![]() ![]() So far as I know the problem was resolved with Windows 8 along with a variety of tweaks they did to multithreading in general which make games like BF4 perform quite a bit better on it than Windows 7. Its no myth, there is definitely a performance impact to core parking and in certain circumstances it can be substantial. It shows up in benchmarks that there is about 5% difference between balanced and performance power states on a computer in quite a lot of benchmarks, a large part of which can be attributed to core parking but not all of it. Its not just core parking but also the C states. We also know that the various power saving systems in Windows cost performance more generally. ![]() Some games seemed to gain quite a lot from turning core parking off, BF3 I seem to recall was one of them. They would also use multiple cores in periodic ways and caused them to change from parked to unparked frequently and this seemed to impact on the minimum frame rate and the amount of frame time variance the games showed. So then we had a number of people looking into other problems that it might cause and it turned out a lot of games also had the problem with HT based processors. The impact was about 30%, which is quite a bit. Performance was pretty significantly impacted by having the cores park as the algorithm had a tendency to use all cores, then back off and then use them again and that had the cores parking and unparking frequently and the time it takes is not insignificant. Winrar was where the industry initially saw a problem. We have quite a few studies that have been done with various software that shows core parking on Windows 7 is a bit of an issue. allows more allotted sleep time for C3/C6/C7 core sleep states to utilizes(more effecient use of the sleep states w/o so many wakeups).īasically due to how the kernel schedules threads on parked vs nonparked vs 'idling' cores. The nice thing about OS method of parking cores though. NOTE: I realize sleep states / parking are different mechanisms, one being implimented by hardware and the other by OS for hardware sakes.but they work in relation to each other. ![]() parking really gives u no added benefit, so parked / non parked is nearly unmeasurable overhead in that case. If you already have all power savings of CPU disabled in BIOS. To maintain the full benefit of non parked cores.might as well disable all the cpu power saving features in the BIOS as well =P which is where they are when parked(if power saving features of CPU enabled). By overhead, I mean mainly is bringing the cores outta deep C6/C7 C3 sleep states. It would be fair to say that forcing all cores to be in a nonparked state would yield a tiny bit more performance improvement because the overhead needed to bring them outta parking is of course not there. But if you decide to keep all of your cores active at all times, there is no way to disable CPU parking from the user interface or by running command prompt.įrom my recent studies. And after its done, they will be parked again.Īll in all, this is a nice feature to save the energy. However, if you are running something that requires a lot of CPU power, all the cores, which were previously parked, will be placed in the active state (unparked) to perform the task. So lets say if you are performing some tasks that do not consume a lot of CPU power, all the cores that are parked will remain in that state. This is a new feature of windows 7/2008 operating system that is made to balance energy consumption by your CPU. If you are an owner of a new multi-core Intel CPU for example Intel core I7 and Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 OS, you already might notice that some of the cores in your resource monitor are marked as parked. I have been using the below tweak for 3 months but I don't feel I am missing anything without doing it after a format. Do you think there are any benefits to CPU unparking or is it a gimmick? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |