ronnay

affinitymask i7 7700k

Recommended Posts

hi guys,

i have a quik question. for jobschedular affinitymask=n what do i have to fill in for N? i have an intil i7 7700k overclocked to 4.8 ghz. is there a specific number i have to add in at N accept for 14?

greatings Ronnay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

With FSX you actually want an 84 affinitymask on an HT-enabled 4-core i7.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I found best.

 

Go to this website and plug in the numbers suited for your system - http://www.gatwick-fsg.org.uk/affinitymask.aspx?SubMenuItem=hardware

I tried many different combinations, then I read a couple articles from others saying dont even bother with Affinity Mask. So I did my own test on four different combinations and then removed the Affinity Mask settings from my FSX.CFG by simply adding the // (two forward slashes) at the beginning of each Affinity Mask line.

 

I found for my system I get better performance without Affinity Mask.

Here's my system:

Machine name: MSI
Operating System: Windows 10 Home 64-bit (10.0, Build 10586) (10586.th2_release_sec.160328-1908)
System Model: GP62 6QF
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700HQ CPU @ 2.60GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.6GHz
Memory: 16384MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 16262MB RAM

GPU: Nvidia GTX960M

 

Here's what my FSX.CFG now looks like:


[JOBSCHEDULER]
//AffinityMask=14 //1-2-3 cores no thread
//AffinityMask=15 //0-1-2-3-4 cores no thread
//AffinityMask=252 //1-2-3 cores with thread - BEST
//AffinityMask=255 //0-1-2-3-4 cores with thread
//AffinityMask=14 //4 cores no thread - easy mode
//AffinityMask=84 //4 cores with thread - easy mode - 2ND BEST
// No Affinity Mask settings seems to be the best

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Dane. If you don't have any specific problem to tweak out, just leave it out. That being said, I had problems with blurry textures with my i7 6700k and 85 seemed to work best. Not a typo, 85, not 84. 

 

Andre

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX and FSX:SE work slightly differently to P3D. FSX works nice without an affinity mask. I found when monitored on a professional test harness I built for FSX/P3D It can be improved with hyperthreading ON and 85 is best which uses four cores. If you want to use three cores Hyperthreading ON and 116 is best, leaving core zero free (that is logical processors 0 and 1). I mention P3D since it is worth noting it behaves in a different way to FSX and would always require an AM with HT ON.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By the way we are talking four cores here. With FSX (and P3D) the scenario loading time can be reduced (up to a point) by enabling more multi-threading and utilising HT ON with 245. The scenario will load slightly faster but you don't need special software to measure it as this can be seen with the aid of a stopwatch. The resulting changes to rendering throughput are much harder to see and as logically can be expected results there are not quite as good as sticking with four threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AM84 on a quad with HT will cause blurries after a while. YMMV, but 85 is the correct mask for a Quad + HT.

This is speaking about P3D and in most cases, again, YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep 84 allows only three threads and entirely scuppers the plan. Note that HT off and 14 is the same problem, only three threads. So with HT enabled we can make four threads on three cores as in the example 116 I mentioned above and allow the rendering section of the simulation to be running at its leanest.

So taking the four core with Hyperthreading enabled and using an Affinity Mask of 85 we have the binary representation = 01010101. For needed clarity we split each pair with a comma to denote HT is enabled =01,01,01,01. The layout is core zero is the rightmost pair, going left to cores one, two and three.

116=01,11,01,00

so we have four threads, the first has a core to itself, the two threads on core two generally don't max out at the same time so in effect don't force the core to be shared as much as ganging up threads in another fashion.

Even so as can be expected four straight cores work best as with 85, but the problems come from other exe apps running alongside the sim, keep them off of the cores with the first two sim threads.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SteveW said:

. The layout is core zero is the rightmost pair, going left to cores one, two and three.

116=01,11,01,00

so we have four threads, the first has a core to itself, the two threads on core two generally don't max out at the same time so in effect don't force the core to be shared as much as ganging up threads in another fashion.

Even so as can be expected four straight cores work best as with 85, but the problems come from other exe apps running alongside the sim, keep them off of the cores with the first two sim threads.

 

 

 

[JOBSCHEDULER]    /// running a bat file to start ASN, PE, FSXFlight with affinity 3 = "00,00,00,11"
AffinityMask=248  /// 116 = "01,11,01,00" 184 "10,11,10,00" or 248 "11,11,10,00"

I've been using AM 248 mostly, I7-4790K HT on, and I start my exe apps first with AM 3 using a .bat file.  What would be the difference between "116" and "248"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

116 you have 4 cores assigned,  248 you have 5 cores assigned.

As Steve said, 4 cores works well, but try it and decide what you like best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, 248=11,11,01,00 which gives use of 5 logical processors, thanks Bert. What this fifth one does is add an extra thread for collecting scenery and sim data but as can be seen shares the core with the fourth thread. It should inmost cases load the scenario slightly faster than 116 maybe a few seconds depends on hardware. It won't improve rendering performance actually reduce that a tiny bit, but might aid smoothness with certain scenery types or loads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it.  Thanks Bert / Steve.  Does it matter at all which LPs are assigned?  For example any difference between

116 = "01,11,01,00" and

184 = "10,11,10,00"  or is this way down in the weeds...  Just academically interested mostly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pans out the same as far a the sim is concerned but the difference comes from how the other exe apps layout across the CPU. As mentioned for best results keep them away from the cores with the first two sim jobs for the least interruptions, can use a batch file to start apps with core affinity. Don't be fooled by an app 'only' using 6% CPU it'll stall the sim if it's running threads on those cores with the first sim threads. The third fourth and so on sim jobs work in the background and take seconds to complete so they don't affect the render, however, stalling those cores increases the data or scenario loading speed.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  I do start my apps with a bat with affinity 3 "00,00,00,11".  Everything runs great so "if it's not broke..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now