Started by Coldblackice, February 14, 2015, 07:14:30 PM
Quote from: Coldblackice on May 06, 2015, 01:57:37 AMAwesome tips, thanks. So with this advice, are you meaning whether to exit a program or not? Or do you mean whether to let ProBalance touch it or not?Do you let ProBalance/ProcessLasso run while you game, or do you shut PL down?
Quote2: I've done basic benchmark tests while I whittled down the processes and overall I am quicker than I was.
Quote from: BenYeeHua on May 06, 2015, 11:06:54 AMJust wonder, did you tested on the DPC latency that, it will affect the game performance or not? So far I know that DPC latency will only affect the sound(like cracking if too high), I think it don't affect too much for the CPU time to transfer data into Graphic card, which causing stutter.Normally only laptop with the Wireless are causing high DPC latency, the second and third are 2 graphic card(Optimus/Enduro).
Quote from: Coldblackice on May 07, 2015, 05:45:02 PMInteresting. I always wondered if it was for more than just sound -- but I guess not!
Quote from: BenYeeHua on May 07, 2015, 06:30:53 PMYup, I guess I will need to read the "Windows Internals" Books to know about it. https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963901.aspxAnd Windows 8.1 version is coming out next years, I think he might just jump over to Windows 10? http://www.amazon.com/dp/0735684189
Quote from: edkiefer on May 08, 2015, 08:37:48 AMI never searched but that link and here has good vids on many of important sysinternal tools (autoruns, PE, PM etc ).https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb469930#videos
Quote from: BenYeeHua on May 08, 2015, 02:18:02 PMYup, and you may like to watch The Case of the Unexplained , and change your BSOD to RSOD(Red Screen of Death). https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963887.aspx
Quote from: edkiefer on May 08, 2015, 02:35:50 PMYup, the vids are very good, even when you think you know something pretty good, can always learn more All those vid's are a geek's paradise
Quote from: thegreatsquare on May 05, 2015, 06:15:38 AMYou need to keep in mind that DX9/10/11 games have a dependent primary core 0 (..or 0,1).
Quote from: Coldblackice on May 09, 2015, 02:56:41 AMSo would it make a difference for me to set StarCraft 2's CPU affinity to the primary core? Or is it better to leave it alone?I seem to remember reading somewhere that it's better to leave things like that alone, but we seem to be a higher-level group here, and maybe there's performance to be gained
Quote from: thegreatsquare on May 10, 2015, 05:56:42 AMNo. Core 0 is a physical core and it is looked for by more programs than just Process Lasso and HWMonitor. PC games are usually dependent on Core 0 to some degree.This is Black Flag [trying to run] on my old G73jh [i7 720QM 1.6-2.8GHz]
Quote from: Jeremy Collake on May 12, 2015, 02:28:32 PMThat is interesting. I would expect to see, after a few minutes at least, it swap the load to another physical core (e.g. core 2, then core 4...). The scheduler is designed to do this to prevent overheating any specific core, unless the game has specifically bound it's acting thread(s) to a specific CPU core.
QuoteBUT this is different from the comment I made. I just meant that the Windows scheduler will eventually (unless told not to), swap the primary thread to another physical CPU to prevent overheating. It doesn't do this frequently, as this causes a slight performance hit due to cache loss. If it did such too frequently, it'd be called 'core thrashing'.
Quote from: BenYeeHua on May 13, 2015, 03:58:06 AMYup, normally when I run the Automatic Maintain manually, the process will bit only one core randomly, it is rarely to saw it bite one core 75%, then switch to another core 25%, except you are also running another process will will also using a lot of CPU.
Quote from: Jeremy Collake on May 12, 2015, 03:24:51 PMYes, that makes sense as they become more palatalized (use more threads to spread out the workload). It isn't always easy, or even possible. For instance, doing the computation 2+2=4 really can't be parallelized, since it's a sequential operation. In most applications (or games), you will see one primary thread doing the heavy lifting, and several ancillary threads doing lighter work -- simply because so many operations can't be parallelized. If you see a game that never maxes out any core, then it is not CPU bound, meaning it's not taxing your CPU much at all (the CPU is not a bottleneck).BUT this is different from the comment I made. I just meant that the Windows scheduler will eventually (unless told not to), swap the primary thread to another physical CPU to prevent overheating. It doesn't do this frequently, as this causes a slight performance hit due to cache loss. If it did such too frequently, it'd be called 'core thrashing'.
Quote from: Coldblackice on May 16, 2015, 02:48:57 AMWhat's "Automatic Maintain"? Where are you doing this?
QuoteSo on an i7 930 (x58) machine, if a program is showing a constant ~13% CPU usage in task-manager, does that mean the program is CPU-limited, because:100% / 8 cores (logical) = ~13% ...?And would this also mean that the program can only run off one logical core, since a program that could run off two cores should theoretically show a max of ~25%?
Quote from: edkiefer on May 16, 2015, 09:49:03 AMI think Ben means automatic maintenance , things that OS does in back-ground, defrag , windows update , AV , any scheduled tasks etc .
Quote from: Coldblackice on May 16, 2015, 02:48:57 AMSo with Starcraft 2 being a DirectX 9 game, what does that mean as far as its core-choosing (and/or core limitations)? Would it theoretically be beneficial then to force it onto core-0? Or would it be better to just let it choose what it wants (or what Windows wants)?
Quote from: DeadHead on May 16, 2015, 05:01:49 PMFrom my (limited) tests, so far not a single game have shown any benefits when I mess around with limiting cores for it, or by making it run only on the physical cores (avoiding non-physical cores). The best peformance, again from *my* tests, has been to let the game use all cores available. Should there be a background process that takes up too much cpu, then it could possibly benefit the game by limiting that particular process, although I've found PL does a fine job when by lowering priority of that process.This is not to say there could be examples where playing around with affinity could improve performance, but in general it's best to leave this to Windows, imho.