Started by Jeremy Collake, December 08, 2011, 12:12:40 AM
Quote from: bitsum.support on December 08, 2011, 08:57:27 PMThat's quite true. I was mostly joking, as there is indeed no chance Microsoft would include this in Windows. However, as for scheduler improvements, your idea of how video drivers adapt themselves to various games actually would be a good idea, with a slight deviation I'll throw in. Instead of (or in addition to) using a database of applications and such, a general scheduler replacement and/or plug-in interface could be developed. That way, the scheduler itself could be replaced per CPU model. So, a new CPU comes out, and a scheduler driver update comes with it. The problem is, of course, that there is considerable complexity to replacing, or even complimenting via a plug-in, a component this essential to the basic functioning of the OS. In fact, that's why Microsoft doesn't update it so quickly... updates to it must be carefully tested and there are issues with backwards compatibility. It is an interesting concept though, a more dynamic scheduler that isn't a simple drone always doing the same thing. Linux could actually do this quicker and easier than Microsoft, being an open source system where the CPU scheduler is already swapped out by advanced users at times. It would be interesting to see benchmarks of CPU performance done on Linux using schedulers provided by the CPU manufacturers.
QuoteBTW : little OT but i was looking at the NT TweakScheduler settings in PL , I am pretty sure I never messed with them but I compared setting you have on documentation and mine is different on last option . I have 3x on"give foreground triple length interval" .Is that right for default on XP SP3 , I think the issue is it is different depending on OS . Maybe put what defaults should be somewhere as reference .
Quote from: edkiefer on January 13, 2012, 08:44:54 AMSo basically there just trying to make OS think its a Intel with HT but that means the so called virtual cores will get used less .kind of defeats getting 8 core processor . But I guess it does fix issues they had .
Quote from: DeadHead on January 14, 2012, 02:07:45 AMI'm a bit curious how this approach with this new scheduler compares the new Bulldozer to the older Phenom II X6 1090T in terms of performance.
Quote"AMD didn't overpromise as far as the benefits of these new scheduling/core parking hotfixes for Windows 7 are concerned. Single digit percentage gains can be expected in most mixed workloads, although there's a chance that you'd see low double digit gains if the conditions are right. It's important to note that the hotfixes for Windows 7 aren't ideal either. They simply force threads to be scheduled on empty modules first rather than idle cores on occupied modules. To properly utilize Bulldozer's architecture we'd need a scheduler that schedules both based on available cores/modules but biases its scheduling depending on data dependency between threads."