1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Ideal Core (Core Parking Optimization) and how to change it!

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by EastCoasthandle, Dec 22, 2009.

  1. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    I believe this deserves it's own thread. I stumbled upon this while researching something else and thought this may be benefit for others. From what I've gathered Core Parking moves all processing to either a core or cores and putting the other cores to sleep. Here is what I found on the subject:
    Source

    It appears that some are complaining about it's use and how they believe it effects performance. There is a way to disable it but I'm not sure if that will disable EIST (for example) if you make the change. Here's the gist of it:
    source

    The change does not impact any of the Power Options settings for the CPU. Does anyone else have any additional information about Ideal Core, Core Parking and if it's a benefit to disable it as suggested above for even CPU loads? Is there any performance benefit disabling this? And, with this enabled did it have any adverse effects on benchmarking?
     
  2. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    Wow, no one knows??
     
  3. AsRock

    AsRock TPU addict

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,381 (4.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,862
    Location:
    US
    Nope never heard any thing of it but sounds interesting.
     
  4. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    From what I've gathered so far is that if you are using Windows 7 you are automatically using Core Parking. Core Parking is in essence like EIST (of sorts) making it more ideal for notebooks, netbooks, etc not PC's per say. However, I've not seen much information about it to suggest any real performance benefits with it enabled vs disabled.
     
  5. AsRock

    AsRock TPU addict

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,381 (4.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,862
    Location:
    US
    Enabling and disabling CPU cores just makes me think it just saves power is all. I'll try it tomorrow just for shits and giggles.

    Well as long as i can get it to work in Vista but don't see why not.
     
  6. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    I'll do the same just to see...
     
  7. AsRock

    AsRock TPU addict

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,381 (4.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,862
    Location:
    US
    No luck here 0cc5b647-c1df-4637-891a-dec35c318583 don't exist in Vista.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2009
  8. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    Hmm, I didn't check the same programs before but CPU Usage History appears to showing a lot more red activity (kernal mode) then before. And both cores seem to mirror each other when loaded. I don't recall that in the games I'ved played in the past nor watching videos. However, I really didn't pay much attention, lol.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2009
  9. human_error

    human_error

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,767 (0.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    505
    win7 was given a lot more core optimisations over vista (one of the reasons i upgraded to win7 actually).

    The most significant part comes with load balancing over the cores - it will obviously try to balance the load depending on if you are in a power saving or performance mode but there is extra logic where if you have a HT/SMT enabled processor (pentium4, atom, i5/i7) then it will avoid dumping threads onto a HT "core" unless the other cores are too busy or if the thread is marked as optimised for HT (meaning it wouldn't get the performance penalty other threads can get if running on HT cores). This works perfectly on my i7 rig - my real cores are used loads and it needs all my real cores to be 15-20% use before the computer puts anything which uses more than 3% of a core's resources onto a HT core, which means i get 0 performance loss running my rig with HT enabled (when bloomfield i7s originally launched you'd get a performance hit in some games/apps with HT on as important threads would be dumped into HT cores sharing logic with a busy real core, as opposed to one of the 3 other real cores doing nothing).

    The extra power usage could be because the power mode chosen was not a power save option - in performance mode win7 should balance threads across cores so that the threads can run as fast as possible - it will obviously still chose a core which is in use if there would be no performance penalty but it will try and get the process completed as fast as possible. In power saving mode the logic should be that it will load one core to a medium load level before looking at other cores to use.

    tl;dr version:

    the most performance gains from the win7 core optimisations are for users with intel procs with HT/SMT or procs with deep sleep states for individual cores, otherwise you won't be noticing much.
     
    EastCoasthandle says thanks.
  10. 95Viper

    95Viper

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,479 (1.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,640
    Location:
    στο άλφα έως ωμέγα
    EastCoasthandle says thanks.
  11. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    OK, here is my experience after 24 hours of use this:

    With valueMax set to 0 (from 100) I noticed mirrored CPU loading. Meaning they were both loaded equally when gaming. When valueMax is set to 100 (from 0) which is the default setting I noticed that one core was slightly more used then another. Using Resource Monitor for your CPUs or just Window Task Manger's CPU Usage History will show the same thing.

    I didn't do any performance comparisons yet because I actually wanted to see if there was a difference. Also, a good CPU bound benchmark test would be the best route to see if there is any difference.
     
  12. Completely Bonkers New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,580 (0.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    516
    ECH, this is interesting... but not sure yet on the benefits. Keep posting your results. Perhaps update your OP with criteria to what/which it applies.
     
  13. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,500 (0.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472
    yea, i am a little skeptical of any body other then me playing with my cores!

    happy holidayzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :rockout:
     
  14. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    Windows 7 (check System Specs for details)

    Core Parking (on by default)
    3DMark06 (because it's cpu limited)
    CPU Score: 3327
    HDR/SM 3.0: 8317
    SM 2.0: 6770
    15847 (790/1100 video card)

    Core Parking Disabled
    3DMark06 (because it's CPU limited)
    CPU Score: 3350
    HDR/SM 3.0: 8338
    SM 2.0: 6915
    16002 (790/1100 video card)

    Interesting results but more testing is needed...
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page