Has anyone else noticed increased GPU memory usage with Windows 10 and/or driver 359.06 ?

Not really Tom. I have 750TI but so far have found no difference with this driver. I am at present running similar systems on both W7 and W10 and both seem to be doing well. My video cards do have 2G.
If you want to you can manually select an older driver from NVIDIA and not use the latest one presented by them.

---

SETI@home classic workunits 4,019
SETI@home classic CPU time 34,348 hours

Has anyone else noticed increased GPU memory usage with Windows 10 and/or driver 359.06 ?

Not really Tom. I have 750TI but so far have found no difference with this driver. I am at present running similar systems on both W7 and W10 and both seem to be doing well. My video cards do have 2G.
If you want to you can manually select an older driver from NVIDIA and not use the latest one presented by them.

Yes, but, IF he's on Win 10 Home; then Win 10 will force the driver to upgraded with the latest generic Windows Driver. This will crash all other running WUs.

If running Win 10 Home; I would first Upgrade to Win 10 Pro to prevent the forced driver upgrade from happening.


TL

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

If running Win 10 Home; I would first Upgrade to Win 10 Pro to prevent the forced driver upgrade from happening.
TL

I can not find any difference between the Home and Pro versions for the option to download or not download drivers anymore(I am running one of each). I believe this was changed recently.
(Of course if one is running the Insider OS, then you have signed up for it and allowed MS to download a new OS whenever it wants to and that is how the new versions are downloaded, so for me I get the MS drivers whenever the OS is re-loaded...but now with just a simple security update) Don't sign up for the Insider version if you do not want these downloads.

---

SETI@home classic workunits 4,019
SETI@home classic CPU time 34,348 hours

If running Win 10 Home; I would first Upgrade to Win 10 Pro to prevent the forced driver upgrade from happening.
TL

I can not find any difference between the Home and Pro versions for the option to download or not download drivers anymore(I am running one of each). I believe this was changed recently.
(Of course if one is running the Insider OS, then you have signed up for it and allowed MS to download a new OS whenever it wants to and that is how the new versions are downloaded, so for me I get the MS drivers whenever the OS is re-loaded...but now with just a simple security update) Don't sign up for the Insider version if you do not want these downloads.

Good point; and, no, I'm NOT on the Insider track. I took my dad's newer Win 8 ASUS Laptop, Upgraded to 8.1, then 10 Home, then 10 Pro. Next, took new HP Envy Desktop system on 10 Home, and Upgraded to 10 Pro.

10 Pro does allow Deferment of Upgrades; but, yes, you're right, I too have NOT found a way in 10 to prevent Drivers from Updating - I misspoke in my last post... :-( Still, I prefer Pro to Home.


TL

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

I'm working on a clean install of 8.1 on a laptop as well and found an "optional" update that should probably be on the "updates to avoid" list:

KB3058168 Update: Activate Win 10 from Win 8 or 8.1...

Also, I came across a "recommended" update:

KB3080149 Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry

"This service provides benefits from the latest version of Windows to systems that have not yet upgraded." I don't think I want this one on my systems either.

Rich

*sigh* I think you're right on the first one. I don't think it particularly applies to anyone unless you use the Key Management System (KMS), but better safe than sorry, I suppose. I must have missed that one. It's easier to find updates on a system that only shows new updates when they are released, but when you have ~225 updates show up because of a clean install.. I wasn't going to check every single one of them.

As far as 3080149, that's a green-coded update in the list; it applies to both 7 and 8.1.


edit: I just spent a few minutes searching around, and I don't think there is a 3058168 equivalent for 7. I could be wrong, but I can't find anything that suggests there might be.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Greetings Jord,

Any other ideas? :|

Sure, but let's do that outside this thread. I'll PM you tomorrow. Am now off to bed, tired as a log.

---

Good evening to everyone some new M$ BS I was running updates yesterday and it was at least a half hour or more before ANY updates downloaded(7 always has been a little slow when doing updates) but this is crazy I did not have any win 10 updates selected so is this how things are going to be if you refuse to give in to M$ and their BU*^$%@#. Just another reason to show M$ the door. I have a cable internet connection and just 2 days ago I did a graphics driver update from nvidia(350+MB downloaded in less than 30 sec.) So I see this as another way that M$ is trying to force us to give in to their demands.

---

ME AND MY BOY LOOKING FOR ET

Good evening to everyone some new M$ BS I was running updates yesterday and it was at least a half hour or more before ANY updates downloaded(7 always has been a little slow when doing updates) but this is crazy I did not have any win 10 updates selected so is this how things are going to be if you refuse to give in to M$ and their BU*^$%@#. Just another reason to show M$ the door. I have a cable internet connection and just 2 days ago I did a graphics driver update from nvidia(350+MB downloaded in less than 30 sec.) So I see this as another way that M$ is trying to force us to give in to their demands.

Windows Update on 10 is SLOOOOWWWW too. I'm on 45 Mb Internet with U-Verse; can stream Plex videos while parents watch one U-Verse Stream and record three others and have NO Video Loss, nor degradation... But go for Windows Updates, and they take an hour!!! :-O So, it's the damned MS Servers NOT being able to dish out what they should do. :-(


TL

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

It's easier to find updates on a system that only shows new updates when they are released, but when you have ~225 updates show up because of a clean install.. I wasn't going to check every single one of them.

Agreed. I did spot checks of any Win 8.1 updates with published dates in 2012, 2013 and on through June 2014 figuring they were fairly safe. Since Win 10 was due to be released in 2015, I did check each update with publish dates from July 2014 doing one month at a time. I still have November's and December's 2015 still to check through. It is indeed a slow, tedious process. Your list of "updates to avoid" is LOTS smaller than my list of what is okay. :)

Rich

Cosmic_Ocean

I was looking through the forum at Overclock.net and they have this nice batch uninstaller http://www.overclock.net/t/1572731/batch-update-uninstaller-uninstall-forced-win10-telemetry.

You should take a look at it, I think it might have one or two KB updates you might have missed.

I found it interesting and thought you might be interested too.

---

Bruce

Good evening to everyone some new M$ BS I was running updates yesterday and it was at least a half hour or more before ANY updates downloaded(7 always has been a little slow when doing updates) but this is crazy I did not have any win 10 updates selected so is this how things are going to be if you refuse to give in to M$ and their BU*^$%@#. Just another reason to show M$ the door. I have a cable internet connection and just 2 days ago I did a graphics driver update from nvidia(350+MB downloaded in less than 30 sec.) So I see this as another way that M$ is trying to force us to give in to their demands.

Windows Update on 10 is SLOOOOWWWW too. I'm on 45 Mb Internet with U-Verse; can stream Plex videos while parents watch one U-Verse Stream and record three others and have NO Video Loss, nor degradation... But go for Windows Updates, and they take an hour!!! :-O So, it's the damned MS Servers NOT being able to dish out what they should do. :-(

I was just doing a clean install on an 8.1 laptop a few days ago and the update process went something like "found 6 updates" at first, installed those, restart. Found 4 more, update, restart. Found 5 more, update, restart. Found ~210 updates, hid the ones I knew about from my list (and that's when I found a few for 8.1 that I didn't have on my list previously, only because the KB number was very close to ones for 7), and when I told it to go ahead and do those, it was almost two hours before they actually started downloading (even though it said "Downloading 205 updates (0%)" the whole time).

But I know exactly why this happens. If anyone has ever really paid attention, have you ever noticed how the download size (in MBs) has a range, rather than a single amount? That's because when downloading updates from MS directly, every file that the update will..update is checked on your system to get the version number of it, and you can actually end up only downloading half of an update if that's all you need from it. That's why disk activity is usually lit-up solid and there's a lot of CPU time being used, but hardly anything is downloading.

But since I use WSUS, when a computer contacts WSUS, it just asks for the entire update as-is. The last time I did a clean install of vanilla 7, there were 94 updates, then SP1, and then something like 294 updates that follow SP1. During that last portion for 294, once you click 'update' and it goes to start downloading them, it takes about 3 seconds and then pulls about 800mbit from the WSUS machine downloading 1500MB of updates, then begins installing them.

WSUS is a nice thing to have, too, because if you have more than one machine, you can decline these ones to avoid and they won't be in the 'available' list for machines that contact WSUS for updates, so you don't have to investigate updates on individual machines.

That's also a work-around/solution for win10's forced updates that don't ever give you a choice to de-select certain ones: use WSUS. You can decide when to approve updates in that, and if you decide to only do that once per month, then the win10 machines won't find any new updates until WSUS has them available for distribution.

WSUS is probably a bit of overkill at home with just 1-4 machines though, and that sort-of neat feature of 10 to allow for distributed updates (it does have the option of local-only or Internet) somewhat negates the purpose for WSUS overall: the updates get downloaded from the Internet once, and then get distributed to however many machines are configured to ask WSUS for updates. I learned about it and how to use it when I was working at my local college and we had 1400 computers in all of the labs and I had to Ghost them at the start of every semester. One server downloading updates from the Internet is much less burden on the ISP connection than 1400 that are going and getting the same data.

But I still like using it, because it gives me total control of what happens on my machines.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

This morning a Christmas present arrived from the folks in Redmond.....KB3035583 and KB3102812.....trying to look innocent and begging for installation......constant vigilance against virus and hackers is expected, but against the System designers? This BS is getting extremely tiresome.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Great. Testing Bitdefender Total Security 2016 here on one of my systems and I noticed it has taken over Windows Update. So with each check for updates it'll tell me my system is vulnerable and that I have to install all these updates, including ones that may install crap for WinX's take-over policy on my system.

I can uncheck those updates, but not hide them. So on each check, these updates come back. Not sure I like that, BD!

---

Great. I allowed Bitdefender to install KB3102429, KB3112148 and KB3107998, all recommended. Rebooted and entered hell. On each next try to do something, after Windows log in I got a message that explorer.exe had stopped responding and that it needed to be closed, leaving me with two black screens and a mouse pointer.

So I rebooted into Safe Mode, rummaged around a bit. Managed to download AppCrashView from Nulsoft, had to manually unpack it using a command prompt and 7zip, ran it and saw explorer.exe had crashed 49 times the past hour. And in all LoadedModule[3]=N:\Bitdefender\Bitdefender 2016\Active Virus Control\Avc3_00331_002\avcuf64.dll seemed to play a role.

Result: I uninstalled Bitdefender and everything is fixed. I can reach Windows Update again, I can use Windows Explorer again, I don't have to wait absolute ages for anything to open.

But why it all worked before these three updates, I don't know. So something in these updates does not work well with Bitdefender then. I see KB3102429 has problems with some programs out there, so maybe that it is the culprit.

Will do a test run of G Data next. Or shall I backup my computer first this time? ;-)

---

Again, I have had my own problems with Windoze 10. However, it seems to have settled down. I have made adjustments to my clocks and I haven't had a problem lately. My RAC seems to indicate that in the affirmative. I do not run any third party antivirus (I don't frequent the websites and downloads I did a few years ago). My Rig is stable and powerful, given the hardware I have.

I really don't understand the angst, Windoze Defender and Malwarebytes cover all of the bases for me.

Are the rest of you overthinking your protection, or are you paranoid? I don't know.

I am however thinking about building a Linux system, just for Sh&%$ and giggles. we'll see.

Peace, Merry Christmas and happy crunching.

---

Again, I have had my own problems with Windoze 10. However, it seems to have settled down. I have made adjustments to my clocks and I haven't had a problem lately. My RAC seems to indicate that in the affirmative. I do not run any third party antivirus (I don't frequent the websites and downloads I did a few years ago). My Rig is stable and powerful, given the hardware I have.

I really don't understand the angst, Windoze Defender and Malwarebytes cover all of the bases for me.

Are the rest of you overthinking your protection, or are you paranoid? I don't know.

I am however thinking about building a Linux system, just for Sh&%$ and giggles. we'll see.

Peace, Merry Christmas and happy crunching.

AMD FX-8350 at 4100mhz, water cooled
16gigs of G-Skill Ripjaws RAM at 1600mhz
2-Powercolor R9 280Xs 1030/1500mhz
Gigabyte GA970-UD3 MOBO
Samsung EVO 850 SSD
EVGA Supernova P2 1200W PSU


Just broke 50K RAC with this rig....

---

Dont get me wrong Louis but your CPU times aren`t that good.
You could do better.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Dont get me wrong Louis but your CPU times aren`t that good.
You could do better.

Really not concerned about my CPU times, a substantial jump in RAC would require an intel processor(admittedly). As far as AMD, I am doing well. If you have advice that may help, I am all ears....

---

Dont get me wrong Louis but your CPU times aren`t that good.
You could do better.

Really not concerned about my CPU times, a substantial jump in RAC would require an intel processor(admittedly). As far as AMD, I am doing well. If you have advice that may help, I am all ears....

That's about what I would expect from the Bulldozer/Piledriver/Excavator/[I swear there's a fourth one, and I can never remember the name of it] shared-FPU architecture, especially if you're running more than 50% of the cores (the example I looked at was ~37k seconds for 2.39% blanked).

I've got a first-gen Bulldozer (6100) at stock speeds (3.3ghz), and I run 50% of the cores to get stable times (otherwise, the elapsed times increase by 20-40%, but overall productivity doesn't increase by that much; essentially, running all six cores yields ~4 cores worth of actual production). You can see here what my Bulldozer manages in the best of conditions (half-utilized, optimized apps).

AMD on this project isn't really all that great. This project heavily favors Intel clock-for-clock, just because of the design differences of the CPU. You might be able to decrease your elapsed times (but not necessarily the overall production) by dropping down to 50% of the CPU cores in BOINC. That would also cut your heat by a bit, and you could probably squeeze more OC out of it, being water-cooled. I'm on air and mine idles at 31C, 38C at 50% load, 47C at 100%.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

I am using an AMD A10-6700 at 3.7 GHz but it goes up to 4.14 GHz without any intervention on my side. It has 4 cores according to AMD, 2 cores and 4 logical processors according to Windows 10 Task Manager. Three cores are used by CERN projects with Virtual Box, the fourth core runs a CPDN project at low speed. They all have the same BOINC rating. The HP PC has both an onboard graphic and a Radeon Graphic board. SETI@home can use both, Einstein@home sees only the onboard graphic and is very slow. But I run mostly CPU only tasks.
Tullio

---