Recent posts

#1

Process Lasso / Re: Should ProBalance be enabl...

Last post by Jeremy Collake - Today at 08:40:16 AM

Yes, you should leave ProBalance enabled in Performance Mode. We are not aware of any issues with it, and its conservative default settings all but ensure such. ProBalance serves an important role to help keep background processes at bay during gameplay.

That said, after noticing that most Process Lasso guides for Intel 12th+ processors with E-cores suggested to disable ProBalance, we decided to save people the step of turning it off and just defaulted it to off on those platforms. This is part of a larger plan to make the two on-by-default features, ProBalance and automatic game detection for Performance Mode, off by default so that users are encouraged to become aware of them prior to enablement.

#2

Process Lasso / Re: Anyone Using Process Lasso...

Last post by Coldblackice - Today at 02:44:12 AM

(EDIT)

I found a recent user's experience re: benefits of Process Lasso improving their game performance on a system struggling with DPC latency issues:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/152xvm9/game_ready_studio_driver_53667_faqdiscussion/jttez8z/

#3

Process Lasso / Re: Anyone Using Process Lasso...

Last post by Coldblackice - Yesterday at 10:25:35 PM

I'm wondering if anyone out there is using Process Lasso to get better hit rego, FPS, etc for gaming?

In particular being able to load certain apps to certain logical cores so core 0 isn't overloaded with tasks, etc?

I use PL, partly in in the hopes that it does help in gaming, though I haven't been able to definitively/objectively tell whether it's helping in my case or not, at least for the Unity-engine FPS I main (Rust). Given the dynamics of open-world FPS games, combined with the fluidity of other factors like drivers, network hardware/drivers/performance (both local and wide networks), it's difficult to find objective, repeatable metrics to measure benefit conclusively. I'm all ears if anyone knows of any.

That's a common configuration. Simply set CPU affinity rules ('Always') on your game processes if you want to keep them off core 0. You'll have to try it out to know if it's effective in your case though.

CPU utilization and core allocation can indeed have an impact on factors like hit registration and FPS. By assigning gaming applications to dedicated cores, such as ensuring core 0 isn't overloaded, you may be able to achieve more consistent performance and reduce potential bottlenecks.

Is there a way to measure this definitively beyond just general "feel" of whether it's helping or not? Also, is there any difference/benefit to what core it gets put onto? Or would the benefit mainly be it just not being on the baseline "bottom-floor" core 0?

Yes, I've been using Process Lasso for a while now, mainly to optimize my gaming performance. By assigning specific applications to different logical cores, I've noticed a significant improvement in hit registration and overall FPS stability. Core 0 no longer gets overloaded, leading to smoother gameplay and better responsiveness.

Buckshot Roulette

How do you choose which apps to put on what cores? Are the cores uniformly the same, meaning it's merely a matter of finding the least-utilized core to give an app?

It's crucial to remember that Process Lasso's gaming efficacy can vary depending on a number of variables, such as the particular game, the hardware, and the system configuration. The resource requirements of different games vary, and some might already be optimized to make good use of the system resources.

If anyone's familiar with Unity FPS games, I'm curious if they have any PL optimizations they set, and/or if forcing "ResizableBAR" alongside PL might help or detract from performance.

#4

Process Lasso / Should ProBalance be enabled i...

Last post by Coldblackice - Yesterday at 10:09:57 PM

Is there a benefit to having ProBalance enabled while in "Performance Mode"? I noticed that my ProBalance is disabled in this mode, but can't remember whether I disabled it manually or if it's meant to be the default.

It seems like it should be beneficial, though I wonder if it could cause micro frame hitches by intervening with scheduling while processing of highly sensitivity frame times/timing that FPS games entail. TIA

#5

CPUBalance / Re: CPU optimization

Last post by scotts - Yesterday at 01:30:02 PM

Thanks.

#6

CPUBalance / Re: CPU optimization

Last post by Jeremy Collake - Yesterday at 11:44:41 AM

No, Process Lasso has an assortment of features that CPUBalance doesn't, and most center around CPU optimization. The CPUBalance product offers *only* the ProBalance algorithm. It's also not updated as frequently and may be deprecated at some point.

#7

CPUBalance / CPU optimization

Last post by scotts - Yesterday at 08:23:07 AM

My thought is... Since I feel I have sufficient system RAM (64 GB), I really only need to concentrate on CPU optimization. If this logic is correct, would CPUBalance be a better fit for me?

#8

Process Lasso / Re: setting priority classes f...

Last post by scotts - May 09, 2024, 03:32:39 PM

Got it, thank you.

[Options / CPU / CPU Priorities...]

#9

Process Lasso / Re: setting priority classes f...

Last post by Jeremy Collake - May 09, 2024, 06:21:54 AM

ProBalance would reduce the priorities of other processes when it deems necessary to protect system responsiveness, and wouldn't touch your high priority process.

If you want a permanent below normal for all other processes, you can create a CPU priority rule with an all-inclusive wildcard (e.g. "*\program files\*") and place it after the high priority rule in the 'Options / CPU / CPU Priorities...' dialog.

However, I recommend targeted rules, meaning only set permanent below normal priorities for processes where that makes sense.

#10

ParkControl / Re: Park Control - Performant ...

Last post by capguilty - May 09, 2024, 12:25:55 AM

However, it's important to note that the behavior can vary depending on the specific processor model and its firmware implementation. While selecting the "Performant Cores" option should prioritize performance cores, it doesn't guarantee that efficient cores won't be used at all. In situations where the system requires additional processing power or when the workload demands it, the operating system might still allocate tasks to efficient cores if necessary.