![]() On setting priority to high on some processes, you also have to be careful, its much better to lower priorities of back ground processes than to raise a few focused processes. BTW PL does this by default automatically. I much rather adjust priorities so the cpu time slice is less while still maintaining default affinities. Then if your dealing with a i5 quad core and are playing a modern game which uses all of them, it might be worse. For example if you had some services and say a few app running in back ground (browser) and you set all on #1 core. Quote from: edkiefer on December 01, 2017, 07:45:12 PM Hi You have to be careful on micro-managing process affinities, it is possible things could get worse. That said having affinities and priority change for some processes while running a game or performance process maybe a positive thing, it just depends on usage and HW, that would have to be implimented into PL. ![]() I personally didn't try it yet but don't really want to spend more $ behind process optimization than I did with PL :3 Hi You have to be careful on micro-managing process affinities, it is possible things could get worse. I was wondering if something like that can be incorporated into Process Lasso as well? A friend of mine owns the application, and he says that while PL kept things fluid, it didn't really boost performance like CPUCores did (in CSGO). I believe what it does is, it automatically reassigns various processes to a single Core, temporarily disables some services and assigns High priority to the game. There's an application on Steam called CPUCores that makes several enhancements that improves the gaming experience. Quote from: buddybd on December 01, 2017, 05:36:19 PM Sorry for the necro but I didn't think my question warranted a new thread. I don't want to get OT, I was just making a general statement, it does depend on bios setting and of course what voltage ends up being the steady state. Still even with that I bet you would only save 5-10w, you can easy monitor it. So no in both plans, balanced and HP my system idles at 1600mhz, but with HP it goes from 1600 right to max clock, were in balanced it will go in steps upto max (1600>1800>2100 etc). Are you sure your power profile even adjusts and locks coreclock? because it doesnt on 99% of the PC's as first of all Power States in bios are wrongly set (C1E, C3/C6, Speedstep, etc) Even from auto (enabled) to manual enabled and disabled can work differently on buggy bios -) I was going to ask that next, I keep all C states and speedstep enabled in bios (I have no trouble with voltage droop from idle to load. Coretemp shows some 20 watts more usage from idle to full clock without load, which is probably also a questimate based on vcore/clockspeed etc. And that is with minimal load surging through that 4500mhz. ![]() Roughly temperatures from balanced to high perf increase by 10 celsius. Its 1600~mhz vs 4500mhz here, 1.08v vs 1.33v I'd say its more than just a few watts. ![]() Quote from: Marctraider on February 15, 2017, 06:50:23 PM No? I dont know.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |