3 hours ago, mrlip said:

I've noticed CPU0 is absolutely pegged at 100% which I know isn't usual for P3D but also CPU2 is pegged pretty much at 90-100% and I believe this is different to V4, I need to confirm but I am fairly certain I didn't see CPU2 being hit like this in V4. Even using the V5 internal FPS limiter didn't change CPU0 or CPU2 usage. 

I assume you already took care of things running like AV / Defender / extra sound drivers etc. going, and verified in Task Manager.  Make sure nothing else is taking up cpu time that should not be.

What motherboard are you running?  In your BIOS are you running SpeedStep or similar?  Does your board have an AVX setting or similar?  

It could be that v5 is pushing your 4-core rig that hard.  Your 7700HQ is a 4 physical core cpu, so it would not surprise me if that's the case.   For years we pushed for more multithreading / better use of all cores and we have gradually gotten it with 4.0, 4.1 4.4 4.5 and now 5.x, but the cost of more work = more heat.

Just now, mrlip said:

 Strange others aren’t seeing increase in temps though

Well it would be best to compare with other 4-physical core cpu owners.  If in fact v5 is working the hardware more than v4 (and it looks like it does), then it stands to reason that someone with a 6-core or 8-core may not see any appreciable increase in temps.  They had the headroom whereas you did not.

Just did a quick and dirty test, 10 min. in each version on EDDF. I get 3-4 °C higher temp in V5 than in V4.5. As i tested first 4.5 and then V5 that slightly higher temp may be because of the test before.

1 hour ago, Mace said:

I assume you already took care of things running like AV / Defender / extra sound drivers etc. going, and verified in Task Manager.  Make sure nothing else is taking up cpu time that should not be.

What motherboard are you running?  In your BIOS are you running SpeedStep or similar?  Does your board have an AVX setting or similar?  

It could be that v5 is pushing your 4-core rig that hard.  Your 7700HQ is a 4 physical core cpu, so it would not surprise me if that's the case.   For years we pushed for more multithreading / better use of all cores and we have gradually gotten it with 4.0, 4.1 4.4 4.5 and now 5.x, but the cost of more work = more heat.

Well it would be best to compare with other 4-physical core cpu owners.  If in fact v5 is working the hardware more than v4 (and it looks like it does), then it stands to reason that someone with a 6-core or 8-core may not see any appreciable increase in temps.  They had the headroom whereas you did not.

Motherboard - its a laptop model, GL502VSK Kaby Lake Chipset HM175

SpeedStep, I believe its anabled. 

AVX - Yes I can change that using XTU. Its currently set to 0x

You may well be right regarding the 4 core being a bit long in the tooth, however seems strange that the increases in temp would be so high compared to V4 and other applications. It would be interesting to hear from other 4 core users running V5??

36 minutes ago, JoeFackel said:

Just did a quick and dirty test, 10 min. in each version on EDDF. I get 3-4 °C higher temp in V5 than in V4.5. As i tested first 4.5 and then V5 that slightly higher temp may be because of the test before.

See that's what I would expect to see, a slight increase, maybe 10 max. 

1 hour ago, JoeFackel said:

Try AM=61 and AM=53.

Just tried both of these but no difference unfortunately 😞

See my specs below. No temp differences between v4 and v5 here.

So, I am finally getting somewhere with this, as the saying goes, the most obvious solution is often the right one :)
 

As I think I mentioned previously, I noticed that GPU load in V5 was considerably higher than in V4, which is to be expected as we know that V5 is shifting more onto the GPU with the use of DX12 as well. From my comparisons, GPU load can be double V5 vs V4 in the same scenario. So with this load, my 1070 was constantly at max freq around 1850mhz. This in turn was cranking the GPU temp right up to around 80c.

 

The knock on affect of this on a laptop is that GPU and CPU, on my particular ASUS model, share the same heatsink and some of the cooling system is connected. So the high GPU usage was cranking up the GPU temp which in turn was cranking the CPU temps way up.

 

As often the case with stock settings, particularly on laptops, the voltage settings are higher than they need to be. I have always ran the CPU undervolted since I got it but I have now undervolted the GPU slightly which has took 10 degrees off GPU temp and in turn, lowered CPU temp so now back to acceptable range :)

 

My next steps with this is to further lower GPU voltage as I only did a quick test so it can properly come down a bit more to get it stable. And I will also look into repasting the CPU as well which I has been on my to do list for a while.

Thanks for everyone's help

Just a further update on this after more testing. With an AM set at 85 on a 4 core CPU, at least on my system I see the following behaviour in V5 compared to V4 - 

On the ground, Core 0 is at 100% all the time. Not unusual I know, to be expected. 
However once in the air, core 0 remains at 100% but also Core 1 goes to between 90-100% 

Anybody else see this? 

Further further update, apologies for the triple post but I thought people who have 4 core CPU's and run V5 may find these information useful. 

So it seems Affinity Mask settings are very different V4 to V5. As mentioned above, with an AM set to 85 on a 4 core CPU in V5 this will absolutely peg core 0 and core 1. If setting no AM, you get a fairly even spread across all cores and no longer get the 100% core 0. 

 

16 minutes ago, mrlip said:

Further further update, apologies for the triple post but I thought people who have 4 core CPU's and run V5 may find these information useful. 

So it seems Affinity Mask settings are very different V4 to V5. As mentioned above, with an AM set to 85 on a 4 core CPU in V5 this will absolutely peg core 0 and core 1. If setting no AM, you get a fairly even spread across all cores and no longer get the 100% core 0. 

 

This reminds me of the story of the four blind men and the elephant..  😉

If you really have four cores... why would you use 85?  Are you using HT maybe?

IF you are actually using 8 LPs.. ie quad core with HT enabled, try an AM of 253=11 11 11 01

That gives you use of 7 LPs and yes, you are going to see more load on the third LP, because V5 spreads the load somewhat from Core0 to the next available core..

Edited June 9, 20205 yr by Bert Pieke

seriously, you have a cooling issue if your cpu overheats. No mater how many settings or tweaks you do, you are just masking the issue. You probably have a better result just re-pasting your cpu with some new artic thermal paste. Also make sure your CPU fans is working as intended.

43 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

This reminds me of the story of the four blind men and the elephant..  😉

If you really have four cores... why would you use 85?  Are you using HT maybe?

IF you are actually using 8 LPs.. ie quad core with HT enabled, try an AM of 253=11 11 11 01

That gives you use of 7 LPs and yes, you are going to see more load on the third LP, because V5 spreads the load somewhat from Core0 to the next available core..

On a 7700HQ, HT can not be disabled. In V4, 85 was a good setting as it mimicked HT off as recommended by SteveW who has a lot of knowledge regarding Affinity Mask and there affect. However, as I've mentioned, it seems V5 is very different in terms of core usage. 

I will give 253 a go as well as I haven't tried that in V5. 243 seems to work quite well but I need to test further