Yes, Joe's right. Always best to use the application facilities before reaching for external programs. AM and display settings.

However with HT enabled and not setting the AM you would be sharing the first core over two tasks. With an AM with "01" on the end that second LP will not be available to the sim so the second task gets the next physical core and the first task gets a core to itself. Use the sim AM to do that as that's what it is intended for so the sim knows what it is doing.

Edited August 18, 20205 yr by SteveW

40 minutes ago, mikeymike said:

go into process lasso got to each of my addons uncheck all off the first 2 cores ??

Exactly, with Proc Lasso you can set ii up to keep all those addon exe apps off of the first few cores, that would bring dividends.

2 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Exactly, with Proc Lasso you can set ii up to keep all those addon exe apps off of the first few cores, that would bring dividends.

Ok, but still need an AM?

i did try 62805 and didn’t work out well for me.

what AM would you suggest Steve for. A i9 9900k

Thanks

mike

62805 = 11,11,01,01,01,01,01,01 uses 8 cores and 10  tasks. if you check out my post above, it's often best to leave one or two cores for the system.

Looking at No AM 8 core + HT would be 11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11 = 65535 using 16 tasks, simply doing 11,11,11,11,11,11,11,01 = 65533 would move the second task to the next physical core giving maximum throughput to task zero. Look on the right (least significant binary digits are LPs 0 and 1).

However, that free LP can attract activity so also remove a couple of cores to start with 00,00,11,11,11,11,11,01 = 4093 dropping sister LPs through to 00,00,01,01,01,01,01,01 = 1365. I would guess the best solution lies in that range.

Move all your addon exe apps with Proc Lasso onto LPs such as 10,10,10,10,00,00,00,00, using at minimum two LPs per addon.

1 hour ago, mikeymike said:

Ok, but still need an AM?

i did try 62805 and didn’t work out well for me.

what AM would you suggest Steve for. A i9 9900k

Thanks

mike

Have the same CPU and use

[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=21845

Two first HT cores are deactivated and enough cores free at the back for other apps.

7 minutes ago, JoeFackel said:

Have the same CPU and use

[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=21845

Two first HT cores are deactivated and enough cores free at the back for other apps.

Actually ALL second virtual LPs on all cores are excluded with this value (21845)

01.01.01.01.  01.01.01.01  01.01.01.01  01.01.01.01

Are we on the same page with you on that?

Thanks.

PS: 16 physical cores, which CPU is that?

Edited August 18, 20205 yr by Dirk98

Yes, 21845 = 01,01,01,01,01,01,01,01.

43 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Yes, 21845 = 01,01,01,01,01,01,01,01.

Ok, so would AM 21845 be ideal?

thanks

mike 

46 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Yes, 21845 = 01,01,01,01,01,01,01,01.

That is correct, sorry.

Thanks.

6 minutes ago, mikeymike said:

Ok, so would AM 21845 be ideal?

thanks

mike 

I don't know, but it works very well here, with all add-ons running on the 0s on the left side of that string.

Edited August 18, 20205 yr by Dirk98

5 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

I don't know, but it works very well here, with all add-ons running on the 0s on the left side of that string.

Ok, I will try it out 

thanks

mike

1 hour ago, Dirk98 said:

Actually ALL second virtual LPs on all cores are excluded with this value (21845)

01.01.01.01.  01.01.01.01  01.01.01.01  01.01.01.01

Are we on the same page with you on that?

Thanks.

PS: 16 physical cores, which CPU is that?

Oh man ... 😅

I did a test few days ago and forgot to revert to my "normal" AM setting. Usually i use 4085.

5 hours ago, JoeFackel said:

Oh man ... 😅

I did a test few days ago and forgot to revert to my "normal" AM setting. Usually i use 4085.

I did apologize for the confusion in my next post.

On 8/18/2020 at 5:12 PM, SteveW said:

62805 = 11,11,01,01,01,01,01,01 uses 8 cores and 10  tasks. if you check out my post above, it's often best to leave one or two cores for the system.

Looking at No AM 8 core + HT would be 11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11 = 65535 using 16 tasks, simply doing 11,11,11,11,11,11,11,01 = 65533 would move the second task to the next physical core giving maximum throughput to task zero. Look on the right (least significant binary digits are LPs 0 and 1).

However, that free LP can attract activity so also remove a couple of cores to start with 00,00,11,11,11,11,11,01 = 4093 dropping sister LPs through to 00,00,01,01,01,01,01,01 = 1365. I would guess the best solution lies in that range.

Move all your addon exe apps with Proc Lasso onto LPs such as 10,10,10,10,00,00,00,00, using at minimum two LPs per addon.

Hello Steve,

thanks for your good explanations about Hyperthreading and Affinitymask. What setting would you recommend for a 6-core i7-8700K (5GHz)?

If I understood your explanations correct I would go with something like 11 11 11 11 01 01 or 00 11 11 11 01 01 ?   Or should I turn off HT completely via BIOS?

Thanks for your advice!

On 4/19/2020 at 4:43 PM, Ianrivaldosmith said:

@Sethos I have an 9900KS. So 8 cores and HT on makes it 16. 
I added an affinity mask to disable the HT part of the cores. It runs way way way smoother. I tested it for 24 hours using the same scenario. And the conclusion is, that the hyper threading causes stuttering, and the affinity mask to turn it off removes the stuttering. 

I have the same Intel.

Wich AM settings you use?