Computing desk
< February 15	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 16

Replacing E5400 rackmount processors

Although I haven't exhausted all options yet but it seems I am facing a problem. I have this Dell's R5400 64 bit where I installed Windows Server 2008 on the second hard drive with Oracle Virtual Box on it and tried to install Ubuntu as a guest VM. This is what happened. I was able to install only a 32 bit variant which worked kind of slow. I was unable to install 64 bit variant because of various error messages which I don't exactly recall. Thinking that perhaps it was a RAM problem, I upgraded the memory and now it is 16 GB, plenty. When I tried to set up 64 bit Ubuntu this morning I got a new error message that VT-x was not available. It is kind of strange that 32 bit variant of virtual machine worked but for 64 bit VT-x is needed. In short I am thinking about replacing my two Intel 5400 processors with perhaps two L5410's.

I checked the specification.. It does have Intel Virtualization VT-x the Virtual Box is interested in. I have the following questions.:

(1) I have never replaced processors. Do you think a person with limited skills in computer hardware can do it?

(2) What would be perhaps a better processor than L5410 if there are any?

(3) Will the rest of the machine "accept" the change of such vital component?

I also checked the specification for E5400. It appears it is such an old processor to my surprise that the spec is not available anymore. Anyhow it has 3.00 GHz nominal clock speed. The system also shows 2.99 GHz next to it for some reason.

BTW the BIOS does show some virtualization. It says Virtualization is ON, also VT for direct I/O is ON. I set those ON some time ago. The factory default was OFF.

I keep adding new observations. Now, after I quadrupled the RAM from 4 GB to 16, I am unable to install even 32 bit Ubuntu. It gives me the same error: VT-x is not available. What is the connection? Also the way the Virtual Box displays some parameters of the VM has changed also. Mystery!

Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One potential problem with changing the software is that some software licenses may no be valid. That is, they consider it to be a "new computer", and thus to require a new license.

Also, when you quadrupled the RAM, is it now matched or mismatched memory cards ? (Matched is preferred.)

You might also have one of the memory cards only partially in the slot, that happened to me before. You can try pulling them out and reseating them to fix that. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, StuRat. Answering your last paragraph: You have clairvoyance. It did happen to me when I changed and rearranged RAM chipsets. But it manifested itself in a total inability to load the OS. The monitor's screen was completely black. I had to open the box and check the chips. Sure enough one of them was not completely set it. I pushed it down with a click.

I think the chips are now all matched. They are all identical so they must be matched.

Which software licenses do you think are not valid in my case? Ubuntu is GNU, you pay for the download either nothing or what you want. I paypalled $66.00 to them.

Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to replace the processors, you will need to check that your existing motherboard will accept the new processors. I would expect it not to, if it's an old machine. You would also need to check that the 2 new processors can operate together - many are designed for single CPU operation only.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Holmes, I understand all that. For that I will have to talk to the manufacturers. There are so many CPU chips right now that it is impossible, perhaps, to find someone here familiar with them all. What I am looking for (possibly) to get an input from someone who ever replaced a CPU. Are they just plugged in? Are they soldered in? etc. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are plugged in, and then often you have to do something tricky to attach a heat sink. Your processors use a socket called LGA 775, and only processors compatible with that socket will work for you. The article contains a list of them. There is no guarantee that all of them will work with your motherboard, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Looie496. It is really valuable. Now I can see the magnitude of the challenge. Now I've got my work cut out for me. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a typical PC, just replacing the processor would be a challenge, but replacing the entire motherboard, which includes the processor, would be a lot easier. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a new angle, to replace the entire motherboard. I will have to discuss it with Dell & Intel. BTW it seems I zeroed in on a CPU with LGA 775. It is Q6600 quad core I believe. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've installed various CPUs since the late 1990s so perhaps can offer some feedback here. I don't think it's really as difficult to actually install as suggested above. It does require some minor technical skill, things are quite different from the the early 2000s. All desktop CPUs for a long time have had heatspreaders, so it's a lot harder to damage the CPU chip when installing the heatsink then it used to be. Furthermore, no one uses the latch metal clip mechanism like was used on the old Athlon CPU HSFs which was indeed a bit scary. Stock CPU HSFs either use a lever mechanism (AMD) or pushpin (Intel). Furthermore, if you're just using the thermal pad which is already on the HSF, you don't have to really do much about the thermal material other than to take off the protector. And if you're significantly upgrading your CPU, you may want to upgrade the HSF anyway. So if you're willing to read and perhaps watch a few videos, I don't think installing the CPU is really the big issue.

The more complicated issue is compatibiity. AMDs AM2/AM2+/AM3 was bad enough but LGA775 is really a disaster. In other words, working out what will work on your motherboard is not likely an easy bet. There's also the issue of cost effectiveness. Intel's Core 2 architecture is getting rather old now so buying a new CPU is probably not worth it. I suspect this is even the case for the Xeons. You'd likely get something much better even with the added cost of upgrading the motherboard by going for something newer. Buying a second hand CPU is a possibility but my experience is that it often still isn't worth it and this will also complicated things like the HSF plus if you don't know what you're doing there's a risk you may be sent a dud and think you did something wrong. Adding possible RAM upgrades does push the cost up a bit, it would have been wise to check on all this before buying more RAM.

I presume StuRat was referring to one or the other of the above factors when they mentioned buying a new CPU and motherboard. Buying a new CPU and motherboard together is not going to help with installation issue in the general case as the CPU does not come already installed on the motherboard. The exceptions would be if are buying a computer, you pay someone to install it (which won't necessarily be any cheaper when you buy a CPU and motherboard together), or you get one of the small number of motherboards with CPU onboard i.e. soldered CPUs (which are probably not what you want since they tend to be low power and so low performance and also usually have limited RAM sockets etc). Since you mentioned rackmount, things may be a little different there but the norm in the desktop/PC world is definitely not for the CPU to come already installed.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the reason you can virtualise x32 but not x64 without VT-x is explained at x86 virtualization. Also if your CPU supports VT-x but it's not working, this strongly suggests upgrading your CPU is not going to help. The most likely reason why it's not working is some sort of motherboard/BIOS issue. If you're correct that you enable VT-x in the motherboard and it's still not working, perhaps there is a bug which means it doesn't work. You may want to poke around and make sure you didn't miss anything and also make sure you have the latest BIOS. (sorry I misunderstood, I thought you said you already had a L5410 and were thinking of upgrading to something else) Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, thank you very much. It is a wealth of information, first hand experience. The reality is very confusing to me. The BIOS of my R5400 has been upgraded. Just yesterday I tried to upgrade it once more and found that I have A10 and Dell offered A10, so I backed off. The virtualization is mentioned in BIOS but not VT-x virtualization. It simply says "virtualization." Is it the same or different? Besides unless I was in a dream I set up a Ubuntu 32 bit VM once and everything went well but I had only 4 GB of memory and when I quadrupled it the system refused to to set up the same Ubuntu 32 bit VM second time. And now every time it is asking for VT-x. Go figure.

I am at work now and will have to read your paragraphs more carefully when I get home. Many thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bizarre thing is: my BIOS says I have an E5400 CPU and Control Panel says I have E5450 CPU. Go figure. The latter CPU must have VT-x though. The BIOS says I have two quads and that excludes E5400 which must be duos. Oh my! --AboutFace 22 (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are saying that the E5450 CPU (which the Control Panel reports) is in the E5400 series (which the BIOS reports) ? StuRat (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many things crossed my mind including what you are saying, StuRat, but I think it is very farfetched. I am planning to call Dell with this question. Actually I did call them two days ago but ran into a lady from the tech support who openly said that she herself needed tech support and I was very short of time to wait for them to turn around. Now I am planning to double check everything, get educated about the issue in detail, run all possible tests, etc. and call them next week with a list of my complaints/questions. There are glaring discrepancies everywhere. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this link language. Just simplify the darn words as I'm simple!

what the heck is going on with this stuff? my only problem is (INSTALLER ENCOUNTERED ERROR-3)! How did that make this, whatever this is happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.231.40 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not nearly enough info here. What programming language ? What link command ? What code are you trying to link ? Did it compile OK ? What O/S ? StuRat (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google search on that exact error message suggests that this is a common problem when installing the Google Chrome browser. I suggest that our OP copy/pastes the error into the Google search box and finds suggestions from there. SteveBaker (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Video editing software

I've seen some videos on YouTube where the song has been multi-track recorded by the same performer, and the video is composed of many windows/tiles showing the performer singing different voices or playing different instruments in sync with himself or herself. The window/tile layout is changed many times during the video, a tile may come floating in from above etc. Here are two examples:

My question is: Which video editing programs are capable of creating such composite videos. Thanks, --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final Cut Pro can do that. Even Blender can do it, if you're willing to! In general, you need a nonlinear video editor software that supports layering and layer transforms. Nimur (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Final Cut Pro appears to be Mac only. I've had a go at Blender once, but found the user interface too... different. Anything Windows or Linux with a more familiar user interface? Following the links from the article on Final Cut Pro takes me to Adobe Premiere Pro (Windows) and OpenShot Video Editor (Linux). Would these be up for the task? Is it correct that the Adobe program is licensing only? Other Windows alternatives? --NorwegianBlue^talk 17:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tested about ten Windows Video editors. Most that cost around 100 dollars would be able to do what you are after. Personally, I decided on CyberLink PowerDirector because I felt most comfortable with the way it handled multiple videos and sounds. I had no problems with 100 simultaneous films in one final video. DanielDemaret (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Several of these video editors have "trial versions", that is how I was able to test most of them before buying. DanielDemaret (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a direct answer to your question, Adobe Premiere Pro can do what you are after. However, I personally found it very slow compared to Powerdirector. DanielDemaret (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors that would work are, AVS and Sony Vegas. Each has its pros and cons. Adobe has more features (None that I felt I would use), AVS supports non-degraded videos (sometimes) and Sony has some interesting transitions. I tested these and more about two years ago. After Effects would also do the trick, but is a bit overkill for what you are asking for. However, After Effects does have some extremely good effects. I tested making a dice-cube rolling around with six videos, one on each side: It looked cool, but took ages to make. DanielDemaret (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a comparison, you could have a look at two videos I made way back just to try them out. They are not very good, but they do display some effects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7J8xGrz9g0 , made with Cyberlink, has some simple multi-window transitions about 1 minute 25 seconds into the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIUC2ST6-G4 ,made with After Effects, has some simple cubes. DanielDemaret (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a fully free and open source tool chain check out ffmpeg (transcoder), kdenlive (multi-track video editor), audacity (audio editor) and the GIMP (image editor). kdenlive is Linux only but runs quite happily in a virtual machine. It supports track overlay and track positioning. Skrrp (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Daniel and Skrrp! I actually bought a copy of Powerdirector 11 some time ago, but it turned out it wasn't well suited for the work I was going to do (projects using digitized super 8 video). There was an issue concerning 24 fps and 25 fps recordings. The problem was that it didn't handle 24 fps well (giving a warning that the content would be degraded). I ended up eventually with Adobe Premiere Elements 11 in combination with ffmpeg. Thanks for the links to your videos Daniel, and thanks Skrrp for the suggested toolchain. I know ffmpeg, audacity and the GIMP, but had never heard of kdenlive, which look very interesting. --NorwegianBlue^talk 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]