Jump to content

TheFamilyMan

Members
  • Content Count

    830
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

71 Good

About TheFamilyMan

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

3,160 profile views
  1. TechguyMaxC, we're both saying the same thing, though I consider $100 or more for cooling as expensive. My barrier isn't the cooling, it's that the i9 10900k, right out of the box at its stock clocks, is pushed to the wall in both thermals and power consumption. I'll be mightily surprised (and also relieved) that on May 20 when the reviews hit the streets we learn otherwise. To me it seems like a rather desperate release, thus my hesitation.
  2. Without a very large and expensive CPU cooler, the 10900k promoted boost clocks of 5.1Ghz to 5.3Ghz just cannot be reached. Intel even says this is so. The leaked article shows a heat test using Aida FPU. Running at its stock all core boost of 4.8Ghz, using a moderate AIO cooler, the temps hit 92c with an average of 87c. That is HOT. I too wanted this CPU too for a new built to retire my 4770k build, but I now seriously doubt it. Will instead be considering the 10700k, and maybe even waiting it out for Zen 3.
  3. Thanks for the heads up. Guess my wires got crossed as I was drilling this stuff down.
  4. MS specifying a Intel i7 9800X, a somewhat out of date workstation targeted CPU that implements quad channel memory, as "ideal" is a head scratcher to say the least, considering too that it shares that ideal distinction with a main stream, and slightly out of date and dual channel, AMD 2700X. In a way, this seems a bit of a wink at AMD IMO. Overall I find it silly (to say it politely) that they put this info out so early (heck, FS2020 is still in alpha test), since by year's end new processor families from both Intel and AMD will be hitting the street. I think what they are really saying is: to get the best, you'll need the best (which is just as it always has been, though AMD gets a hall pass here 😄). Quad channel memory...really? Exciting times lie ahead is one of the few things that is certain here.
  5. Encouraging but I will still wait until it is available publicly in writing from official sources or when the product is already out. Agreed. "Will not be required" doesn't specify that there will not be any. While Rob's source implies some form of free access to the streaming data (5 mbps perhaps?), the "ideal 50 mbps" may require an additional fee of some sort. A total guess of course, but dang, I hope I'm wrong here.
  6. Both my mother and mother-in-law have made masks from cotton material which they've shared with family, friends and neighbors. Though I know they are not going to do much in a really bad situation, I still wear mine when grocery shopping, or out getting some exercise, for the primary reason that it shows solidarity in dealing with the situation we are in, and have the respect to attempt to protect others around me.
  7. Edit: Just blowing off stream, trying not to freak out.
  8. This is my plan. Just hoping that the pandemic won't too badly push out the release dates of the intel 10 series and its mobos. Already got some of my build's parts in hand.
  9. It seems the pandemic hammer has fallen here in Silicon Valley, CA USA. Pretty much all public gatherings have been cancelled, including sporting events (from kids soccer to professional sports), theater performances of every kind, schools and churches. Went to the supermarket today and saw stripped canned goods shelves. Wonder how soon it will be before the fresh produce is removed from sale, being a possible vector. Only "good" thing is the commute traffic is like it's a public holiday. Serious failings of our society are being amplified by this crisis, hopefully this experience teaches us the lessons we need to learn to better deal with them. Dang, it can suck to live in historic times, though this is nothing compared to being in a RL war-zone. This is not a drill; everyone needs to get real.
  10. My bad about 13 being overkill for HT dual core: it's value is 1 1 0 1, which selects virtual cores 0, 2, and 3 for use. Can't figure how misled myself in my original statement, for it's a rather brain dead response since 15 is the max value in this case.
  11. Assuming you really mean "can I do anything useful", the answer is maybe. Seeing that your processor supports HyperThreads (HT), using 5 may helpful for P3D/FSX (yet another assumption) as only virtual cores 0 and 2 will be used by the sim. Using no AM may be just as effective performance-wise; it's best that you experiment to see what works best for you. BTW, 13 is overkill for a dual core processor since its specifies a non-existent virtual core 4; also, this isn't the best forum for your question.
  12. "You're surprised because you don't understand how the Windows kernel scheduler works." That's a rather bold and unfortunately misinformed statement. I've been providing programming support for simulations running in realtime hardware in the loop testing labs for nearly 35 years at a major aerospace company. As for multi-processor, multi-core, multi-process, multi-thread, realtime, shared memory, and distributed programming, I was a go-to expert (that is, until I recently retired). To say "you don't understand how the Windows kernel scheduler works" is rather laughable, if not insulting. Also, your response side stepped my "surprise": mainly that FSX figures out, WITHOUT the help of a fsx.cfg supplied affinity mask, its host CPU environment and then creates and launches its threads, most likely setting each thread's logical core affinity (as you mentioned) to best alleviate inter-thread contention, all to best optimize FSX's overall execution in light of the CPU resources available to it, whether the host's CPU is hyperthreaded or not. Perhaps my misguided statement about directly querying the CPU set you down your path. It was a bad guess, as you called out; this system service is the (most probable) correct way that that information is accessed from the OS, as you alluded to: getlogicalprocessorinformation. Luke, please indulge me here, you probably know all that follows. A final note of what a hyperthreaded CPU is, at least from an application programmer's point of view. A hyperthread CPU is a collection of logical cores, period! (A non-hyperthreaded CPU is also a collection of logical cores!) Hyperthreading is that two (but could be more) logical cores share the same physical core; but from a program's perspective there are only logical cores available to it, and none of them are specifically marked as a physical core. The Window scheduler, and informed programs, know its host's CPU(s) logical to physical core ratio, and they best manage their payload to keep all the available physical cores most efficiently busy as possible given the processing payload to be managed. Part of "most efficient" is to minimize the number of each physical core's logical cores in use, but definitely use them when needed! One bummer about Windows which RTOS provides and Windows does not is the ability to globally have the scheduler reserve cores (and shield them from device and some of the OS interrupts) for exclusive use by realtime applications. I sort of back door this functionality by using cmd's exe to launch and set an AM for all the FSX helper apps I use, e.g. TrackIR, so FSX is least bothered by them. Thanks for reading my mini-tome! 🙂
  13. That tool generated AM is spot on correct for your 1-7 physical core execution. It is surprising that without any AM setting FSX figures out the CPU's HT configuration for intel processors and does the right thing. FSX directly controls which threads can run on which "logical" cores. If provided, the AM tells FSX which logical cores it can use for its threads. If not provided, I surmise that FSX uses special intel machine level instructions which query CPU properties (HT has been a intel processor feature since 2003), and the AMD CPU equivalent instructions are different and not implemented in FSX. I would be really surprised if a bios update could correct this FSX behavior...but I'm ready to be surprised. Nice build you got there, hope that it's nothing but joy for you to use. I'm still nursing along a 4770k that I built over 6 years ago. it's nearly golden overclock abilities still suits my needs, at least "good enough". Recently did a bios mod so I can boot a x4 PCIe NVMe drive, works great!
  14. The HT core numbering are even cores are primary, i.e. 0, 2, 4, and odd are HT cores. Setting the affinity mask to all even cores is what you want to do. Note that what really matters is not to have FSX threads running on any consecutive even/odd pair. BTW, the above is a somewhat simplified explanation of HT core utilization, but suffices for what is needed.
  15. My experience with FSX running on hypertheaded Intel CPUs is that its default execution behavior will automatically run its threads on the primary cores and leave the remaining "hyper" cores alone. Looks that that thread execution mechanism fails with the 3000 AMD cpus, which may be a bad thing performance wise, as in smoothness. If smoothness is lacking, setting the affinity mask in the .cfg file should help.
×
×
  • Create New...