CPU affinity - two different approaches
Posted 13 May 2012 - 09:59 AM
Posted 13 May 2012 - 10:01 AM
Posted 13 May 2012 - 10:50 AM
Hardware threads are essentially the number of processor cores available (plus virtual cores in the case of Hyper threading). That Intel post is suggesting that if your software is designed to run multiple threads, and is likely to run so many as to make use of virtual cores, then it may be better to constrain it to running only as many threads as you have physical cores. When running intensive processes, it is sometimes better to allow multiple software threads to take their turns on the physical cores, because the virtualisation is often even less efficient.
Most games do not make very good use of multithreading, because of simultaneity; it is very difficult to make sure that all the disparate threads complete their tasks synchronously, to be useful for a realtime application like a game engine. Devs have been, and will be, struggling with this for years. This is why Skyrim does not appear to get much of boost from extra cores in benchmarks. But attempting to constrain the use of available cores is another matter entirely, and IMHO, we'd need a better explanation and a lot more evidence to recommend it.
This is a line from the tool's description page,
"The fact that Skyrim can only use 2 CPU cores, caused Windows to spread the load to all of my CPU Cores."
This just doesn't make much sense to me, and adds to my doubts.
The thread that Z posted may offer a clue. When using 'Turbo' auto-overclocking, the fewer cores in use, the higher the possible overclock. Because Skyrim is likely only using a couple of threads, the clock speed boost would be well worth the price of disabling the under-utilised cores. That would at least make some sense, and that's where I'd focus the testing
Posted 13 May 2012 - 07:55 PM
Posted 14 May 2012 - 01:31 AM
As a sidenote as I mentioned I'm using turbo and could also notice that the cores were staying on the "max" frequency that turbo goes to whilst playing so I'm sure the performance would've been a bit better if I had actually dared to go on playing after noticing cores got warm so damn quick. :) Now, I've never done OCing etc so I'm not even sure if ~80-85C during load is bad but since it differed so much I got worried. Perhaps I should just try to figure out how to do some minor proper OCing instead. Only ever OCd GPUs in the past, for some reason.
Posted 14 May 2012 - 06:00 AM
Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:01 AM
Yep, guess I should've mentioned that. :) I forced Skyrim to use core 1 and 3 for whatever reason
80C-85 shoudlnt be an issue, i would get worried if you start hitting 100C. Just to clarify, you have a quad core and you force skyrim to only use 2?
Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:04 AM
Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:06 AM
Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:08 AM
Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:23 AM
Posted 14 May 2012 - 08:46 AM
Posted 14 May 2012 - 09:39 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users