New Core Parking Confusion

[Virgorising]

Hi,

I continue to be overwhelmed by core parking/unparking, but now am having NEW and so, compounding confusion.

I got Park Control, the 64 bit version, in hopes I can find a happy medium and TWEAK my parking, rather than just unparking or retain parking (I have parking on right now.)

Using it, I added core parking to to my Power Options in W7.

So now, there are settings and drop down menus for tweaking.....only thing is, I do not understand any of it.:'(

Pls see below; all enlightenment will be most appreciated.

Just found this: http://social.technet.microsoft.com...-or-should-users-disable-it?forum=w7itproperf

Can't remember when I've been this confused by something. Maybe I should just change Power Options plan to Hi Performance and observe any changes. It is still on Balanced.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

That's only the beginning. Have you read the rest of the registry keys under that power config?! There needs to be a book written on just that power config alone. I've been considering making an entire thread of all the keys under that power config..

 

[Virgorising]

That's only the beginning. Have you read the rest of the registry keys under that power config?! There needs to be a book written on just that power config alone. I've been considering making an entire thread of all the keys under that power config..

MAKE THE THREAD! DO IT NOWWWWWWWWWWW!

I do, tho, feel a little less disgusted with myself re yr post. Cause despite to the input I've received here (some of it very dense and detailed) and all I continue to find on the net, I kinda thought I was the only being who don get this thing which is worse than PMS.D:

 

[Virgorising]

Different options are available in computer systems which can be used for solving issues.

This and below.....a leeeetle too general and missing detailed, hard data to mitigate my misery and confusion. OR, I think anyone's, for that matter.

Forget, in no way does it reflect the confusing offerings on the net, and they are infinite.

Forget, it does not reflect, in all things, I work hard to learn on my own, and this misery is hardly an exception.

There are even antithetical takes and conclusions right here in THIS, often stalwart community, and among some very smart people.

 

[Zucker2k]

With all due respect to the OP, this thread belongs in the "Park Control" forum, if they have one. You are bound to get better support there.

 

[aigomorla]

Why are you playing with core parking?

This is a feature which allows your cpu to disable the cores which are not required / active.

If you turn on parking to 100% it will not disable any unactive cores... hence the word parking.. u are putting them in a park space for temp storage.
Your setting at 10% means that it will sleep all your cores except the speed stepped core... however seeing as min states is set to 100%, your cpu will NEVER speedstep.

You have a contradiction setup in your profile...
Basically if work load = 1 => Park 3.5 cores... => .5 cores active.

However u have another rule... work load can not be less then 1.

So your top rule will overrule the one above it, and keep 1 of your cores @ 100% even when not doing any load.

 

[Virgorising]

Why are you playing with core parking?

This is a feature which allows your cpu to disable the cores which are not required / active.

If you turn on parking to 100% it will not disable any unactive cores... hence the word parking.. u are putting them in a park space for temp storage.
Your setting at 10% means that it will sleep all your cores except the speed stepped core... however seeing as min states is set to 100%, your cpu will NEVER speedstep.

You have a contradiction setup in your profile...
Basically if work load = 1 => Park 3.5 cores... => .5 cores active.

However u have another rule... work load can not be less then 1.

So your top rule will overrule the one above it, and keep 1 of your cores @ 100% even when not doing any load.

I am trying to learn about core parking.....because in W7 especially, it is clearly a very controversial issue, and no consistent takes on it have been arrived at among savvy tech people. Forget, starting in W7, MS started playin with it, beyond what intel (in my case) engineered. Just the latter, for me, is an issue to get clear on.

Is why.

I will now focus on the rest of yr post which I already do not understand re WHY my current settings are wrong. But I do thank you anyhow.

 

[Virgorising]

Just used unparkCPU and unparked all my cores, Resource Mgr reflect the change. This time, I am going to try to trust Intel, and test it for more than one day,

Despite I have one eye on each side of my nose, I am still floundering.

 

[Virgorising]

With all due respect to the OP, this thread belongs in the "Park Control" forum, if they have one. You are bound to get better support there.

I believe this topic is too esoteric for it to have earned its own forum.

But if you find otherwise---and, always good to check before you criticize, pls let me know.

 

[aigomorla]

I will now focus on the rest of yr post which I already do not understand re WHY my current settings are wrong. But I do thank you anyhow.

let me see if i can make a bit more sense...

Processor performance core parking min cores:
This tells the OS how many cores its allowed to disable when not required.
The OS will disable them, and go into a reduced power state when the cores are not required.
Once OS detects a load which requires additional cores, it will unpark them, and then activate them.

Minimum Processor state:
This tells the OS what the lowest value the processor can be at.
This value states the lowest is 100% which the net result will be your CPU at maximum performance power draw.
Its not a good energy saving / quite / cool running profile, because it will not allow your pc to probably go into a C1E state.

System Cooling:
Active - means as temps go up, it will automatically turn up fans.
Manual - u can set the fan settings.

Maximum processor state:
the opposite of min... this states how high the OS is allowed to use.


So assumption... u have a quadcore system.
With core parking at 10% you effectively havent done anything, its disabled because u cant park 10% of a quadcore...
im pretty sure those values should be in values of 25 for any net effect, or 12.5 if windows is using virtual threads as cores on a HT machine.

With min value to set at 100%, your cpu is at its highest power draw.

What is the net out come?
Windows will not park cores.
Your PC will draw the most power it can even when idling.
great for a gaming PC which ur on 24/7.... not so great for a HTPC which is only required to watch movies.


Unless BTry would like to correct me about core parking.

 

[Virgorising]

let me see if i can make a bit more sense...

Processor performance core parking min cores:
This tells the OS how many cores its allowed to disable when not required.
The OS will disable them, and go into a reduced power state when the cores are not required.
Once OS detects a load which requires additional cores, it will unpark them, and then activate them.

Minimum Processor state:
This tells the OS what the lowest value the processor can be at.
This value states the lowest is 100% which the net result will be your CPU at maximum performance power draw.
Its not a good energy saving / quite / cool running profile, because it will not allow your pc to probably go into a C1E state.

System Cooling:
Active - means as temps go up, it will automatically turn up fans.
Manual - u can set the fan settings.

Maximum processor state:
the opposite of min... this states how high the OS is allowed to use.


So assumption... u have a quadcore system.
With core parking at 10% you effectively havent done anything... as im pretty sure those values should be in values of 25 for any net effect.

With min value to set at 100%, your cpu is at its highest power draw.

What is the net out come?
Your PC will draw the most power it can even when idling.

Thank U. U did, in fact, make lots more sense sharing those data!:thumbsup:

And I will ingest them and try to tweak accordingly.

My question re option #1, now that I have turned parking off, would be: with parking off, how can W7 have any say? Meaning, does setting #1 now apply?

Now, with my core parking turned off, I am 94% sure I am noticing the system is even perkier than formerly (it was very perky to begin with). But I will have to experience over time to make sure I am not hallucinating.

Next, right now, I am doing a test video conversion. I noticed, my fps lower than when my cores were parked (fps would average around 250), but also notice my temps are lower than doing this when cores are parked---they usually run 28-30C at idle--- and, in Speed Fan and Resource Mgr, I just like the still low CPU load (around 23%) is evenly distributed, tho the latter could owe to ignorance.

 

[aigomorla]

no because turbo worked slightly different on that cpu.

it could require 2 cores parked for you to get a +1 multi on top of the +1 for a +2 on 2 cores. :T

Hence why u got the higher FPS if the video conversion wasnt utilizing all your threads.

 

[Virgorising]

K.....I tweaked using yr data (thanks again for those), not sure if I did this right or not:

 

[Virgorising]

no because turbo worked slightly different on that cpu.

it could require 2 cores parked for you to get a +1 multi on top of the +1 for a +2 on 2 cores. :T

Hence why u got the higher FPS if the video conversion wasnt utilizing all your threads.

OMG!!!!!!!

K, this is brilliant, who knows about such arcane things? OK, so, now, should I re tweak?

And if so, should I first turn parking back on and then tweak in Windows?
____________________________________________________________
Edit:

Other nite when I did another test video conversion when my cores were still parked, my temps were, for me, scary high. Not Lynnfield melting down high, but for ME, high, like 80C. But also true, the big file was 4 parts, and VSO, as usual, did simultaneous conversion.....at warpspeed. So, I would assume that would raise temps beyond what a single file conversion, as per the screenie just put up would, right?

I think I would prefer slower conversion speeds and healthier thermals. If I hadda choose, I mean.

I am excited, cause I think I am finally starting to LEARN.

 

[aigomorla]

OMG!!!!!!!

K, this is brilliant, who knows about such arcane things? OK, so, now, should I re tweak?

And if so, should I first turn parking back on and then tweak in Windows?

http://ark.intel.com/products/41315/
Clock Speed 2.93 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 3.6 GHz

yeah its what i kinda suspected...
you have a +1 to all 4 cores.. and +2 to 2 cores...
by setting the state of having all 4 cores active, you will probably never hit the +2 on 2 cores because it requires 2 cores to be parked.

as for helping you out in how to fix it.. im not too sure... as i have never gotten a chance to play with core parking on chips like that.
We mostly ignore it cuz "K" series, and "XE" cpu's have unlocked multi's which means having the +2 is moot when we can get +48.

 

[Virgorising]

http://ark.intel.com/products/41315/
Clock Speed 2.93 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 3.6 GHz

yeah its what i kinda suspected...
you have a +1 to all 4 cores.. and +2 to 2 cores...
by setting the state of having all 4 cores active, you will probably never hit the +2 on 2 cores because it requires 2 cores to be parked.

as for helping you out in how to fix it.. im not too sure... as i have never gotten a chance to play with core parking on chips like that.
We mostly ignore it cuz "K" series, and "XE" cpu's have unlocked multi's which means having the +2 is moot when we can get +48.

Brilliant! You "suspected'?????? And without ever having played with this Lynnfield? Pretty smart suspecting if U ask me.

And yes, YOU ARE HELPING HUGELY. For the first time after having discovered core parking, I am feeling less nauseated and daunted!!!
_________________________________________
Edit: I will not hit you for showing off with yr +48 (U R too smart and too kind)......but I ain no gamer, and for me, this new/used system is everything I expected, including visible energy savings re the EPA PSU on my last utility bill. For what I gave for this carefully chosen system, and with my upgrades, I can't imagine I will ever need better. And, people (some not even in padded rooms, lol) still buying this Lynnfield chip on
Amazon.....and still, for serious money.

So, please do not refer to my chip as if it were DEAD, i.e., turbo WORKED (past tense) DIFFERENTLY......cause chip is alive and so, turbo (as I just learned) WORKS, PRESENT TENSE.....differently.() Why you wanna make my Lynnfield cry cause its new mom will no way ever do water cooling cept in the shower?

 

[Virgorising]

K, hold on; new thought: I have a second app to address parking/unparking. The second one is Park Control.

Pls see below. Now, if I enable parking (this is a desktop so only use AC), and then, use the slider to enable parking on only two cores, would that accomplish something good?

Edit: Miley Cyrus..... can neither tweak nor TWERK.:sneaky:

 

[Virgorising]

For aigomorla (in case this refers to what he was sharing re + number of cores), and anyone else who can illuminate, I just found this re this, mine is the 870 on top:

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Some of the settings depend if you have C state enabled in bios. And some depend if Turbo is enabled in bios, again. While other settings refer if you have a logical thread, e.g. Hyper Threading (Intel)

Would the thread need to be under the CPU forum or the OS forum. I would think OS because my work is just with Win 7, 64.

 

[Virgorising]

Some of the settings depend if you have C state enabled in bios. And some depend if Turbo is enabled in bios, again. While other settings refer if you have a logical thread, e.g. Hyper Threading (Intel)

Would the thread need to be under the CPU forum or the OS forum. I would think OS because my work is just with Win 7, 64.

Hi,

Not sure what C state is, but yes, I have Turbo, hyperthreading, core support and speed step enabled in the bios.

I believe the thread belongs right here. This is first, CPU-centered; the OS comes second, given core parking is also an issue in W8 and in both 7 and 8 MS decided it was essentially smarter than Intel which seems to think its chips' cores need not be parked at all.
______________________________________
Edit: I am tempted, assuming you choose not to run W8 (tho that could be wrong), why you so choose? Cept I opened that canna worms recently here, and it was not a happy thing as it unfolded. Humans invested in 8 do not take kindly to we who disdain it....even when that is for carefully arrived at reasons.

So....I won't ask.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

My understanding is not 100% and would need to be double checked.

From the description in the Registry
Processor Performance core parking min cores = Specify the minimum number of unparked cores/packages allowed (in percentage) <--that is viewable if you hover your mouse over the setting under power options.

Another explanation "The minimum percentage of logical processors (in terms of all logical processors that are enabled on the system) that can be placed in the unparked state at any given time. For example, on a system with 16 logical processors, configuring the value of this setting to 25% ensures that at least 4 logical processors are always in the unparked state. The Core Parking algorithm is disabled if the value of this setting is not less than the value of the Processor Performance Core Parking Maximum Cores setting."

From what I understood is it asks what percentage of unparked cores are allowed in percentage. I set mine to 100%

To double check this setting I selected the Power Saver default settings, then the High Performance settings and the High Performance settings defaulted a higher percentage. e.g. 30% vs 60% (those aren't the exact numbers. I'm just showing the difference from what I remember)

 

[Virgorising]

My understanding is not 100% and would need to be double checked.

From the description in the Registry
Processor Performance core parking min cores = Specify the minimum number of unparked cores/packages allowed (in percentage) <--that is viewable if you hover your mouse over the setting under power options.

Another explanation "The minimum percentage of logical processors (in terms of all logical processors that are enabled on the system) that can be placed in the unparked state at any given time. For example, on a system with 16 logical processors, configuring the value of this setting to 25% ensures that at least 4 logical processors are always in the unparked state. The Core Parking algorithm is disabled if the value of this setting is not less than the value of the Processor Performance Core Parking Maximum Cores setting."

From what I understood is it asks what percentage of unparked cores are allowed in percentage. I set mine to 100%

To double check this setting I selected the Power Saver default settings, then the High Performance settings and the High Performance settings defaulted a higher percentage. e.g. 30% vs 60% (those aren't the exact numbers. I'm just showing the difference from what I remember)

BRILLIANT! Thank you!

As U can see, I put up a later screenie after I changed the settings than the one above--- I have now set percentage of unparked cores to ZERO. I will now change it!

Wait......I can not change the zero in percentage of unparked cores in Power settings! Why is that? Let me try resetting to default and then see if I can re tweak.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I see a total of 35 registry settings that have a wide range of aspects to adjust like time check intervals, increase time, decrease time, threshold, increase policy, etc.

I was just thinking of making my own thread and seeing if it could be a sticky on all these settings in lamens terms.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I don't seen any of the other settings in my power config except for System Cooling Policy which I don't think has to do with Core Parking.

 

[Virgorising]

I see a total of 35 registry settings that have a wide range of aspects to adjust like time check intervals, increase time, decrease time, threshold, increase policy, etc.

I was just thinking of making my own thread and seeing if it could be a sticky on all these settings in lamens terms.

Not only could it be a sticky, it would win a GRAMMY.