CPU usage 100% for no reason


Recommended Posts

I have a PC that that I bought awhile ago and it is 100% perfect according to the vista upgrade advisor app.

I am using my powertogether (MS Campaign) version of vista business(32bit) and it installs without a hitch. but it is laggy. I used actual drivers for vista on my Vid card, Printer Etc. but it is slow and laggy

I used EVEREST home edition to snoop out my specs.

my specs:

Compaq SR1730Z CTO(Custom to order)

AMD64 3700+ Sandiego w/ 1MB cache

2GB PC3200 DDR ram

160GB SATA drive

lightscribe DVD burner (dual layer

no name DVD-Rom

SB Audigy4

ATI x1800GTO 256MB DDR3

ATI Xpress200 chipset (ATI RS482/RX482 northbridge, ATI SB450 southbridge)

Now mind you, it runs nicely otherwise albeit the lag and the task manager telling me my CPU is screaming along at 80-100% usage.

My best educated guess is my chipset doesn't play well. So i spoke to a rep at HP and he said that ATI hasn't released official drivers yet for Vista. no idea when but HP does have Vista added under the support/drivers. So i guess that will come soon!?!

what causes the CPU to run so high when my task manager says it is running at or near 100% the idle process uses like 80% but nothing else seems to come about when i click the "processes by user" button.

any ideas? I like Vista and it was free and otherwise a fun OS to tinker with.

BTW, I tried to use the WEI (windows experience index) rating app and it always gets to the end then says that too much interference causes it to not be able to finish.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/538003-cpu-usage-100-for-no-reason/
Share on other sites

Yeah, what Mio said. If you click the Performance tab, your CPU shouldn't be too high (mine's 0-2% idle).

However, CPU aside, memory does seem to be a high-end resource :unsure: With just tasks such as Firefox and Gaim, Vista uses up nearly 1.3 GB of memory. Anybody else noticing this?

Vista actually doesn't use as much RAM as it seems, but it caches your frequently accessed files on startup so that frequently-used apps and such will load faster. This is otherwise known as SuperFetch, and is why hard drives tend to do a lot of "thrashing" when Vista first boots.

If another program actually needs any of this memory, Vista will instantly release it.

The idea here (and accurately) is that free RAM is wasted RAM so Vista tries to use as much RAM as possible.

Nobody seems to get this and reports that Vista uses massive amounts of RAM, and while it definitely uses more RAM than XP, its not as bad as it first appears.

  Ames said:
Vista actually doesn't use as much RAM as it seems, but it caches your frequently accessed files on startup so that frequently-used apps and such will load faster. This is otherwise known as SuperFetch, and is why hard drives tend to do a lot of "thrashing" when Vista first boots.

If another program actually needs any of this memory, Vista will instantly release it.

The idea here (and accurately) is that free RAM is wasted RAM so Vista tries to use as much RAM as possible.

Nobody seems to get this and reports that Vista uses massive amounts of RAM, and while it definitely uses more RAM than XP, its not as bad as it first appears.

Thank you. That clears that up for me very nicely.

  Brandon Live said:
Have you clicked the "Show process from all users" button and then clicked the CPU column header to sort by CPU usage and see which process is using the most CPU cycles?

yeah but, there's nothing showing why other than system kernel which is running like a cat in heat :cry:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Doesn't that assume that there is only one potential use-case scenario when in fact there are millions of people who live in urban areas that only require a small fraction of that?
    • Google Chrome is ending support for two ancient versions of Android by Usama Jawad Google Chrome is the most used browser right now, with the competition trailing far behind. What browser you use typically ends up being a matter of preference and familiarity, but all vendors are trying to one-up each other as they vy for more market share. Recently, Google claimed that Chrome is now faster than ever while Microsoft boasted that Edge is better at ad-blocking than Google's offering. Regardless of all these factors, Chrome commands a significant market share, even on legacy systems. Now, Google has announced that it is ending support for Chrome on two legacy versions of Android. In a brief blog post, Google has announced that it is dropping support for Chrome on Android 8 Oreo and Android 9 Pie with the upcoming version 139 of the browser expected to release on August 5. Right now, the current stable version of Chrome is 137, which means that Chrome 138 will be the last version of the browser to support these legacy operating systems. In practice, this means that Chrome will require Android 10.0 or above on mobile platforms in order to receive further updates. While the browser will continue working on older versions of Android, they will not receive updates, which means that they'll be left insecure and vulnerable to cybersecurity threats. As expected, Google has recommended that users on older systems should migrate to at least Android 10 in order to continue receiving updates on Chrome. While the company hasn't explicitly stated a reason behind its decision, it likely has to do with the dwindling user base of these old versions of Android and Google's ambitions to get more people to upgrade to newer versions of its mobile operating system. It's important to note that Android 8 was released in August 2017 and received its final security patch in October 2021. Meanwhile, Android 9 was rolled out to the public in August 2019 and netted its final update in January 2022. So in retrospect, Google has already been offering Chrome support for these legacy versions long after they hit end-of-support themselves.
    • I use two of these in RAID0 for video games and other things, together they are capable of 2.8 million IOPS and 15 GB/s on Gen4. At this price, 4 TB of Gen4 is faster and less expensive than a single 2 TB Gen5 NVMe, not to mention easier to cool off. Highly recommend.
    • that is a normal sign in, they just put in a dumb location to try to hide it... and yes I think the whole MS account by default is BS too, the first question should be do you want an online profile or a local one
    • From our past comments, it looks like some ppl are defo enjoying these stories.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      adnan.hebibovic earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      adnan.hebibovic earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      tesla maxwell earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      Camlann earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      fredss earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      629
    2. 2
      Michael Scrip
      224
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      219
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      143
    5. 5
      Xenon
      134
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!