Do some searching on the net, some people say that if you remove all the motherboard drivers and then move the drive over to the new motherboard Windows will auto load the new MB drivers never thinking anything has changed, I have NEVER tried this on my own so have no personal knowledge if this really works or not. For me the key is to do a REALLY REALLY good backup before you do ANYTHING so if things don't work you can always go back to where you are. Another thing I saw says in some cases you can port Windows over to a new system IF you have the right kind of Windows, ie no manufacturer installed versions work, one of my installations says it will do that but I'm not moving anything right now.

I backup monthly using a direct clone of both disks (I have an SSD system disk, and a rotary drive for large stuff like films and TV). I ran one of those backups first, then searched on the net and the only caution was about the license getting damaged, which I'm not concerned about for two reasons, one of which is you can just phone Microsoft as long as it doesn't happen too often. I then cloned the system disk to a spare disk, shoved that in the new machine and it very quickly automatically installed the drivers and behaved as if nothing had changed. So I discarded that drive and shoved the real drives across. Works perfectly. The only thing that didn't work was overclocking. I don't know why I bothered trying, I've never had success in the past. I tried 3 things: 1) speed up the main bus, from 100MHz to 110MHz. Couldn't even boot into the BIOS, had to reset the CMOS with the button on the motherboard. 2) change the multiplier. By default it auto varies anywhere between 3.8GHz and 4.7GHz depending on the temperature and how many cores you're using. When trying to overclock it, I changed it from "Auto 3.8" to "3.9". This resulted in it being 3.9 all the time, so slower! I thought about forcing it higher by that method, but thought perhaps I'd remove the safety catch of overheating and slowing down, plus it's probably able to go fast for different numbers of cores so removing that ability is counter productive. 3) "Game boost" in the BIOS, which should do it automatically. It made zero difference to running 1, 4, 8, 12, or 24 Boinc tasks at once. Things may be complicated by me only having one (32GB) RAM stick, so single channel. I did that so I have more room to upgrade in the future. It'll get a second one at some point, and maybe one day a 3rd and a 4th.

That's very good, so did you remove the mb drivers first or just move it over and off it went? And YES if you get a 2nd ram chip it will be faster but you have to look in the manual to see if the mb is dual or quad channel ram. I have one that is quad channel and 1 that is dual channel. BUT if you search the net, I think I saw a story on Tech Spot, about quad channel not being that much faster to justify the expense with the bigger chips like yours.

I think I saw a story on Tech Spot, about quad channel not being that much faster to justify the expense with the bigger chips like yours.

It all depends on the application.
If an application needs lots of main memory bandwidth- then quad channel will make a big improvement in it's performance. If it doesn't, then it won't.
Going from a single channel to dual channel generally does improve overall system responsiveness.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

it should be possible since win10. maybe it tries to boot twice to recognise the new mb.

You didn't have to post that twice to make your point ;-)

It happens alot for people with slower connections due to the lage even you see when posting being sooooo long. It also happens with fumble fingers.

I don't get a lag on this forum. Ebay forums, they take about 20 seconds! Producing some weird "too many redirects" error, which I'm starting to get on a lot of forums, I don't know if it's Opera objecting to advertising or what. I'm sure I've tried it on other browsers without even any adblockers and it still happens.

---

That's very good, so did you remove the mb drivers first or just move it over and off it went? And YES if you get a 2nd ram chip it will be faster but you have to look in the manual to see if the mb is dual or quad channel ram. I have one that is quad channel and 1 that is dual channel. BUT if you search the net, I think I saw a story on Tech Spot, about quad channel not being that much faster to justify the expense with the bigger chips like yours.

I just moved the disk to the new machine and it worked. It didn't even reboot, and I hardly noticed it installing drivers. I think there was a brief message somewhere.

The motherboard is dual channel, but it's up to the CPU aswell since I think the memory controller is actually inside the CPU. It's also dual channel. So I can double the RAM access speed once.

On second thoughts, I won't bother, looks like the RAM isn't often a bottleneck:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1349-ram-how-dual-channel-works-vs-single-channel/Page-3
Thanks for making me look that up, I'm not going to waste £120 now. I'll only buy more RAM if I ever actually need higher capacity. 32GB for 24 cores is probably fine for a long time, unless I start running only projects with RAM-hungry tasks like LHC. I can run out of memory doing only LHC's CMS for example, which needs 2GB per core. But unless I specifically ask for them, they mostly hand out the smaller Theory tasks.

I have seen on climate prediction that they talk about running out of cache RAM in the CPU if you run one on every core. Perhaps then double speed main RAM would help by x2. But it looks like most applications and games do not benefit much at all from dual channel.

---

I think I saw a story on Tech Spot, about quad channel not being that much faster to justify the expense with the bigger chips like yours.

It all depends on the application.
If an application needs lots of main memory bandwidth- then quad channel will make a big improvement in it's performance. If it doesn't, then it won't.
Going from a single channel to dual channel generally does improve overall system responsiveness.

I'm finding reports of only 5-15% faster. There are probably a few memory intensive applications that it would benefit, like climate prediction.

---

BUT if you search the net, I think I saw a story on Tech Spot, about quad channel not being that much faster to justify the expense with the bigger chips like yours.

It's not the chip that's big, but the cooler, which is 6 inches cubed! That's only one processor under there, with a twin heatsink with twin fans, and 12 heatpipes feeding them, occupying almost the whole width of the motherboard, quite annoying to connect things underneath! You can raise or lower the fans by one heatsink fin at a time to accommodate RAM underneath.

---

On second thoughts, I won't bother, looks like the RAM isn't often a bottleneck:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1349-ram-how-dual-channel-works-vs-single-channel/Page-3
Thanks for making me look that up, I'm not going to waste £120 now. I'll only buy more RAM if I ever actually need higher capacity. 32GB for 24 cores is probably fine for a long time, unless I start running only projects with RAM-hungry tasks like LHC. I can run out of memory doing only LHC's CMS for example, which needs 2GB per core. But unless I specifically ask for them, they mostly hand out the smaller Theory tasks.

I have seen on climate prediction that they talk about running out of cache RAM in the CPU if you run one on every core. Perhaps then double speed main RAM would help by x2. But it looks like most applications and games do not benefit much at all from dual channel.

On third thoughts, my favourite game Fallout 4 "benefits immensely" from dual channel. I guess it, like Climate Prediction, is memory intensive.
https://www.hardwaretimes.com/dual-channel-vs-single-channel-ram-which-one-is-better/

---

On second thoughts, I won't bother, looks like the RAM isn't often a bottleneck:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1349-ram-how-dual-channel-works-vs-single-channel/Page-3
Thanks for making me look that up, I'm not going to waste £120 now. I'll only buy more RAM if I ever actually need higher capacity. 32GB for 24 cores is probably fine for a long time, unless I start running only projects with RAM-hungry tasks like LHC. I can run out of memory doing only LHC's CMS for example, which needs 2GB per core. But unless I specifically ask for them, they mostly hand out the smaller Theory tasks.

I have seen on climate prediction that they talk about running out of cache RAM in the CPU if you run one on every core. Perhaps then double speed main RAM would help by x2. But it looks like most applications and games do not benefit much at all from dual channel.

On third thoughts, my favourite game Fallout 4 "benefits immensely" from dual channel. I guess it, like Climate Prediction, is memory intensive.
https://www.hardwaretimes.com/dual-channel-vs-single-channel-ram-which-one-is-better/

One thing my local computer store did was to order something and then return it when they were done testing my parts, of course if my parts had worked I would have kept what they ordered but since it didn't they sent it back.....do the same thing...order 2 sticks of 16gb ram, take out your 32gb stick and put them in the machine and see if things speed up, if so then you know you will need to upgrade to another 32gb stick at some point. Then put your 32gb stick back in again and send the 2 sticks back and get your money back. Essentially you get free test parts with only a few weeks of a lower bank balance.

BUT if you search the net, I think I saw a story on Tech Spot, about quad channel not being that much faster to justify the expense with the bigger chips like yours.

It's not the chip that's big, but the cooler, which is 6 inches cubed! That's only one processor under there, with a twin heatsink with twin fans, and 12 heatpipes feeding them, occupying almost the whole width of the motherboard, quite annoying to connect things underneath! You can raise or lower the fans by one heatsink fin at a time to accommodate RAM underneath.

Elephant balancing on a beachball... Just say no

---

I found that R@H can overload the computer
The solution to solve the technical problem is to go in the boinc manager and tu réduce the number of used processors to around 70% or 65% to work easy

Guy

I found that R@H can overload the computer
The solution to solve the technical problem is to go in the boinc manager and tu réduce the number of used processors to around 70% or 65% to work easy

Guy

I'm guessing you got the Python work units. Those use a lot of RAM.

---

I found that R@H can overload the computer
The solution to solve the technical problem is to go in the boinc manager and tu réduce the number of used processors to around 70% or 65% to work easy

Guy

I'm guessing you got the Python work units. Those use a lot of RAM.

Or is his machine overheating due to inadequate / faulty cooling?

I found that R@H can overload the computer
The solution to solve the technical problem is to go in the boinc manager and tu réduce the number of used processors to around 70% or 65% to work easy

Guy

I'm guessing you got the Python work units. Those use a lot of RAM.

Or is his machine overheating due to inadequate / faulty cooling?

Or the OC rate is to high. All of these things lead to heat generation.
And a air cooler? I gave up on those a long time ago.
Research what is the best liquid cooling.
Arctic brand is one of them, but that takes some tech skills as its a custom system that you have to assemble.
Don't bother with the lower end AIO's they burn out after a year of heavy use.

I found that R@H can overload the computer
The solution to solve the technical problem is to go in the boinc manager and tu réduce the number of used processors to around 70% or 65% to work easy

Guy

I'm guessing you got the Python work units. Those use a lot of RAM.

DING DING DING we have a winner...he is running Python units and their system is:

CPU type GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-9700F CPU @ 3.00GHz [Family 6 Model 158 Stepping 13]
Number of processors 8
Coprocessors NVIDIA NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (4095MB) driver: 471.96 OpenCL: 3.0
Operating System Microsoft Windows 10
Core x64 Edition, (10.00.19043.00)
BOINC version 7.16.11
Memory 16257.86 MB

They need to use a simple app_config.xml file to limit the number of tasks that can run at one time AND reduce the cache size so they don't get too many units.

<app_config>
<project_max_concurrent>1</project_max_concurrent>
</app_config>

Mikey, still nothing on my system:

CPU type AuthenticAMD
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core Processor [Family 23 Model 113 Stepping 0]
Number of processors 16
Coprocessors [2] NVIDIA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (4095MB) driver: 472.12 OpenCL: 3.0
Operating System Microsoft Windows 10
Professional x64 Edition, (10.00.19043.00)
BOINC version 7.16.20
Memory 24501.59 MB
Cache 512 KB

Mikey, still nothing on my system:

CPU type AuthenticAMD
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core Processor [Family 23 Model 113 Stepping 0]
Number of processors 16
Coprocessors [2] NVIDIA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (4095MB) driver: 472.12 OpenCL: 3.0
Operating System Microsoft Windows 10
Professional x64 Edition, (10.00.19043.00)
BOINC version 7.16.20
Memory 24501.59 MB
Cache 512 KB

They have 40 TIMES as many regular tasks as Python tasks in progress, keep aborting the regular ones and the Python ones will eventually come thru. I have Rosetta set at a resource share of 1 out of 100 and got sooo many Python units I couldn't finish them all before the deadline by keeping aborting the regular tasks. Be aware each units takes the same 8gb minimum free ram to even get, so what I did was set my running projects to no new tasks or suspended if they were more than about 30 minutes, that way the only Project fighting for tasks was Rosetta and after a couple retires they started flowing. I then resumed the other Projects but set them to run 1 less task than the amount I allow for Boinc and set Rosetta to only run 1 task at a time on my 16gb machine. I have now upgraded that machine to 64gb so will try again in a couple days once I reach a goal at WCG.

I'm not sure if there's an outage or what, but I've not noticed any new work in my task on my "Tasks" for quite some time now. Is there an issue?

I'm not sure if there's an outage or what, but I've not noticed any new work in my task on my "Tasks" for quite some time now. Is there an issue?

Please see the threads in the number crunching forum.

The standard Rosetta tasks are now few and far between, they have been replaced with Python based tasks that, as well as being very resource hungry, require VBox64 to be installed, enabled and configured. On top of that, if during your set up you get it slightly wrong it will disable sending of tasks to your machine and you need to go into the device page for that machine to re-enable them.

I'm not getting any tasks either. I've change NO settings. Been a few days now. No choice but to switch to a different project. A few months back I tried the python projects and my computer would crash all the time. Reinstalled everything disabled python and all was well until a few days ago. Pretty sure it's not me.

I'm not getting any tasks either. I've change NO settings. Been a few days now. No choice but to switch to a different project. A few months back I tried the python projects and my computer would crash all the time. Reinstalled everything disabled python and all was well until a few days ago. Pretty sure it's not me.

It's not you. Non-Python work has been extremely rare since October or something, I guess.

---