HT enabled w/ AffinityMask set for Main Thread on virtual Core1, OS Core0: is texture updating improved?

[Noel 4,487]

I had tried HT enabled previously but used a different AM setting on my hexacore SB-E chip and didn't notice improvement.  Now w/ AffinityMask=4064 I see virtual Core1 close to 100%, the other 10 texture loaders nicely balanced, all ten of them, and virtual Core0 at the low percentage use typically used by the OS.  I have other apps assigned to Core0 as well, like REX4, and when I loaded GPU-z in mis-flight I noticed absolutely no hitch in the video of P3D V2.2, whereas previously the whole video would stop for 5 seconds or so until GPU-z initialized.  The corroboration that I'm seeing better smoothness, better texture update rate, comes in the fact the temperature of the CPU is up for sure, implying more computation is happening.  Prior tries at this w/o this AM setting left me unsure, but it looks meaningful now.  Your experience?

[do_denver2 18]

With my 3770k, out of four configurations (HT OFF AF 15, HT OFF AF 14, HT ON AF, HT ON AF 255, HT ON AF 252) I prefer HT OFF AF 15.  I always set affinity manually through task manager, and using all four cores makes textures load faster.  The difference is extremely noticeable and easy to test.  As for hyper threading, I really don't notice any difference with it on or off.  However, the cooler temps mean I can run at 4.7ghz with it off.  With HT on I have to lower to 4.5ghz.

[twharrell 38]

I also have a 3770k (OC @ 4.5GHz) and also have better performance with HT disabled and AF 15. I also set my affinity priority to high through task manager.

[Noel 4,487]

With my 3770k, out of four configurations (HT OFF AF 15, HT OFF AF 14, HT ON AF, HT ON AF 255, HT ON AF 252) I prefer HT OFF AF 15.  I always set affinity manually through task manager, and using all four cores makes textures load faster.  The difference is extremely noticeable and easy to test.  As for hyper threading, I really don't notice any difference with it on or off.  However, the cooler temps mean I can run at 4.7ghz with it off.  With HT on I have to lower to 4.5ghz.

Interesting.  I've noticed, whatever AM value I use in p3d.cfg, the corresponding cores always correctly display when I open TM.  So for my AM of 4094 (I stated 4064 above which was a misprint) which is the decimal value for binary value of 11111111110.   What then is the purpose of setting these Affinity Core value in TM?

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

I have been playing with AM 18 and 84 - 84 works better for blurrys as for HT jury is still out - Noel I have 3770k what do you recommend to try for a 4 core ? this is testing is done on aerosoft axe as lighter aircraft is not an issue

[Noel 4,487]

I have been playing with AM 18 and 84 - 84 works better for blurrys as for HT jury is still out - Noel I have 3770k what do you recommend to try for a 4 core ? this is testing is done on aerosoft axe as lighter aircraft is not an issue

It's so difficult coming to any conclusions on the issue of HT on versus off.  I was doing some testing last eve w/ HT on w/ AM=4094 versus HT off w/ AM=62 (frees up Core0 for OS, Core1 for main thread leaving 4 texture loaders.  This has been my default setting all along.   I think in the particular test flight there was absolutely no advantage over HT/4094 in terms of texture loading--but this I'm thinking is because the scenery was pretty easy too load by comparison to metro sites w/ lots of autogen and detail.  I was flying south from KACV.  In fact, actual frame rate when up significantly w/ HT off.  However in a complex area I'm quite sure texture loading was superior w/ HT/4094.  As they say YMMV!  

 

I have to think when temperature increases, which it clearly does w/ HT WHEN there is lots more texture loading required, then your CPU must indeed be doing more work.  After all, these are virtual cores--you haven't really added more hardware, just putting more demands on what your same old CPU, and when it responds to the increased demand it generates more heat.  And I can say w/ some certainly that in lower demand areas temp doesn't necessarily increase w/ HT on, which in part was why I gave up on HT a while back.  So difficult to draw hard conclusion because everything...all depends...!

 

So if you want to use your 8 virtual cores w/ HT on, try 254, which would be the same as 4094 w/ hexacore.   254 decimal equates to 11111110 in binary, leaving the first virtual core for the OS to manage this and that w/.  62 for HT off for the quad core leaves Core0 for the OS (and all other utilities you might be using).

 

Back on your AXE.   Can you comment on frame rate in specific situations?  Sounds like a nice craft.  You can fly it w/ a yoke ok?

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

"So if you want to use your 8 virtual cores w/ HT on, try 254, which should be the same as 4094 w/ hexacore.   254 decimal equates to 11111110 in binary, leaving the first virtual core for the OS to manage this and that w/.  62 for HT off for the quad core."

 

Excellent thanks - I am going to try HT off version - tried it last night and was pleased

 

Axe is about 10 fps less than your basic aircraft - but runs smooth especially in P3D - What I really enjoy is the 1st officer - co-pilot interaction - they go thru the entire startup procedure so cool - and also will take you thru the entire rest of the flight so immersive - works with GSX also - has a lot of different views built in - lots of other goodies - You should really consider this aircraft - 45 dollars - no brainer - 

[TurboTomato 90]

I also have a 3770K, not overclocked. It *seems* (and I stress this as I've only done a couple of quick tests) that blurries are reduced with HT on and an AF which uses 6 or 7 cores. Using HT off and AF 15 doesn't seem to load textures as quickly.

[Noel 4,487]

62 for HT off for the quad core."

 

My bad Rich, 62 for HT off for hexacore.  For quad core w/ HT off 14 leaves Core0 for OS--that is a waste of a whole core though as the OS doesn't need much at all.  Probably best choice for HT off would be 15, i.e. all cores available.

 

Here's a link to a converter so you can see what you're doing w/ this:

 

http://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-decimal-hexadecimal-converter.html

 

If you plug in 4094 under decimal, you will see the binary value of:

 

111111111110, so the 0 here is Core0 as they are listed in reverse order.   So if I use a CPU use sensor like ASUS Suite 2 w/ this AM of 4094, I will predictably see Core0 at just a few % usage (unless REX4 is loading as I have it assigned in TM to Core0 only), Core1 at 100% for the main thread in P3D, and the other 10 cores balanced between 0 and 70% use depending on how/where I'm flying.  It's really a nice improvement over HT off and I would highly recommend hexacore w/ HT on now it's clearly an improvement in most situations in terms of texture loading.

 

 

You should really consider this aircraft - 45 dollars - no brainer - 

 

Much downside to flying w/ a yoke?  I have a CH FighterStick USB which is nearly new but I don't really like sticks.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

"My bad Rich, 62 for HT off for hexacore.  For quad core w/ HT off 14 leaves Core0 for OS--that is a waste of a whole core though as the OS doesn't need much at all.  Probably best choice for HT off would be 15, i.e. all cores available."

 

Awesome - thanks a lot - will do

 

 

Not a fan of sticks either - thanks Noel for settings try tonight - let you know - it may be close to 15 now cant remember

[TurboTomato 90]

Just as a point of note; you don't need to go to a website to work out what base-10 number you need for a given affinity mask - just use the built in calculator in Windows in Programmer mode. You can directly switch between binary and decimal or simply put a decimal number in and look at the binary beneath the main numeric display.

[Noel 4,487]

Just as a point of note; you don't need to go to a website to work out what base-10 number you need for a given affinity mask - just use the built in calculator in Windows in Programmer mode. You can directly switch between binary and decimal or simply put a decimal number in and look at the binary beneath the main numeric display.

Indeed I knew that, but since I'm on an OSX mac laptop its programmer mode calculator doesn't work quite as well for this simple conversion!

[TurboTomato 90]

Indeed I knew that, but since I'm on an OSX mac laptop its programmer mode calculator doesn't work quite as well for this simple conversion!

 

There's always one that has to throw a spanner in the works :rolleyes: