Activate the full speed of your CPU in easy steps and see...

[Isaanbiker]

  If you buy a cheaper PC or notebook, it might come with a high spec CPU, but some of the so called "cores" are disabled", just because you paid less money than others who bought a high spec PC. 

 

The CPU's are basically all the same ones, they'd have huge problems to produce so many different ones, so they have their own method to disable some cores for the cheaper PC's. 

 

         These cores are either all activated for an expensive PC, or some cores disabled for a cheaper PC. It depends on the model, price and manufacturer how many of these cores have been activated when you buy a computer.

 

     Trans, a well known member on this forum gave me this idea and I did some research and finally found out that it's more than easy to activate all "cores" of your CPU which could make an old PC/notebook to a much faster one, perhaps a racehorse, of course with enough DDR memory.

 

     Just follow these steps and see if all of them are activated:

 

My old Dell notebook starts lighting up after switching all cores on, together with the right memory old computers can be as fast as newer cheaper ones. by using this easy trick. 

 

      Type "msconfig" and hit enter. You'll see the option how the computer boots. Click on boot and chose "Advanced options. On the left upper side you'll see how many cores are activated. Click on it and check if you can activate more. 

 

Mine was on one and I activated 4. Once you've done that and increase the cores, the computer will ask you for a reboot. Do that and if you didn't have all activated you'll have a shorter boottime and the whole pC will be way faster.

 

  It's the same process to get to the safe boot option and you can't mess anything up. Either you can make it faster, or it will be as it was if all cores were already activated.

 

        It's worth a try, it's free. 

 

  

 

     

[CHdiver]

4 minutes ago, Isaanbiker said:

Type msconig and hit enter

You forgot an f there, it should be msconfig. 

 

I checked my notebook, it's on 1 too. However, my notebook is plenty fast and I do not intend to change anything atm. It also may be the case that the notbook/software activates additional cores if they are needed. But I am not a computer specialist.

[Isaanbiker]

5 minutes ago, CHdiver said:

You forgot an f there, it should be msconfig. 

 

I checked my notebook, it's on 1 too. However, my notebook is plenty fast and I do not intend to change anything atm. It also may be the case that the notbook/software activates additional cores if they are needed. But I am not a computer specialist.

Oh god, thank you very much for pointing that out! My sincere apologies! 

 

P.S. You don't have to be a computer specialist, because this setting can't destroy anything when changed.

 

Just try and see if there are more numbers when you go to the 1. If it goes to 4 activate it and see how fast your machine is. 

 

It's really just a price issue. 

 

It doesn't activate anymore cores when needed, it's a factory setting. 

[andy72]

OK, this is BS

it used to be the same with graphic cards especially the radeon 98/pro

 

i used to flash the bios on cards

 

For CPUS it was the hyper-threading cores of the Pentium 4  range as well as overclocking 

 

as well as cores CPUs were stress tested for speed and making the speed less made the CPU more stable  hence the overclocking its always a risk

 

I used to do this but its not 100% guarantee it was more likely to work with graphic cards

 

here is why cpus and grafic cards have channels / cores after manufacture a stress test is done and those not deemed 100% are disabled and sold cheaper

 

Manufactures like Dell Compaq ( not really around anymore) used to place orders with cards cpus capacitors m/boards.memory to certain stress specifications ie quality control

 

the good stuff went to them

 

the not so good sold to others on the free market and the diy computer build setup was born

 

now you could enable all cores but there is a gamble that at some point your PC will crash and that moments/days work will be lost its equitable to the old windows  blue screen

 

Not disagreeing just clarifying the fact  

 

remember the old adage about a Monday car or a friday car in that workers made more mistakes on these days 

 

[Isaanbiker]

17 minutes ago, andy72 said:

OK, this is BS

it used to be the same with graphic cards especially the radeon 98/pro

 

i used to flash the bios on cards

 

For CPUS it was the hyper-threading cores of the Pentium 4  range as well as overclocking 

 

as well as cores CPUs were stress tested for speed and making the speed less made the CPU more stable  hence the overclocking its always a risk

 

I used to do this but its not 100% guarantee it was more likely to work with graphic cards

 

here is why cpus and grafic cards have channels / cores after manufacture a stress test is done and those not deemed 100% are disabled and sold cheaper

 

Manufactures like Dell Compaq ( not really around anymore) used to place orders with cards cpus capacitors m/boards.memory to certain stress specifications ie quality control

 

the good stuff went to them

 

the not so good sold to others on the free market and the diy computer build setup was born

 

now you could enable all cores but there is a gamble that at some point your PC will crash and that moments/days work will be lost its equitable to the old windows  blue screen

 

Not disagreeing just clarifying the fact  

 

remember the old adage about a Monday car or a friday car in that workers made more mistakes on these days 

 

I've tried that for a few weeks on my PC and my notebook and never saw the screen of death.

 

 

[KneeDeep]

35 minutes ago, Isaanbiker said:

Oh god, thank you very much for pointing that out! My sincere apologies! 

 

P.S. You don't have to be a computer specialist, because this setting can't destroy anything when changed.

 

Just try and see if there are more numbers when you go to the 1. If it goes to 4 activate it and see how fast your machine is. 

 

It's really just a price issue. 

 

It doesn't activate anymore cores when needed, it's a factory setting. 

 

Erm....no.

 

You left out the step that yours showed '1' but the box was not ticked. So it doesn't mean that one is being utilised. It's just a number that happens to be in that box. The number only has an effect when you tick that box.

[andy72]

Just to add that manufacturing processes have improved over the years

 

so it is possible there are some good disabled chips out there

 

it used to happen rarely when Intel ran out and had to cover an order

 

BUT on most of those occasions, PC MAGS would find out get the serial numbers from the batch and alert their readers

 

& of course OVERCLOCKERS.CO.UK ould sometimes get goodies that were guaranteed to be ran successfully at higher speeds & the birth of motherboards with voltage changes allowed as well as incremental step ups in the BIOS

 

So it is at your own risk if your not working on anything important fine 

[Isaanbiker]

3 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

Erm....no.

 

You left out the step that yours showed '1' but the box was not ticked. So it doesn't mean that one is being utilised. It's just a number that happens to be in that box. The number only has an effect when you tick that box.

I ticked that box before. Then changed to 4. Please see screenshot. 

[andy72]

6 minutes ago, Isaanbiker said:

I've tried that for a few weeks on my PC and my notebook and never saw the screen of death.

Its all about the stress you place on the CPU as to whether the channels can manage without errors

 

[Isaanbiker]

2 minutes ago, andy72 said:

Just to add that manufacturing processes have improved over the years

 

so it is possible there are some good disabled chips out there

 

it used to happen rarely when Intel ran out and had to cover an order

 

BUT on most of those occasions, PC MAGS would find out get the serial numbers from the batch and alert their readers

 

& of course OVERCLOCKERS.CO.UK ould sometimes get goodies that were guaranteed to be ran successfully at higher speeds & the birth of motherboards with voltage changes allowed as well as incremental step ups in the BIOS

 

So it is at your own risk if your not working on anything important fine 

My PC and notebook are much faster, including booting and shutdown. That tells me that not all cores were enabled. 

 

  Okay, I might be wrong, but appreciate a faster PC and notebook. 

 

   I've done this task with a nice program called System Mechanic that has the option to activate all cores before I even tried this one. 

[Isaanbiker]

5 minutes ago, andy72 said:

Its all about the stress you place on the CPU as to whether the channels can manage without errors

 

It looks like it does. 

[sirineou]

I know very litle about computer architecture but I know a lot about sales and this fix does not sound right to me. If I had a computer with the capability to run a lot faster, I would not throttled it so that I can sell it cheaper, I would let it run at it true capacity , discounted it to the cheaper price, blow the competition out of the water, and sell the hell out of it. IMO the chip might have the capacity to run faster, but the surrounding infrastructure is of a cheaper computer and does not support the faster run time, 

But as I said I know very litle about the specifics and could be wrong.  

[KneeDeep]

1 hour ago, Isaanbiker said:

I ticked that box before. Then changed to 4. Please see screenshot. 

 

It seems that you did not understand what I wrote.

 

Windows is already utilising all of your cores. The '1' in the box means nothing, until you tick the box. Then you can limit the amount of cores utilised in that session by ticking the box and choosing. But without ticking the box, Windows will utilise the max possible.

 

Someone clearly misunderstood what they read and then misled you.

[KneeDeep]

1 hour ago, Isaanbiker said:

My PC and notebook are much faster, including booting and shutdown. That tells me that not all cores were enabled. 

 

  Okay, I might be wrong, but appreciate a faster PC and notebook. 

 

   I've done this task with a nice program called System Mechanic that has the option to activate all cores before I even tried this one. 

 

System Mechanic is also marketing nonsense. All it does is change the Power Mode.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4026458/windows-10-change-the-power-mode-for-your-pc

Useless on a PC as you would have set to High Performance anyway.

Their Ultra Mode claims to shut down other services if the PC is under heavy load, in order to improve performance.

You can shut extraneous Apps and services down yourself if really necessary.

You might choose Balanced on a laptop to save battery power.

[cleopatra2]

12 hours ago, sirineou said:

I know very litle about computer architecture but I know a lot about sales and this fix does not sound right to me. If I had a computer with the capability to run a lot faster, I would not throttled it so that I can sell it cheaper, I would let it run at it true capacity , discounted it to the cheaper price, blow the competition out of the water, and sell the hell out of it. IMO the chip might have the capacity to run faster, but the surrounding infrastructure is of a cheaper computer and does not support the faster run time, 

But as I said I know very litle about the specifics and could be wrong.  

A bit like running your car engine in the red all the time

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

A bit like running your car engine in the red all the time

A good analogy 

[jackdd]

This box is not checked by default, which means by default windows uses all available cores.

Is there any manufacturer which limits the number of cores using this setting? If not, this thread is kinda senseless

 

I assume that if a manufacturer would want to limit the cores in a specific model (and he would not just buy the cheaper version of the CPU which comes with less cores), he would do this through the BIOS and not through this setting which would be reset to unlimited if the user ever reinstalls windows.

[Beggar]

3 hours ago, jackdd said:

This box is not checked by default, which means by default windows uses all available cores.

Is there any manufacturer which limits the number of cores using this setting? If not, this thread is kinda senseless

 

I assume that if a manufacturer would want to limit the cores in a specific model (and he would not just buy the cheaper version of the CPU which comes with less cores), he would do this through the BIOS and not through this setting which would be reset to unlimited if the user ever reinstalls windows.

My Gigabyte board allows to switch off Hyperthreading / Multithreading in the BIOS. The effect is that only one core will be used (my CPU has 8 threads). This was important when the first multi core CPUs came on the market and some older software had problems with this. At some BIOS you can also limit the number of cores. Just checked in MY Bios and you can select the amount of cores that should be used. 

 

[Isaanbiker]

IMO, my older Dell notebook lightens up when I'm using the option of System Mechanic to use all cores.

 

   My newer Dell desktop seems to be a bit faster, but after reading some articles, running W 10 Pro will automatically use all cores when needed and I'm quite irritated what's true and what's not. 

 

    Using the "msconfig" method to use 4 of my cores instead of 1 doesn't seem to make a difference on Windows 10. 

 

"If you are using Windows 10, the box next to “Number of processors” will normally be UNchecked. This is because Windows is configured to utilize all cores whenever a program has the ability to use them."

 

Using System Mechanic's settings on Additional Power Settings and using "Ultra Performance by engaging all CPU cores at full clock speed" seems to have influence on the speed. At least on my older notebook. 

 

  There's so much information on the internet that I have my doubts if this "msconfig" setting actually changes much.

 

   A question to software professionals. Does System Mechanic's setting really change your PC's speed?

 

And is it really worth to activate more cores when running W 10 Pro? 

 

   

 

   

 

    

 

Source: https://www.techjunkie.com/enable-all-cores-windows/

 

   

  

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, Isaanbiker said:

IMO, my older Dell notebook lightens up when I'm using the option of System Mechanic to use all cores.

 

   My newer Dell desktop seems to be a bit faster, but after reading some articles, running W 10 Pro will automatically use all cores when needed and I'm quite irritated what's true and what's not. 

 

    Using the "msconfig" method to use 4 of my cores instead of 1 doesn't seem to make a difference on Windows 10. 

 

"If you are using Windows 10, the box next to “Number of processors” will normally be UNchecked. This is because Windows is configured to utilize all cores whenever a program has the ability to use them."

 

Using System Mechanic's settings on Additional Power Settings and using "Ultra Performance by engaging all CPU cores at full clock speed" seems to have influence on the speed. At least on my older notebook. 

 

  There's so much information on the internet that I have my doubts if this "msconfig" setting actually changes much.

 

   A question to software professionals. Does System Mechanic's setting really change your PC's speed?

 

And is it really worth to activate more cores when running W 10 Pro? 

 

   

 

   

 

    

 

Source: https://www.techjunkie.com/enable-all-cores-windows/

 

   

  

I may have misunderstood your original post some clarification would be usefull.

The general synopsis in the OP is all cpu are  the same with differences in price reflected by the manufacturer disabling some features. E.G the number of cores.

 

If we use intels core line of cpu then this would mean the same generation i3 i5 and i7 are identical .

The difference resulting from manufacture disabling the number of cores 

It is difficult to understand how msconfig would be able to enable these cores.

 

I am aware of the rumours that some Pentium cpu are actually i3 that failed the Quality Comtroll rebranded with features disabled.

[KneeDeep]

2 hours ago, Isaanbiker said:

IMO, my older Dell notebook lightens up when I'm using the option of System Mechanic to use all cores.

 

   My newer Dell desktop seems to be a bit faster, but after reading some articles, running W 10 Pro will automatically use all cores when needed and I'm quite irritated what's true and what's not. 

 

    Using the "msconfig" method to use 4 of my cores instead of 1 doesn't seem to make a difference on Windows 10. 

 

"If you are using Windows 10, the box next to “Number of processors” will normally be UNchecked. This is because Windows is configured to utilize all cores whenever a program has the ability to use them."

 

Using System Mechanic's settings on Additional Power Settings and using "Ultra Performance by engaging all CPU cores at full clock speed" seems to have influence on the speed. At least on my older notebook. 

 

  There's so much information on the internet that I have my doubts if this "msconfig" setting actually changes much.

 

   A question to software professionals. Does System Mechanic's setting really change your PC's speed?

 

And is it really worth to activate more cores when running W 10 Pro? 

 

   

 

   

 

    

 

Source: https://www.techjunkie.com/enable-all-cores-windows/

 

   

  

 

Did you completely ignore my reply to you?

 

I talked you through both System Mechanic and your msconfig idea. Corroborated by the article to which you have linked.

 

Quote

If you’re using Windows 10, all of your processor cores will be enabled by default if your BIOS/UEFI is set correctly. The only time you would use this technique is to limit cores.

 

[Isaanbiker]

19 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

Did you completely ignore my reply to you?

 

I talked you through both System Mechanic and your msconfig idea. Corroborated by the article to which you have linked.

 

 

My apologies for the late reply, just read your post. As cleopatra has stated it seems that some information is on the internet that high quality CPU's were used in low quality PC's.

 

   I also understand that Windows 10 is using all cores when needed. I've read a few articles about it and got it now.  

 

In addition I think i was misled by System Mechanic's program to enable all cores, which might work out at a very old CPU like my DELL Inspiron has.

 

  In general, it's not true what my original post was suggesting and it would be great if a moderator would close this thread.

 

   It's not as easy as I thought it would be. Thanks a lot for your answers. Time to close this thread that leads to nowhere.   

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, Isaanbiker said:

My apologies for the late reply, just read your post. As cleopatra has stated it seems that some information is on the internet that high quality CPU's were used in low quality PC's.

 

   I also understand that Windows 10 is using all cores when needed. I've read a few articles about it and got it now.  

 

In addition I think i was misled by System Mechanic's program to enable all cores, which might work out at a very old CPU like my DELL Inspiron has.

 

  In general, it's not true what my original post was suggesting and it would be great if a moderator would close this thread.

 

   It's not as easy as I thought it would be. Thanks a lot for your answers. Time to close this thread that leads to nowhere.   

There is no shame in making a mistake or exploring a possibility, That's how people learn. And IMO highly admirable to admite to one . Those who are afraid of mistakes never venture, and spend capital defending them.

Thank you for attempting to help. You did a good thing. I for one appreciate it.

[KneeDeep]

I agree with the above. The best use of a discussion forum. To weed out, between us, the best way forward.

[dotpoom]

On 10/25/2019 at 10:28 PM, Isaanbiker said:

Type "msconfig" and hit enter.

Type it where?

[Isaanbiker]

1 hour ago, dotpoom said:

Type it where?

Into your search box.

 

[Been There]

Don't bother with this ... it's nonsense It was posted on You Tube by someone who gets a kick out of practical jokes 

[30la]

One is activated, there is the possibility of activating a second one, but it always returns to the original configuration.
Thanks anyway!

[rvaviator]

One is activated, there is the possibility of activating a second one, but it always returns to the original configuration.
Thanks anyway!

Just a comment on overclocking in general - good idea to watch your CPU temperature - some good free utilities out there for doing just that ... I worry at times when on the laptop in a non / AC room - especially if running graphic intensive programs ....


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[dallen52]

On 10/26/2019 at 3:17 AM, Isaanbiker said:

I've tried that for a few weeks on my PC and my notebook and never saw the screen of death.

 

 

Its also the difference between the Pentium and Celeron versions. 

Inferior CPU chips are normally sold as a celeron.

 

Similar putting the machine in turbo mode. 

And yes, if you have extra usage activated it will obviously run hotter too.

Activate as many cores as you can. 

Its not Rocket science.