Dual i7 (8-core) RT system motherboard suggestions?

Greetings LV Community,
I need to duplicate a Dual Xeon (8 core) RT-PC system that we built a few years back. The motherboard we used has become obsolete, so I'm looking for a replacement motherboard that can handle two i7 quad-core processors.
I'm aware of the app notes on the NI website that list compatible chipsets and individual system components that can be used for a custom RT PC system (--this is how we built the last system). However, I also remember a few "gotchas" along the way before we got everything working as intended.
I was wondering if anyone has recently built an 8 (or more) core RT PC, and if they have any recommendations (or cautions!) with regard to the current options for motherboards and/or component selection?
Thanks,
-- Dave
www.movimed.com - Custom Imaging Solutions

Thanks for the info about the i7s. Perhaps this is why all my web searches for dual i7 motherboard options kept coming back with pages and pages of single socket motherboards...
(As you probably can tell, custom RT builds aren't my first integration choice. However, it doesn't appear that NI offers an 8-core PXI controller... yet.)
The previous system was originally a single quad-core Xeon system -- later upgraded to a dual processor configuration to enhance throughput. The Tyan motherboard sported a complete set of NI-friendly chipsets, but it is now obsolete.
I was hoping to get some feedback from folks who have recently built an 8-core system -- Xeon would be fine too.
Thanks again,
-- Dave
www.movimed.com - Custom Imaging Solutions

Similar Messages

Can't get windows 8.1 with dual boot for fedora (linux) . system is UEFI .

Can't get windows 8.1 with dual boot for fedora (linux) . system is UEFI .

Hi,
Any update here?
We may seek help at Fedora forum as Milos suggested, if convenient we could share the related thread link here for reference.
In addition, please also check the information in the similar thread:
Dual Boot Windows 8 and Linux?
Best regards
Michael Shao
TechNet Community Support

ITunes stutters - go to dual or quad core?

Hi all,
I'm looking for somebody who knows about iTunes and also about hardware...
The issue I've been having for more than a year now is that due to my large library (14,000+ songs) and complex and extensive use of smart playlists, iTunes has to 'think' too much whenever a new song starts playing. Usually this causes iTunes to just freeze for 10 to 20 seconds while it updates all the playlists and the music keeps playing, but sometimes it also causes the music to stutter. I haven't been able to determine which situations cause the stuttering in particular, but suffice it to say that doing heavy photo editing in Adobe Lightroom and playing music with iTunes is usually not all that pleasant.
Now I've been wondering whether a dual or quad core processor would solve this problem. Besides the obvious extra speed, am I right in saying that the problem should largely go away because iTunes and Lightroom would be using different processors? Is the problem only with processor speed or does RAM has an influence too?)
Does anybody have some light to shed on this problem?
Thank you very much.
Tijl Kindt

I wasn't aware that I was at the bare minimum. The Athlon64 3800+ is a 2.4GHz single-core. System requirements for iTunes are 500MHz and for lightroom a Pentium 4-class processor (say 1.5GHz). Granted, I'm using them both at the same time and especially iTunes at more extreme than usual settings. I'm using Windows XP Home (32-bit) btw...
So, I guess a dual core or quad core it'll have to be then... Too bad it's gonna cost me around €350 though.
If anybody still has some ideas about solving the stuttering software-wise, then I'm all ears.
Greetings,
Tijl Kindt

WARNING: DSP 3 NOT supported under Quad-Core G5 Systems!

This is from my posting at the DSP forum and a warning to all...
Alright, are you ready for this one? I just contacted Apple Support about running DSP 3 on my newly purchased Quad-core G5.
Those of us with a Quad-core G5 system are SCREWED when it comes to using DSP 3. The Apple guy told me that DSP 3 is not supported under the Quad systems (because "the Quad systems didn't exist at the time that DSP 3 was around" but wait, didn't DSP 4 come out BEFORE the Quad-core systems, too?). You have to use DSP 4 if you have a Quad-core G5.
I explained my outrage to the guy (very unsympathetic) that Apple does not post this information on their website and does not inform their Apple Store employees about the issue (I had mentioned to several employees of my intentions to run DSP 3 on the system when I was buying it).
The guy said that no one's complaining about this issue because "everyone gets the latest and greatest software to run on the newest machines" and "that's just the nature of technology" Yeah, right. I hate to say it, but I have Windows 98 apps from a single proc that run fine on Windows XP on a dual proc system.
Anyway, spread the word and give Apple some more money by upgrading to DSP 4, so that they can keep nickel and diming us. The guy mentioned that if anyone wants to complain, that they can complain to the Final Cut Pro discussions site since apparently, that's the place where Apple actually reads posts.

Heya,
Unsupported it may be, but does it run ok? I could
see it having worse performance than on a single-proc
machine, but it shouldn;t have any actual problems.
The guy said that no one's complaining about this
issue because "everyone gets the latest and greatest
software to run on the newest machines" and "that's
Well, given that you have bought their first machine
which supports > 2 concurrent threads [e.g. one system
thread and one app thread], I'd say he's partly right.
Anyone forking out the money for a quad will be [partly]
wasting it if they do not run applications that are
written to be fully multithreaded, i.e. written with
the quad in mind.
This is probably especially true on the Apple platform
as the programmers will assume that the user is on
one of the handful of machines available at the time.
Being inherently lazy, no programmer is going to add the
complexity of supporting n threads if only single-proc
machines are being sold [yeah,ok, there were dual-procs,
but that really means a two-thread system, which is
normally the case anyways ... one for GUI and one for
processing].
to say it, but I have Windows 98 apps from a single
proc that run fine on Windows XP on a dual proc
system.
Given the nature of Windows 98[/95/ME] and the
applications written for it, I am very frightened
for your system integrity
--Mike

I am new in using Mac operating system, kindly suggest ebooks , videos or audio books to me so that i can learn more about it?

i am new in using Mac operating system, kindly suggest ebooks, videos or audio books to me so that i can learn more about it.
any kind of help would be appriciated. i am very eager to learn.how to make ios application? and how to effectively use terminal? where does the basic programming start in Mac? what are the different tools that can help me make an Mac application and ios application.
-Thank you
Shailendra (India)

Apple has got some great guides to start developing in Objective-C, used for programming OS X and iOS apps > http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#referencelibrary/GettingStarted/RoadMapO SX/chapters/01_Introduction.html

I have a the Spring 2011 iMac and I am looking to connect both my Bose Companion 2's with my new Companion 20's together to have one single audio system, any suggestions on how this can be done?

I have a the Spring 2011 iMac and I am looking to connect both my Bose Companion 2's with my new Companion 20's together to have one single audio system, any suggestions on how this can be done?

FIxed my problem!
After years the problem was solved somply!
Go to System preferences
Go to Ethernet
Go to Advance
Go to Hardware
The just make the changes like in the pictures below

Dual 3ghz intel core xenon desktop work with lion?

i have a dual 3ghz intel core xenon desktop... can i instal lion? i also have a laptop that already has it on it? would love to have them all run on lion... if not can i upgrade the computer?
thanks...

Apple support for Lion - any Xeon
http://www.apple.com/support/lion
Is all your software ready? nothing that has to use Rosetta?

Single quad core model- same motherboard as duals?

Does this model use the same system board as the models with two quad core processors, or does it have on slot for processors instead of two? Considering this model with an eye towards upgrading in the future.
Thanks for any insights,

AFAIK it does. But you won't get the second heatsink and sensor that is needed for both. Best bet is to get the lowest speed dualie and upgrade from there I think...

Advice on dual-booting Windows 7 with UEFI motherboard

I'm going to build a desktop PC tomorrow, having finally purchased all the parts for it. I'll be installing Arch as my main OS, and Windows for gaming. However I'm not really versed in UEFI and its uses, advantages/disadvantages; since my laptop just uses BIOS.
My plan is to have 3 drives: 32GB SSD for the / partition, 1TB HDD for /home, and 500GB for Windows 7 x64 Ultimate.
Being unused to UEFI I was thinking about trying to just run everything in BIOS/Legacy mode, but that doesn't seem very sensible to me, especially since I have the hardware so I might as well use it.
So, reading the wiki and forums have led me to conclude that having a 1GB EFI System Partition on the SSD should be sufficient, and use gummiboot for my bootloader.
Other reading about setting up dual boots suggests to me that installing Windows 7 on its own HDD with MBR partitioning and Arch on a separate (set of) drive(s) with GPT partitioning will be sufficient. The reason being that if the BIOS is set up to boot sda, which has GRUB as its bootloader, using GRUB I can choose to boot into Windows despite it being on a separate hard drive.
My questions are (and it occurs to me that I am in the most part just looking to have my ideas confirmed):
1. Have I gotten this all completely wrong?
2. If I'm correct, can the above system of using GRUB on one drive to boot up an OS on another drive be applied to UEFI?
3. Has anybody tried/succeeded/failed to dual-boot in this fashion before me, and if so what did they do?
Thanks one and all! Hopefully I've made myself clear enough here

billodwyer wrote:Being unused to UEFI I was thinking about trying to just run everything in BIOS/Legacy mode, but that doesn't seem very sensible to me, especially since I have the hardware so I might as well use it.
Using BIOS/CSM/legacy mode can work fine; however, it will probably slow down the boot process by a few seconds, and it will close off some possible future (and even current) advantages, as EFI support in Linux is improved.
So, reading the wiki and forums have led me to conclude that having a 1GB EFI System Partition on the SSD should be sufficient, and use gummiboot for my bootloader.
A 1GB ESP is more than sufficient. In terms of space requirements, 100-500MB is enough, depending on how you use the ESP; but various bugs and default settings make me recommend 550MiB as a good size. Bigger is OK, but wastes some disk space.
A bigger issue is that the ESP won't really benefit much from being on your SSD, since it's read once at boot time. The biggest advantage to putting the ESP on the SSD in your setup is that if you use gummiboot, you'll also have to put the Linux kernel and initrd file on the ESP, so having them on an SSD will speed up the boot process by about 1-5 seconds. Overall, I'd probably put the ESP on one of the spinning disks.
One more comment: gummiboot can launch boot loaders from its own partition but not from other partitions. This can work fine if you plan things carefully, but with three disks and two OSes, you must be absolutely positive that Windows uses the ESP on which gummiboot is installed. I'm not an expert on Windows installation, so I can't offer any specific pointers or caveats on this. If you need something with more flexibility, both rEFInd and GRUB can redirect the boot process to other partitions or physical disks. rEFInd can also redirect from an EFI-mode boot to a BIOS/CSM/legacy-mode boot. (See below.) Overall, rEFInd's flexibility on this score is a plus compared to gummiboot; but gummiboot is covered in the Arch wiki's beginner's guide, which is a plus. You'll have to pick which advantage you prefer. (Note that I'm rEFInd's maintainer, so I'm not unbiased.)
Other reading about setting up dual boots suggests to me that installing Windows 7 on its own HDD with MBR partitioning and Arch on a separate (set of) drive(s) with GPT partitioning will be sufficient. The reason being that if the BIOS is set up to boot sda, which has GRUB as its bootloader, using GRUB I can choose to boot into Windows despite it being on a separate hard drive.
This is an unworkable idea, at least as stated and if you want to do an EFI-mode boot. Windows ties the partition table type to the boot mode: Windows boots from MBR disks only in BIOS mode, and from GPT disks only in EFI mode. Thus, using MBR for the Windows disk will require a BIOS/CSM/legacy-mode installation of Windows. Furthermore, neither gummiboot nor GRUB can redirect from EFI mode to BIOS mode (or vice-versa), so if you do it this way, you'll be forcing yourself to boot Linux in BIOS mode, to switch between BIOS-mode and EFI-mode boots at the firmware level (which isn't always easily controlled), or to use rEFInd to redirect from an EFI-mode boot to a BIOS-mode Windows boot.
Overall, you're best off either using GPT for all your disks and booting all your OSes in EFI mode or using MBR for Windows (and perhaps all your disks) and using BIOS-mode booting for all your OSes.
Under EFI, the boot process is controlled by settings in the NVRAM, which you can adjust with "efibootmgr" in Linux, "bcfg" in an EFI shell, or "bcdedit" in Windows. (The Arch wiki covers the basics at least efibootmgr and bcfg.) In a typical dual-boot setup, you tell the computer to launch your preferred boot manager (EFI-mode GRUB, rEFInd, or gummiboot, most commonly), which then controls the boot process. You set up boot loaders for all your OSes on one or more ESPs. (Note: A boot manager lets you choose which boot loader to run, and a boot loader loads the kernel into memory. GRUB is both a boot manager and a boot loader. rEFInd and gummiboot are both boot managers. The EFI stub loader, ELILO, and the EFI version of SYSLINUX are all boot loaders but not boot managers. Most EFIs include their own boot manager, but it's usually primitive and awkward to use. It's also not standardized, so my computer's built-in boot manager is likely to be different from yours. Thus, I recommend against relying on the built-in boot manager for anything but launching your preferred boot manager.) Thus, the lowest-common-denominator type of setup is to put your preferred boot manager, the Windows boot loader, and a Linux boot loader (which could mean your Linux kernel) on a single ESP. If you want to use multiple ESPs or otherwise split things up, you cannot use gummiboot as the boot manager, since it can't redirect the boot process from one partition to another. (Many EFIs can do this with their own built-in boot managers, but this isn't guaranteed, and it's usually more awkward than using rEFInd or GRUB.)
I know this can be a lot to absorb. The official rules aren't really all that complex, but different EFIs interpret the rules differently, and the different capabilities of the various boot managers and boot loaders creates a lot of subtle implications for how you set everything up.
1. Have I gotten this all completely wrong?
Significant parts of it, I'm afraid; see above. You're working under BIOS assumptions, which don't apply to EFI.
2. If I'm correct, can the above system of using GRUB on one drive to boot up an OS on another drive be applied to UEFI?
GRUB can do this, but gummiboot can't. You set one of those (or something else, like rEFInd) as your primary boot manager. Using both GRUB and gummiboot adds unnecessary complexity, IMHO. OTOH, setting up multiple boot managers or boot loaders is possible, and can give you a fallback in case one fails. For instance, there's a known bug that affects 3.7 and later kernels, mostly on Lenovo computers, that causes the EFI stub loader to fail sometimes. Thus, if you use rEFInd, gummiboot, or the EFI's own boot manager to launch the kernel via the EFI stub loader, having GRUB, ELILO, or SYSLINUX set up as a fallback can provide helpful insurance in case a kernel upgrade causes your normal boot process to fail.
3. Has anybody tried/succeeded/failed to dual-boot in this fashion before me, and if so what did they do?
Many people dual-boot Windows and Linux under EFI. There are a huge number of possible solutions. My own Windows/Linux dual-boot system uses:
rEFInd
rEFInd's EFI filesystem drivers
Linux kernels on Linux-native /boot partitions (two partitions, one for each of the two distributions installed on that computer)
The Windows boot loader on the ESP
This works well for me, but it wouldn't work with gummiboot instead of rEFInd, since gummiboot can't redirect the boot process to another partition. (gummiboot also can't automatically load filesystem drivers.) Arch Linux users who use gummiboot often mount the ESP at /boot, which enables gummiboot to easily launch the Linux kernel. Doing this with multiple Linux distributions would be awkward, though, since you'd end up with two distributions' kernels in the same directory.

Dual Processor Multi Core Parrell Processing Question

Hey Guys
I'm looking for a little clarification on an issue with parrell
processing in LabView. If I have a Dual Processor machine with two 4 core CPU's
will be able to access all 8 cores in the LabView environment. I'm presuming it
can use any cores the operating system can see?
Thanks for the help,
Tom
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Norbert B wrote:
it is the job of the OS that applications can use all cores if necessarry. So for the application itself, it should make no difference if the system (in hardware) is MultiCPU, MultiCore or even simply HyperThread.....
Norbert
Its true, but I would like to add my 5 cents here.
Lets say, if you have single loop like
while (true){
//do something
then OS will get no chance to run it in multiple threads. So, you will get max 12,5% CPU load at 8 cores PC or 50% max on dual core PC.
I have dual core PC right now, and lets check it:
So, as we can see - 50% CPU load reached (one core loaded more, but its another story).
Well, if we will use two while loops, then we will get 100 % load:
Of course, if you will need to load all 8 cores, then you should have 8 parallel loops.
Compare BD above with the following:
We have two Array minmax functions, and they independend, but we have 50% only.
Well, you can get also 100% CPU utulization withing single while loop. In th example below you have two SubVI, which called in the same loop:
We have here 100 %. Important, that these VIs should be reenterant!
See what happened if they not reeenterant:
Now a little bit about Vision. Behing of most of the Vision SubVIs are DLL calls. Some Vision functions already optimized for multicore execution. For example, convolution:
On the BD above we have single loop with one SubVI, but both cores are used (because convolute itself already optimized for multi core).
Remember, that not all Vision functions optimized yet. For, example, LowPass still single-threaded (compare this BD with BD above):
Sure, we can utilize multi cores - just perform parallel execution (you have to split image to two parts, then join together and so on):
Remember, that SubVIs should be reeentrant, and all DLL calls should be thred safe (not in UI thread). Also good idea to turn off debugging in such experiments for eliminate additional CPU load.
Another point about 8 cores. As far as I know, LabVIEW (and LabVIEW-based application) will support only 4 cores within one execution system by default (at least prior to LabVIEW 2009). If you need to utulize all 8 cores, then you should add some lines into LabVIEW.ini. Refer to the following thread where you can found more details:
Interpolate 1d slow on 8 core machine
Hope all written above was correct.
Thank for reading and best regards,
Andrey.
Message Edited by Andrey Dmitriev on 11-27-2009 02:50 PM

Dual loop control for positioning system.-- motion ocntrol

I am currently doing a dual loop control for a positioning system, i use the tachometer to read the velocity and the position encoder about the position of the platform.
the problem i am currently encounter is that i am not sure weather the computer have the PID toolkit, because i can not find them under the control design and simulation module. so i did a PID use the basic labview functions, related information is in the attached documents.
i am not sure about the dt part, did the labview have this kind of function like to calculate the simpling time??
do i have to install the labview real_time potion? i am right using the labview 8.5
another question is that, how i am going to let the system remember the position instead of return to 0 every time i restarted the program? otherwise is there any other way that i can command the motor to move to the target position which is initially defined?
the last question is that that is it possible for me to generate a profile regarding the current and the desired position? to set a maximum velocity and acceleration.
i do not have a motion controller, so i did not install the motion and version module.
can some one suggest me a way to do this?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

attached is the files.
Attachments:
Integral.vi ‏8 KB
Dt.vi ‏7 KB
A CLOSED-LOOP TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEM.pdf ‏886 KB

10g DB performance - dual versus quad core

My customer is currently using 10g DB on Dell machine (Red Hat 32 bit with 4 CPU's - dual core intel chips). During peak times they experience slow downs and see the CPU's max out at 100%. They want to add another 1500 users. I'm wondering if upgrading the chips to quad core and moving to 64 bit will solve the slowdowns? Any ideas or suggestions?

a motorcycle can move two people regardless of the number and power of the engines
what about the top sql-statements? the file I/O? the amount of RAM? or in the end the network?
have a look at awr and addm to determine the top wait events
regards
Roman

MDD dual 1.25 CPU DEAD- WHICH MOTHERBOARDS had COMPATIBLE CPU's?

I've just finished (after much help from Japamac, Grant Bennet and others) diagnosing what's wrong with my MDD.
*FRIED CPU.*
My Logic board is marked 820-1476-A. I found a good used dual 1.25 CPU pulled from a MDD motherboard that's labelled (the motherboard is labelled) 820-1472-A.
ANYONE know if the motherboards are compatible, i.e. if a cpu pulled from that motherboard will run on my motherboard?
If noone knows, any ideas where I could find that info?
From my research so far, some MDD motherboards with nearly similar numbers CAN interchange CPU's, others cannot.
ANY help appreciated, especially now that I've got the issue isolated.
Tom

mddthing wrote:
Have you isolated why the processors fried in the first place?
If its heat I would advise the dual 1.42GHz heatsink and using arctic silver paste...
Ah yes... the question of the millennium. What caused the first snowflake to fall...
The fans are all fine.
Here's the sequence of events:
I was experiencing a series of system corruptions & freezes forcing me to do hard shutdowns when this happened.
The only way to shut down a GUI freeze that I know of is to hard shut down (not good).
The day the full cascade happened, I'd just finished my *8th or 9th hard shutdown.*
I was trying to reboot from another partition on another disk that wasn't corrupted & repair the startup volume.
+*That's when I got a steady pitched tone upon restart. I had no idea what it meant.*+
+*After two more freezes the computer wouldn't startup at all.*+
My insurance would pay only IF I took it to a tech center, and they said "bad power supply, get another computer. It's not worth it."
I did end up get a used G5 but began to attempt a repair... I NEED a MDD for my music interface cards, circa 2000, which after my G5 purchase discovered that none of the cards work. That's my entire music interface; A MOTU 1208 with a 5 volt PCI card required to use it, and and "ADAT edit" card (same era).
The new G4 PSU (and a new power switch) got something happening, but I discovered that one of 2 seagate drives in the "front" cage was dead (only 1 year old).
Long story short, seagate sent me a new drive and, in researching the problem, I learned (*from seagate*) that their PATA barracuda drives run *really really hot.* I had TWO in the front cage, and two "pre-seagate" maxtor drives in the rear "wall cage".
*My estimation is that it WAS a heat problem, in one way or another that caused everything.*
I do music and drive the system pretty hard. There was thermal compound on the processors, but I wasn't the original owner, so I also have no idea if it was applied sufficiently, or how the computer was treated before I got it.
My concern is that the motherboard may have taken a hit as well, since when I first examined the CPU I didn't see the "black dot" I saw after attempting a startup with the new PSU. It *did start once, ran for 5 minutes and that's when I think the CPU shorted.*
Although (with the new PSU), even after that, all the fans run and the red light comes on, just no startup chime. Other than that I have no test equipment. Also running out of money.
I'm probably going to try and get a new processor I saw ($114), use only ONE drive in the front cage, get some ice goop, and hope the motherboard survived. Simply can't swing $250 for a used MDD, so I'm trying the processor swap... first.
I'm also going to find a way to install another small fan in the front cage blowing directly at the heat sink, and cross my fingers... *if I get that far*.
The fans always cycled up and down when needed, so the system WAS recognizing heat conditions.
I'm also thinking of drilling open the "cheese grater fake-holes" and setting the tower up off the floor for better air flow in general.
The heat sinks all seem to have totally different attachment methods.
Mine has 5 screws and uses a Rube Goldberg wiggy looking flange on the front.
+*I didn't know you could swap for the "copper tube" heat sink. I assumed the the 1.47 motherboard had different attachment points.*+
+*This is news to me. CAN I?*+
My sense is that something in the original "cascade failure" caused one of the 2 processors to fail. But I'm just guessing. Can't be sure until I replace it.
+*...God I love being broke...*+

Mac mini (Late 2012): Dual- or Quad-Core?

I'm upgrading from a MacBook (2006) and - as a frequent iPad user - am thinking of just getting a Mac mini. I'm not sure though as wether to get the i5 dual-core or i7 quad-core version.
What I'll be using it for (none of these on a professional level, prosumer at most ;)):
Photo editing (iPhoto, thinking of switching to Aperture)
Web development (Coda, Espresso, local test server)
Designing (Sketch 2)
Full-HD video editing
Web, office, social media, ...
Can I expect a signifcant performance boost at these tasks from the quad-core model or will the differences be barely noticable (also considering most of these applications will be running simultaneously)?
I'll be maxing out RAM from a third party vendor in both cases, HDD capacity is not important and I'm not going to upgrade to SSD or Fusion Drive.
What do you think? Any thoughts appreciated!

Thanks for your insights! My inital goal was being cost-efficient; Fusion Drive is only an option on the quad-core model thus making it 1080 Euros were I live. That's almost an entire new Mac mini which I could buy in 2-3 years. I don't mind CPU intensive tasks taking longer (e.g. rendering final movie) as long as the actual "creative process" runs smoothly (e.g. cutting the movie).
As you both said finding out how/if apps take advantage of multiple cores is not that easy. I guess I'll have a closer look at all the benchmark tests and reviews that will be showing up in the coming weeks.
I think Fusion Drive on a dual-core might boost performance more than just going quad-core, unfortunately this is not an option for the lower end model. Also I want to wait a little to see if Fusion Drive is proprietary Apple hardware or just implemented software-wise (which would mean I could fix a broken drive myself after warranty has expired).
By the way, any guesses on Black Friday sale options (as far as I could find out the Mac mini wasn't included last year)?

Core i7 system locking up in Adobe Media Encoder

Here's my system:
Core i7 920
6GB Corsair XMS3 (Running at 1600)
Asus P6T V2
2x PNY 9800GTX+
Vista Ultimate with CS4
Any time I try to encode somthing in AME, no matter the format, source, or application using it, my system will completely lock up. It doesn't even give me a blue screen, just a complete system halt. It did work one time (just once) when I encoded a short flash video. I know my system is stable, temps are fine and it still locks up when I bring the RAM down to normal speeds. I have the latest adobe and windows updates and latest drivers for my hardware. Any ideas would be appreciated.

Some Encore notes... including a critical update to the Roxio component
Encore Roxio component problem http://forums.adobe.com/thread/400484?tstart=0
More on Encore and Roxio http://forums.adobe.com/thread/528582?tstart=0 or direct to
http://kb.roxio.com/search.aspx?URL=/content/kb/General%20Information/000070GN&PARAMS
Long File Names Cause Crashing http://forums.adobe.com/thread/588273
Encore Tutorial http://www.precomposed.com/blog/2009/05/encore-tutorial/

Dual i7 (8-core) RT system motherboard suggestions?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for