Recent posts

#1

General / Re: How to close Java when exi...

Last post by Donatella - Today at 06:26:51 AM

I also have questions about this issue

#2

General / футболка с принтом енота

Last post by PeterCamma - Today at 06:15:28 AM

О производстве
Здесь вы можете вкратце ознакомиться с нашим подходом к производству и некоторыми его этапами.
https://vilmoda.ru/poisk/?q=лошадь+С,,СѓС,болка+мужская
футболка мужская с принтом большого размера
Материал
Футболки мы покупаем готовые на большой фабрике. Мы посчитали, что это лучше, чем собственный цех по той простой причине, что фабрика имеет несравнимо больший опыт и значит делает более качественно. Ткань - хлопок 100% высокого качества (кулирка, Пенье, гребенная пряжа), плотность 160 грамм.
Принт нарезается из пленки на плоттере. Это не печать. Пленка производства Кореи, Германии или Англии - в зависимости от цвета и наличия у поставщиков. Пленку производства других стран не используем.
 
Нанесение
Сама технология не сложная: берется лист термопленки, плоттер вырезает рисунок, человек удаляет лишние элементы, после под воздействием температуры (160 градусов) приклеивает принт к футболке.
Это не первое наше производство. Мы занимались сублимацией (синтетические ткани, полная запечатка, так называемые 3d-футболки) и прямой печатью (DTG) на натуральных тканей. Каждая технология имеет и плюсы, и минусы. В конечном итоге, мы остановились на озвученном выше способе, т.к. считаем его оптимальным за счет стойкости принта и натуральности ткани.
Сублимация хороша тем, что позволяет за относительно невысокую себестоимость делать вещи с полной запечаткой, но применима только к синтетическим тканям, которые выбирают далеко не все покупатели. А прямая печать имеет невысокий срок стойкости принта и требуется соблюдение ряда требований по уходу за футболкой. И, говоря про используемый нами метод, его минус лишь в отсутствии разноцветных принтов. В остальном сплошные плюсы: долговечность принта, доступная цена натуральная ткань. Принт не ощущается на теле, толщина 80 мкм, проверено на себе.
С,,СѓС,болка СЃ акулой мужская

[4' 18"]

#3

Process Lasso / Re: My E-cores makes me crazy

Last post by Manuel - Today at 05:51:57 AM

We'd really have to dig into this to give you a certain answer. It is strange that you can't achieve close to the same results that you had when disabling E-cores at the BIOS level, but as you mentioned, Windows thread scheduling on these platforms is a mess.

What power plan (or mode) are you in? If not already, switch to a high performance plan to help dissuade Windows from making use of the E-cores. You can use ParkControl to check the heterogenous scheduling settings for the power plan.

Thank you for your helpfulness,
I would be very happy to solve this problem, and I imagine the users of my calculation software who are struggling adesse would be too. The Software house has given some pointers to try to solve the problem (link below), but we users have not been able to solve anything... maybe it only works in some cases (like Windows 10), but in my case I solve only by disabling E-cores via BIOS.

https://www.scia.net/en/support/faq/scia-engineer/other-topics/performance-scia-engineer-calculations-running-newer-types-processors

To return to your observation, I confirm that disabling E-cores via BIOS and having only P-cores used through Process Lasso or CoreDirector gives different results.

A small test I just did this morning returns these results:

13900K 8+8 P-Core + 16 E-Core (Bitsum Highest Performance):
4' 18"    (CPU consumption: 110-120W)

13900K 8+8 P-Core + 16 E-Core (Bitsum Highest Performance + CoreDirector):
4' 07"  (E-core still works... - CPU consumption: 110-120W)

13900K 8+8 P-Core + 16 E-Core (Bitsum Highest Performance + Process Lasso Pro + Forced Mode + Affinities Only E-cores):
4' 01" (E-core do not work... but they probably disrupt the analysis - CPU consumption: 110-120W)

13900K 8+8 P-Core (Bitsum Highest Performance + E-cores disable via BIOS - NO Process Lasso Pro - NO CoreDirector):
0' 26" (CPU consumption: 140-160W)

I think it's clear why I'm in danger of going crazy!!! 

Within a few days I will be able to do parallel testing with a Ryzen 7950x (which does not have E-cores), but as I have already written, I have also done preliminary testing with this CPU by a colleague and even then the analysis is still very slowed down.

Thanks in advance
Manuel

#4

Process Lasso / Re: My E-cores makes me crazy

Last post by Jeremy Collake - Yesterday at 06:29:27 AM

We'd really have to dig into this to give you a certain answer. It is strange that you can't achieve close to the same results that you had when disabling E-cores at the BIOS level, but as you mentioned, Windows thread scheduling on these platforms is a mess.

What power plan (or mode) are you in? If not already, switch to a high performance plan to help dissuade Windows from making use of the E-cores. You can use ParkControl to check the heterogenous scheduling settings for the power plan.

[Options / Forced Mode (continuously reapply settings)]

#5

Process Lasso / Re: My E-cores makes me crazy

Last post by Manuel - May 18, 2024, 05:49:27 AM

What analysis software is this?

Thank you for your quick response!
My analysis software is "SCIA Engineer" and the process that does the calculations is "DesignForms_CalcExe.exe".

First, let's ensure you've checked menu item 'Options / Forced Mode (continuously reapply settings)', in case that software is managing its own affinity.

I tried after your indication, but it didn't seem to change things....

With the E-cores removed by affinity, the total CPU % is going to be limited since only the P-cores can be used. In contrast, when you disabled the E-cores in the BIOS, the CPU consumption could reach 100% since the E-cores were not included in the total available capacity.

This aspect is clear, thank you!

You should also check for any thread count setting in the analysis software and set it to the total number of P-cores threads you have available (2x the P-cores). Otherwise, it may launch too many threads for the constrained CPU affinity to cope with.

How is the analysis time after the rules you set with Process Lasso?

I was able to get only the P-Cores to work in various ways, see image below, but although the bar graph says that the P-Cores are working at maximum, HWiNFO64 indicates that the work rate is at about 45% (I think this value is correct, because the case fans do not start running at maximum as if I run Cinebench).



The strange thing, besides the fact that the P-Cores are not working at maximum, is that the processing time is always very long (the behavior is very different if I disable the E-Cores in the BIOS), it seems that Windows still wants to try to work with the E-Cores and this slows everything down (I don't know if this is really the case, but it is my impression).

Just for information, I tried to run the software on a Ryzen 7950x that does not have E-Cores, but again the processing time is incredibly too long compared to using (8+8) P-Cores from the 13900K (selected via BIOS)... and with a Ryzen I could not use the "trick" of disabling E-Cores from BIOS.

Do you have any other suggestions for me?
If not, I guess I'll have to give up....

Thanks in advance
Manuel

[Options / Forced Mode (continuously reapply settings)]

#6

Process Lasso / Re: My E-cores makes me crazy

Last post by Jeremy Collake - May 17, 2024, 03:00:07 PM

What analysis software is this?

First, let's ensure you've checked menu item 'Options / Forced Mode (continuously reapply settings)', in case that software is managing its own affinity.

With the E-cores removed by affinity, the total CPU % is going to be limited since only the P-cores can be used. In contrast, when you disabled the E-cores in the BIOS, the CPU consumption could reach 100% since the E-cores were not included in the total available capacity.

You should also check for any thread count setting in the analysis software and set it to the total number of P-cores threads you have available (2x the P-cores). Otherwise, it may launch too many threads for the constrained CPU affinity to cope with.

How is the analysis time after the rules you set with Process Lasso?

#7

Process Lasso / My E-cores makes me crazy

Last post by Manuel - May 17, 2024, 12:12:12 PM

Dear all,
I use a workstation with i9-13900K processor and the 16 E-core gives me a lot of problems. The problem is well known, Windows 11 has problems handling some applications in the background or hidden and as a result some software loses a lot of performance.
I use the workstation for work with analysis software and, to give an example, if I launch a calculation with all 32 threads available on a model I use as a reference, the calculation takes about 9 minutes. If I disable the E-cores via BIOS, all the P-cores work at 100% and the time decreases to about 1 minute 30"! I don't know what Windows does, but it's a mess!!!

The current solution is to disable the E-core via BIOS, but it is something that irritates me, because 16 cores are off and in other tests, such as Cinebench R23, they all work smoothly and with very good performance (I calculated that the 16 E-core contribute about 40% of the performance).

I have a Process Lasso license with which I hoped to solve the problem, but I have tried everything and the results are always the same. The process performing the calculations starts for a few seconds using 100% of the 13900K's 32 threads and then "sits" at about 35% making everything work a little bit, but badly... (below is a screenshot of an example analysis).



I tried in various combinations what you see below, but nothing ever changed:
- Exclude from probalance
- affinity - only P-core
- efficiency mode off
- I/O priority high
- windows dynamic thread priority boost off
- induce performance mode on

Do you have any suggestions?
I am going crazy!

Thanks in advance
Manuel

#8

General / Re: Difference between termina...

Last post by Jeremy Collake - May 17, 2024, 06:49:18 AM

Closing first sends a message signaling the process to end, allowing it a chance to gracefully close. Termination forcibly ends the process.

#9

General / Difference between terminating...

Last post by riley - May 16, 2024, 07:10:15 PM

Difference between terminating and closing process?

#10

Process Lasso / Re: core engine is not running...

Last post by DaymanSalvort - May 15, 2024, 06:22:20 AM

I am in fact grateful to this site which has shared this fantastic information here.