Recent posts

[Options / Forced Mode (continuously reapply settings)]

#1

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

Last post by Jeremy Collake - Today at 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?

#2

Process Lasso / My E-cores makes me crazy

Last post by Manuel - Today at 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

#3

General / Re: Difference between termina...

Last post by Jeremy Collake - Today at 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.

#4

General / Difference between terminating...

Last post by riley - Yesterday at 07:10:15 PM

Difference between terminating and closing process?

#5

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.

#6

Process Lasso / Re: Process Lasso management c...

Last post by Jeremy Collake - May 15, 2024, 05:47:18 AM

Hmm, that's unusual.

First, be sure you used the official installer from https://dl.bitsum.com/files/processlassosetup64.exe .

Then check to see if it generated any dump file. It'd be stored in %appdata%\processlasso or %programdata%\processlasso (you can paste those in Explorer's location bar). Alternatively, while the process is still running you can generate one with the Task Manager by opening the Details tab, right-clicking on the process, and selecting 'Create dump file'.

You can then share the dump with us via any cloud drive or upload to https://bitsum.com/minidumps. You can communicate with us by email at support@bitsum.com.

#7

Process Lasso / Process Lasso management conso...

Last post by derekperry - May 14, 2024, 11:09:21 PM

Hello,
Since an update a few weeks back, my Process Lasso management console keep crashing whenever it starts.
I've tried reinstalling, but it doesnt help.
This computer is a system mainly used for surfing, so there's not been any changes to hardware or other software recently either.

#8

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

Last post by Jeremy Collake - May 14, 2024, 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.

#9

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

Last post by Coldblackice - May 14, 2024, 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/

#10

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

Last post by Coldblackice - May 13, 2024, 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.