loading task manager to keep an eye on it and just noticed it then. Soon as I reset the power saving options back to normal the 100% was gone, just as before with the old drivers.
Certainly possible there's something else on here that causes it as I have a lot of programs and things installed, plus I am seeing it even when I've not been using my capture card (but then, others have reported that too).
I will boot Windows 7 and give that a try tomorrow too.
That always happens. It's when you actually USE the card (either preview it or go into the driver). You maybe did use the card but you weren't clear.BuckoA51 wrote:Tried it under Windows 7 and can confirm with the Advantech drivers there's no 100% cpu use/mode when I start Amarec.
I take it theres no Advantech equivalent drivers for the XCAPTURE-1 USB 3 device?BuckoA51 wrote:Tried it under Windows 7 and can confirm with the Advantech drivers there's no 100% cpu use/mode when I start Amarec.
As to what is causing these random instances of it on my Windows 8 installation, could be the capture card could be another problem entirely.
Good to know, I'm still thinking firmware combined with os, combined with mobo.BuckoA51 wrote:Tried it under Windows 7 and can confirm with the Advantech drivers there's no 100% cpu use/mode when I start Amarec.
As to what is causing these random instances of it on my Windows 8 installation, could be the capture card could be another problem entirely.
I stopped using the states temporary fake fix when I used the Advantech drivers, no 100% to date. I found it odd when another user was getting 100 cpu load though, and continued with fake fix.Thrill wrote:Okay I looked into this as far as I could with my limited BIOS knowledge.
The absolute best case where the CPU is idle, RealTemp reads 30 25 30 27 on the 4 cores. If you use the card, this goes to 36 32 38 34 (an average increase of 7c).
1. I went into the BIOS and disabled the C1E state. This had no effect on anything. Idle was the same but use the card, increase by 7c.
2. Enabled the C3/C6 state in my Gigabyte BIOS. This is where things get interesting. On idle, Real Temp will report 0% CPU load but the temps will actually be that of 7c higher. If you then use the card, it still says 0% but the temps stay at 7c. I think this is what people here are discovering by having these states enabled and are being fooled into thinking it's gone.
3. Enabled EIST. No change. Idle is fine but use the card and 7c higher.
Obviously this C3/C6 state is very interesting. From what I've read, these states are meant to save power, not use it.
Positive consul.Thrill wrote:Well if you're sure, that means it is something to do with motherboards and possible configurations within them.
NightSprinter wrote:What's weird is that so far in Win7 (X64 version), when I use the card my CPU heats up badly. When I switch to another capture device (like my Dazzle), the temps go down. I'm running an i7-920 with an X58 board from Gigabyte. I wonder if any of that is possibly useful.
I've been building a 'beast' 3570k for the past 2 1/2 years out of buying amazing parts new but on special, the last piece I need is a power supply, but I'm waiting for Christmas deals. Somehow, the power supplies now cost an arm and a leg. My brother delided the chip for better temperatures. I'm going to be limited anyway with the advent of DDR4 ram, might as well overclock the chip. I don't have the money to invest in a new computer now.Ed Oscuro wrote:People told me the same thing when I traded up to the i7. "The e6600 is still a beast, you can overclock it and go to a e8500 in the meantime"
Maybe so, but it's often much better to just move entirely over to a new ecosystem - which with modern component prices isn't all that painful actually. Intel and its board partners are doing a much better job targeting the mid-range than at the i7 launch, where the marketing made it seem that you had to pay $300+ (whatever it was) just go get your foot in the door. i7 920 is a dog compared to any $150 or less CPU in even the i5 and i3 ranges, and probably you can get a board for that price too; the high-end parts are really only necessary for people whose competitiveness and productivity is limited by their computing power, and who have to over-provision computing power on a rapid basis (or perhaps if upgrade costs can only rarely be overcome).
For a modern upgrade (i.e., if you have SATA hard discs and a PCI-E graphics card, if that is necessary), the only things you should need to change are for preventing failures from years of use - outside of the motherboard and a CPU. And, additionally, you get computing power along with efficiency and longer-term support, if you have to rely on the same computer to keep you happy for years at a time - overclocking won't get you efficiency or reliability. Adoption of new technologies tends to be much more bug-free once you've gotten them in a mature platform, rather than in some bunged-together collection of specialist chips (hello USB3!)
Were you running something else at the time it did the benchmark? It noted that you had an ambient CPU (odd terminology, but OK) of 25%. That would obviously give you a higher base-temperature prior to adding the extra load from capturing resources.
Could you run Task manager in Windows, hit the Processes tab, make sure you are "showing processes from all users" and sort by CPU? The top few processes under "System Idle Process" should let you know what is chewing up resources. The list may bounce around, so you can use the View menu to change your update speed or even pause the update speed in order to make note of what is up there.NightSprinter wrote:I'm not sure what is causing my CPU utilization to show upwards of 15% in idle in RealTemp. Resource monitor is showing less than 10%.. Other than that, here's a recent test done: http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/68704
Exciting, I can't wait to see if it works minus the 100% flaw.alamone wrote:Micomsoft announced X68000 support (768x512 and 512x512 at 31KHz) in a new driver version at CEATEC.
If I recall the driver did work but it was chopped off at the bottom since the resolution was not being detected correctly.
If I recall correctly, the micomsoft driver developer acknowledged the problem 2 years ago. lolI sure hope they role out a new driver for XCapture-1 as that suffers the same 100% cpu bug.alamone wrote:Micomsoft announced X68000 support (768x512 and 512x512 at 31KHz) in a new driver version at CEATEC.
If I recall the driver did work but it was chopped off at the bottom since the resolution was not being detected correctly.
