mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 17,740
- 9,654
- 136
I don't know about you guys, but I always launch both Prime95 and Furmark, before I start gaming.
Why?
I don't know about you guys, but I always launch both Prime95 and Furmark, before I start gaming.
To make fun of the topic by exaggeration.
Don't they have dedicated cores (e.g. 2 of 8 in PS4)?Even consoles do not close background tasks when playing games... talk about peasantry... sheesh!
On desktop I see problems like equally prioritized background tasks while multitasking (e.g. a browser utilizing a full core due to stupid JS/Flash code - in the ads...) stealing a full core and mem B/W.
But HT is specifically made to run the main thread (of the core) at full speed and utilize whatever is left to run whatever other thread needs running at the same time.Or a HT machine, where even a low priority thread reduces another threads performance by 20-40%.
I did't profile the tons of scripts, just saw the CPU usage. No video or audio playback btw.Why would an add utilize a full core? it would be more like 2-3% of a core,meaning 2-3% of slower gameplay (if there is 0% GPU bottleneck)
unless it's an athlon 5150 (consoles) or something.
Without thread priority information in the processor HT cannot know how to prioritize. Does it have priority bits? My i7-5600 seems to have none.But HT is specifically made to run the main thread (of the core) at full speed and utilize whatever is left to run whatever other thread needs running at the same time.
A low priority thread would mean 0% performance loss if the other thread has normal priority.
Without thread priority information in the processor HT cannot know how to prioritize. Does it have priority bits? My i7-5600 seems to have none.
Why *would* you?
There is no need to explain SMT to me. I just provocatively asked for a bit.You said low priority thread which made me think that you where talking about a thread that has it's priority set to low.
You said low priority thread which made me think that you where talking about a thread that has it's priority set to low.
But anyway, HT does not work by slowing a thread down,one thread runs at 100% and if it doesn't use up every command available in a cycle then the surplus gets used to run commands from a second thread.
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/performance-insights-to-intel-hyper-threading-technology
That's not how SMT works. The first word is "symmetrical" for a reason.
Also known as Simultaneous Multi-Threading,
That multi monitor scenario should be added to the "dirty benchmark" set.turn_pike,
You have a point. Personally, I like to watch a movie or some crazy tv documentary about nazis on the second screen. Multi-monitor performance would be nice to test in such circumstances. I know when I tried to play GTA V at the same time, after a while there were occasional moments of slow downs for whatever reasons (GPU/CPU was never pegged at 100%). I ended up using iGPU for that purpose, no problems since.
But it is certainly very niche to encode videos and game at the same time. That's why you see no reviews with that.
So do all three major graphics companies quicksync/nvenc/vceEncoding while gaming happens by streaming or recording the game (twitch, etc.). PS4 has a dedicated chip for that.
That's right, but quicksync might steal some power budget then:So do all three major graphics companies quicksync/nvenc/vce
Agreed. Not all softwares and website scripts are perfect or even close to that.And personally I never saw any decrease in performance from anything running with idle priority.
And that's with the slowest haswell dual core.
But I guess there are enough badly written things out there for it to maybe happen.
So you use a bit more power but are done in 1/3 the time... so you actually use less power.That's right, but quicksync might steal some power budget then:
Of course the integral counts and it won't be that much during gaming (adapting to target stream resolution).So you use a bit more power but are done in 1/3 the time... so you actually use less power.
Not to mention (but I'm gonna anyway) it doesn't even reach 50 Watts,whichever CPU this might be,there are CPUs that idle at that.
You guys close down your browsers when you game?
Yes, I do close down browsers, (and all other programs except windows background tasks) when gaming except for perhaps a walkthrough on a second screen. I guess I am old school (well I know I am, my first computer was 200 mhz or something like that) but I just dont see why some are so shocked that one would want to devote as many resources as possible to a demanding task like gaming, both computer resources and your own attention. I mean is it really *that* hard to open and close a browser or other program?