Excessive CPU core usage on 6C/12 thread CPU

[D4n]

see this image. Barely using the 8 other CPU threads.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Why do you consider this a bug

[D4n]

Cause afaik then my CPU is the bottleneck with my GTX 1060 6GB.

[Mr_sukebe]

Some thoughts:

- until ED confirm otherwise, DCS is still single threaded

- what else are you running in parallel that could have nearly maxed out a core

- from a quick glance, seems that most “cores” are in use, but with the secondary threads less used.

 

So to me, looks like useful data but doesn’t look like a bug to me.

[twistking]

see this image. Barely using the 8 other CPU threads.

 

 

this is how decent multi-threading is supposed to look like. the only definite way to spot a cpu bottleneck would be one or more cores flatlining at 100%. your cpu seems to do fine...

 

Some thoughts:

- until ED confirm otherwise, DCS is still single threaded

By now it should be clear, that DCS is not single threaded anymore. There is room for discussion on how DCS handles multi-core, but it is very obvious that DCS uses more than one core for render-related task. just look at the damn graphs!

Edited February 10, 2018 by twistking

[sedenion]

By now it should be clear, that DCS is not single threaded anymore. There is room for discussion on how DCS handles multi-core, but it is very obvious that DCS uses more than one core for render-related task. just look at the damn graphs!

 

The graph does not mean anything concerning single or multi-threaded application. Motherboards/chipsets are dividing tasks (including single thread apps) since the introduction of multi-core CPUs. There is also a misunderstanding about "CPU bottleneck". An application like DCS is designed to run as fast as possible, so to take advantage of all "free time" of CPU, in other words: use 100% of the CPU every time. In this context: everything is a "bottleneck" since everything is intented to run as maximum stage... If the "Graphical part" is quicker, the "graphical part" will wait for the CPU to finish his job, if "CPU part" is more quicker, the CPU will wait for "graphical part" to finish his job... You will ALWAYS have something that wait for another thing, this is limitless.

[Quadg]

the fact that the GPU seems to be maxed at 100 and the CPU not would say to me your GPU is limiting you.

 

now if your GPU was at 50%... and it looked like that. i would say CPU.

[twistking]

The graph does not mean anything concerning single or multi-threaded application. Motherboards/chipsets are dividing tasks (including single thread apps) since the introduction of multi-core CPUs. There is also a misunderstanding about "CPU bottleneck". An application like DCS is designed to run as fast as possible, so to take advantage of all "free time" of CPU, in other words: use 100% of the CPU every time. In this context: everything is a "bottleneck" since everything is intented to run as maximum stage... If the "Graphical part" is quicker, the "graphical part" will wait for the CPU to finish his job, if "CPU part" is more quicker, the CPU will wait for "graphical part" to finish his job... You will ALWAYS have something that wait for another thing, this is limitless.

 

i agree on the bottleneck part, but i disagree on the thread splitting. maybe i misunderstand you there. i know that threads can get shifted from one core to another for better heat management, but i don't know a way to process one thread on two cores at the same time.

i know a lot of "single-thread" applications (games mostly), that will flatline one core at a 100% without any load on another thread. that is the reasons why - until recently - people would advise to go for higher single-thread performance against core-count when buying a cpu specifically for gaming...

[sedenion]

the fact that the GPU seems to be maxed at 100 and the CPU not would say to me your GPU is limiting you.

 

With multi-core CPU, you will VERY rarely see a core maxed at 100%... This behaviour would be very strange. I can launch an infinite loop of matrix multiplication, i will never see my CPU maxed to 100%... tasks are divided between cores...

[BitMaster]

I have a few screenshots spanning from 2.5 initial release to current 2.Hotfix. Sometimes the CPU is really using ALL real cores, sometimes it's somewhat easing off.In general, imho, more cores are better.

 

54% CPU usage ( reproducable btw ) on a 6c/12t CPU means something.

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=198518

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=197555

 

I cannot double post the screenshots, so please look in the original threads.

Edited February 10, 2018 by BitMaster

[sedenion]

i agree on the bottleneck part, but i disagree on the thread splitting. maybe i misunderstand you there. i know that threads can get shifted from one core to another for better heat management, but i don't know a way to process one thread on two cores at the same time.

 

As far as i know, you don't have control on such thing... You simply create a thread, and the OS's (Windows in this case) kernel manage it for you. Assigning a specifical thread to a particular core is not allowed in common API. Look by yourself:

 

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms682453(v=vs.85).aspx

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686277(v=vs.85).aspx

 

Exploiting multi-core require using a specific library which work at low-level close to hardware, and this is used for very specific tasks which can be "parallelized"

 

 

i know a lot of "single-thread" applications (games mostly), that will flatline one core at a 100% without any load on another thread.

 

Never seen that on my life... but why not.

 

that is the reasons why - until recently - people would advise to go for higher single-thread performance against core-count when buying a cpu specifically for gaming...

 

This still true... 2 cores probably helps to separate game from OS background tasks. What will really make the difference is :

- CPU design

- CPU frequency

- CPU cache/registry management...

 

The same CPU design with same clock, I doubt you will see any difference between a 4-cores vs 8-cores... Except the price and marketing...

Edited February 10, 2018 by sedenion

[FragBum]

Nah 6/12 cores 10 to 15% total CPU usage for me with DCS even less I expect without task manager or msi afterburner or any other software running.

 

DCS still tanks at 2 cores at 30 to 50% and one virtual core at 90 to 100%

 

Sure there is more other core activity but this could be other software or drivers using more threads .

[D4n]

this is how decent multi-threading is supposed to look like. the only definite way to spot a cpu bottleneck would be one or more cores flatlining at 100%. your cpu seems to do fine...

 

No lol, Microsofts task manager is wrong, even in ArmA 3 I get only 20-25 fps on some mods while all CPU cores only at 50-60% and GPU at 30%... sooo... Well done, Microsoft...

 

 

the fact that the GPU seems to be maxed at 100 and the CPU not would say to me your GPU is limiting you.

 

now if your GPU was at 50%... and it looked like that. i would say CPU.

 

As I wrote above, GPU usage might be wrong too, as CPU usage is reported wrong too in ArmA 3 for example (Microsoft Windows 10 problem I guess)

[twistking]

if you think the arma engine is a good comparison, then i can't help you.

it's a well known fact, that the arma engines won't utilize a cpu to the fullest. specifically arma is a good example, that the crude concept of the weakest part in the chain a.k.a. cpu/gpu bottlenecking does not apply to all software in the same way.

 

if you were to measure your cpus tdp, while playing arma, you would find that it would correlate to the 50% load you see in task manager.

i could go into detail here, but i won't since this is not about arma performance...

Edited February 10, 2018 by twistking

[BitMaster]

Nah 6/12 cores 10 to 15% total CPU usage for me with DCS even less I expect without task manager or msi afterburner or any other software running.

 

DCS still tanks at 2 cores at 30 to 50% and one virtual core at 90 to 100%

 

Sure there is more other core activity but this could be other software or drivers using more threads .

 

Not really FragBum,

 

DCS uses it's 2 cores, correct, it then needs additional cores, if you have them, to do the DX11 thingy, afaik, DX11 can take up to 4 cores, Skatezilla knowsd that more precise I guess.

 

I was also "with a bold !" NOT talking about DCS alone BUT the whole PC, all that you need to run DCS at a high standard. MSI AFterburner or equivalent is a standard toolset, so are many other tasks and apps. But they dont use that much CPU, if they would you would see that all the time and that is not the case.

 

I use Process Lasso to force DCS and DX11 to use real cores only, no Hyperthreaded cores.

 

I am also not the only one with a 8700k that has this experience, the forum has numerous posts from such users stating the same, look around.

 

I am not stating something I cannot reproduce or only comes 1 out of 5 times or such, this is a constant behaviour.

[FragBum]

Not really FragBum,

 

DCS uses it's 2 cores, correct, it then needs additional cores, if you have them, to do the DX11 thingy, afaik, DX11 can take up to 4 cores, Skatezilla knowsd that more precise I guess.

 

I was also "with a bold !" NOT talking about DCS alone BUT the whole PC, all that you need to run DCS at a high standard. MSI AFterburner or equivalent is a standard toolset, so are many other tasks and apps. But they dont use that much CPU, if they would you would see that all the time and that is not the case.

 

I use Process Lasso to force DCS and DX11 to use real cores only, no Hyperthreaded cores.

 

I am also not the only one with a 8700k that has this experience, the forum has numerous posts from such users stating the same, look around.

 

I am not stating something I cannot reproduce or only comes 1 out of 5 times or such, this is a constant behaviour.

 

Perhaps DX11 is using more threads but I am still only seeing 15% CPU utilisation running DCS which for me is pretty much the same as DCS 2.x has always used. On a brighter note I see now after this latest update I see more GPU and video RAM utilisation, that's a plus.