reported One or more cores reaching 100%

[Grindmetal]

7 hours ago, Special K said:

MSI Afterburner has known issues with the 9800x3d (you can google it also), where it causes stutters due to slow reading of sensors on this CPU.

In all fairness, many measuring solutions have the same issue. As people tend to run these solutions in parallel to their normal day to day use, I just want to make you guys aware that that can be already the cause of your stutters.

Can you send your dcs.log please, while recreating the issue. Thanks.

This is an interesting comment of the developer of MSI Afterburner about the issues btw:
 

 

yesdcs.log

[Special K]

Am 2.3.2025 um 21:44 schrieb Grindmetal:

yesdcs.log

Which antivirus do you use?

[The_Nephilim]

On 2/21/2025 at 4:59 AM, Special K said:

If any of you guys would be so kind and provide a simple dcs.log, that would help a ton. Screenshots unfortunately don't help at all.

=> For the guys using E-Core CPUs, please make sure that you are on Windows 11 and that core parking is disabled.

=> For the guys using Ryzen CPUs, please make sure that you do not have MSI afterburner installed.

Happy to look at any log, if provided.

Well I was running a seperate test and decided to see what my P cores were doing and 2 of them were pegged at 100%. Specs are in my sig and here is my Latest DCS.log.. 

 

 

 

 

dcs.log

[Special K]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb The_Nephilim:

Well I was running a seperate test and decided to see what my P cores were doing and 2 of them were pegged at 100%. Specs are in my sig and here is my Latest DCS.log.. 

 

 

 

 

dcs.log 343.82 kB · 4 Downloads

As mentioned earlier, please do not play around with process lasso on your own.

2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 INFO    EDCORE (Main): system  affinity mask: 11111111111111111111
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 INFO    EDCORE (Main): process affinity mask: 11000011110000000011
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 2 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 3 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 4 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 5 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 6 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 7 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 8 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 9 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 14 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 15 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 16 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 17 is not available for this process

 

[The_Nephilim]

7 hours ago, Special K said:

As mentioned earlier, please do not play around with process lasso on your own.

2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 INFO    EDCORE (Main): system  affinity mask: 11111111111111111111
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 INFO    EDCORE (Main): process affinity mask: 11000011110000000011
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 2 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 3 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 4 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 5 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 6 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 7 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 8 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 9 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 14 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 15 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 16 is not available for this process
2025-03-04 03:04:11.351 WARNING EDCORE (Main): logical core 17 is not available for this process

 

Well I seen that. So are you saying I should run DCS on all the cores and not just the P-cores as well??

Edited March 4 by The_Nephilim

[Special K]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb The_Nephilim:

Well I seen that. So are you saying I should run DCS on all the cores and not just the P-cores as well??

Absolutely. You have paid for them. DCS detects which core is which and spreads the tasks accordingly.

[The_Nephilim]

31 minutes ago, Special K said:

Absolutely. You have paid for them. DCS detects which core is which and spreads the tasks accordingly.

well I noticed as I disabled Process Lasso that a couple P cores were not getting much work. it seemed most of the e cores got the work. and I was under the impression ECores are not good for gaming on?? is that not the case? here is my latest log file if it will help and you can see PL was Off..

 

dcs.log

Edited March 4 by The_Nephilim

[Special K]

I can show you an example, how DCS handles the cores. I have an Intel 14900HX here, which is a CPU with 8 P-cores and 16 E-cores:

P-Cores:
PC2 (4): 8, 9, 12, 13
PC1 (12): 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15

E-Cores:
EC0: 16-31

This means, I have 2 P-cores (logical cores 8/9, 12/13) in performance class 2 and 6 P-cores (logical cores 0/1, 2/3, 4/5, 6/7, 10/11 and 14/15) in performance class 1.
DCS now assigns my cores as follows:

2025-02-28 15:14:22.797 INFO    EDCORE (Main): common cores: {4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15}
2025-02-28 15:14:22.797 INFO    EDCORE (Main): render cores: {8, 9, 12, 13, 0, 1, 2, 3}
2025-02-28 15:14:22.797 INFO    EDCORE (Main): IO cores: {16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31}

So - my fastest cores get assigned to the rendering threads, which is correct. The rest of the P-cores are assigned to typical other tasks, where my least performant cores, the E-cores get assigned to IO tasks.

----
Looking at your CPU, it looks like so:

P-Cores:
PC1: 0, 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19

E-Cores:
EC1: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17

You do not have different performance classes, which means that your P-cores should be all about the same performance. This is likely, as your CPU is optimized for a more balanced power / thermal distribution. Now, what does DCS do to your CPU?

2025-03-04 19:55:19.543 INFO    EDCORE (Main): common cores: {12, 13, 18, 19}
2025-03-04 19:55:19.543 INFO    EDCORE (Main): render cores: {0, 1, 10, 11}
2025-03-04 19:55:19.543 INFO    EDCORE (Main): IO cores: {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17}

Now, from the looks of it, your CPU does not have hyperthreading anymore, which makes your logical and physical cores even. 
So you only use 4 cores for rendering and 4 cores for common tasks, which is a bit of a pity, as you can only run 4 rendering threads in parallel, where my CPU can run 8.

In your former example with E-cores disabled, DCS looked like so:

2025-03-04 03:04:11.354 INFO    EDCORE (Main): common cores: {12, 13, 18, 19}
2025-03-04 03:04:11.354 INFO    EDCORE (Main): render cores: {0, 1, 10, 11}
2025-03-04 03:04:11.354 INFO    EDCORE (Main): IO cores: {}

This means, that your common cores had to do the IO tasks also.

All in all, I am not 100% sure if these new Core Ultra CPUs are really a great idea for gaming. At least, DCS tries to distribute the tasks as good as it goes from the schema that works for all other CPUs.

If you see a high load on the E-cores btw, you might have a lot of IO tasks to be done. Would be interesting what that could be in your case.

[Grindmetal]

21 hours ago, Special K said:

Which antivirus do you use?

I use what comes from windows itself 
I leave the DCS folder excluded so that it doesn't interfere with DCS performance.

[The_Nephilim]

9 hours ago, Special K said:

I can show you an example, how DCS handles the cores. I have an Intel 14900HX here, which is a CPU with 8 P-cores and 16 E-cores:

P-Cores:
PC2 (4): 8, 9, 12, 13
PC1 (12): 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15

E-Cores:
EC0: 16-31

This means, I have 2 P-cores (logical cores 8/9, 12/13) in performance class 2 and 6 P-cores (logical cores 0/1, 2/3, 4/5, 6/7, 10/11 and 14/15) in performance class 1.
DCS now assigns my cores as follows:

2025-02-28 15:14:22.797 INFO    EDCORE (Main): common cores: {4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15}
2025-02-28 15:14:22.797 INFO    EDCORE (Main): render cores: {8, 9, 12, 13, 0, 1, 2, 3}
2025-02-28 15:14:22.797 INFO    EDCORE (Main): IO cores: {16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31}

So - my fastest cores get assigned to the rendering threads, which is correct. The rest of the P-cores are assigned to typical other tasks, where my least performant cores, the E-cores get assigned to IO tasks.

----
Looking at your CPU, it looks like so:

P-Cores:
PC1: 0, 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19

E-Cores:
EC1: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17

You do not have different performance classes, which means that your P-cores should be all about the same performance. This is likely, as your CPU is optimized for a more balanced power / thermal distribution. Now, what does DCS do to your CPU?

2025-03-04 19:55:19.543 INFO    EDCORE (Main): common cores: {12, 13, 18, 19}
2025-03-04 19:55:19.543 INFO    EDCORE (Main): render cores: {0, 1, 10, 11}
2025-03-04 19:55:19.543 INFO    EDCORE (Main): IO cores: {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17}

Now, from the looks of it, your CPU does not have hyperthreading anymore, which makes your logical and physical cores even. 
So you only use 4 cores for rendering and 4 cores for common tasks, which is a bit of a pity, as you can only run 4 rendering threads in parallel, where my CPU can run 8.

In your former example with E-cores disabled, DCS looked like so:

2025-03-04 03:04:11.354 INFO    EDCORE (Main): common cores: {12, 13, 18, 19}
2025-03-04 03:04:11.354 INFO    EDCORE (Main): render cores: {0, 1, 10, 11}
2025-03-04 03:04:11.354 INFO    EDCORE (Main): IO cores: {}

This means, that your common cores had to do the IO tasks also.

All in all, I am not 100% sure if these new Core Ultra CPUs are really a great idea for gaming. At least, DCS tries to distribute the tasks as good as it goes from the schema that works for all other CPUs.

If you see a high load on the E-cores btw, you might have a lot of IO tasks to be done. Would be interesting what that could be in your case.

OK I see I think, so the P-Cores are running 4 and 4 for other tasks is that why I don't see the P-Cores running on all 8. but I thought the Ecores are supposed to handle the other work besides the game like tasks and such.

 

as for your statement about the core ultra not a good idea for gaming then perhaps you say I should have went AMD? I will not be insulted if you tell me the core ultra is crap for gaming hehe!!

 

I was close to getting an AMD and still can go that router if it were better for DCS but I have not seen anybody post much with an AMD and DCS..

 

Well after much testing it appears Games in Win 11 23H2 are not assigned the proper cores. I am pretty sure ECores should not be used as gaming cores only the P core should have tasked that work. When I run DCS about 4 P Cores are active and about 8 E Cores. I ran PL and assinged all to my 8 e cores and assigned DCS.exe to my P Cores. it works fine and gets low frametimes..

 

I will test again without PL running and see what happens. but I do not think this is a total DCS Issue with assigning the cores as the other game I play MW5 has a similar issue..

Edited March 5 by The_Nephilim

[rob10]

38 minutes ago, The_Nephilim said:

I was close to getting an AMD and still can go that router if it were better for DCS but I have not seen anybody post much with an AMD and DCS..

This gets way out of my "have much knowledge" zone, so take it with a few grains of salt.  But from what I've seen the newer/higher end Intel CPU's don't seem to play well with DCS (can't really speak to other games).  I recently upgraded to an AMD x3d based on recommendation from squad mates and it works very well for me.

[PawlaczGMD]

I recently just removed process lasso and restored default CPU settings, it removed stuttering I was having in the main menu. Not sure if it's related.

[Special K]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb PawlaczGMD:

I recently just removed process lasso and restored default CPU settings, it removed stuttering I was having in the main menu. Not sure if it's related.

Yes it is. Lasso tries things based on the assumption that the related program (here DCS) can't do it properly. As shown above, the DCS logic is quite good already, where any additional program might just only add disruption.

There is one use case where you might need lasso, if you're still on Win10 on a P/E-core CPU. 

[BJ55]

11 minutes ago, Special K said:

might need lasso, if you're still on Win10

I'm curious about this, overall I have a good performance in SP, except in high density areas or with a huge number of units. I only use MSI AB for fan control, custom balanced energy plan and GPU at prefer max. perf.

Do you think I need PL?

The cores stuck at 100% is a regression that will be fixed with the next patch?

dcs.log DxDiag.txt

[Special K]

vor 17 Minuten schrieb BJ55:

I'm curious about this, overall I have a good performance in SP, except in high density areas or with a huge number of units. I only use MSI AB for fan control, custom balanced energy plan and GPU at prefer max. perf.

Do you think I need PL?

The cores stuck at 100% is a regression that will be fixed with the next patch?

dcs.log 71.49 kB · 0 Downloads DxDiag.txt 87.51 kB · 0 Downloads

You're using an OS that is not made for that CPU. The Windows 10 scheduler does not care about your P or E cores and shovels the work onto any of them, independent of their efficiency classes. This is nothing ED can fix and Microsoft decided some years ago already to no longer support these CPUs in Win10, as its EOL was decided already at that point.

So the only chance you have with Win10 is disabling your E-cores completely. That is like as if you remove the first 2 gears from your car. One can do that - but that is not what it's built for. I would highly recommend to update to Win11, besides the fact that Win10 will run out of service anyway in October this year.

Tools like MSI Afterburner are good to see if there is a performance culprit anywhere in your system. Besides that, I would neither use that nor GPU Tweak from ASUS nor anything else the like. They can do more harm than good. Do the tweaking for your GPU in your Nvidia control panel. There's more or less anyway only 3 or 4 settings you wanna play with.

 

[Special K]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb The_Nephilim:

OK I see I think, so the P-Cores are running 4 and 4 for other tasks is that why I don't see the P-Cores running on all 8. but I thought the Ecores are supposed to handle the other work besides the game like tasks and such.

 

as for your statement about the core ultra not a good idea for gaming then perhaps you say I should have went AMD? I will not be insulted if you tell me the core ultra is crap for gaming hehe!!

 

I was close to getting an AMD and still can go that router if it were better for DCS but I have not seen anybody post much with an AMD and DCS..

 

Well after much testing it appears Games in Win 11 23H2 are not assigned the proper cores. I am pretty sure ECores should not be used as gaming cores only the P core should have tasked that work. When I run DCS about 4 P Cores are active and about 8 E Cores. I ran PL and assinged all to my 8 e cores and assigned DCS.exe to my P Cores. it works fine and gets low frametimes..

 

I will test again without PL running and see what happens. but I do not think this is a total DCS Issue with assigning the cores as the other game I play MW5 has a similar issue..

Well, the problem started with whoever tried to get a nobel price with this new chip design of Intels Core Ultra CPUs...
They took some decisions that makes it more difficult for any scheduler to work with. We remember - it took from Windows 10 to 11 to support even P/E cores and it took at least 2 years when Ryzen dropped, to support the new architecture with different performance classes per P-core. And now comes Intel and changes everything again. These CPUs will work great at some point - but not without any change. There have been changes to the Windows thread director already in the recent past to support them better, but that does not help DCS, which decides based on what the CPU returns in efficiency and performance classes and not in what the designer has thought about. That said - I doubt that DCS will support these kind of CPUs good enough in a short time frame, as ED would need to adapt the design decisions of these CPUs, that are weirdly against anything that was built in the past years.

One of the main changes with these CPUs is, that the Windows Scheduler per se assigns tasks to the E-cores (which in all fairness are much faster than the previous ones) and only moves them to the P-cores if necessary. So these additional context switches are wanted, and the way of doing that is potentially great for the biggest market for Intel CPUs - the mobile market. The energy efficiency of these CPUs is great. But we are talking about gaming here. Energy efficiency is an unknown word here. That said, you end up with a system that is designed for something that you do not need or want. And that is always a bad start.

I have seen tests where people even disabled all but one P core and still got a reasonable performance out of their systems, as the E cores are faster. But that all is nothing you can do with DCS rn. You can not tell DCS to use some of your E-cores for rendering for instance. I wonder if the Core Ultras even shovel the work still first on the E cores when DCS then decides to move it back to the P cores. If that would be the case, then this would create an additional context switch for any task switch, which would be horrible.

Unfortunately, i do not have any Core Ultra to test here, but I can see if I can get my 14900 to use some E cores for rendering. If yes, that might be something to test on your side.

But as you have asked me - should you go AMD for gaming instead of Intel these days? A clear and fast - Yes. 

[BJ55]

1 hour ago, Special K said:

The Windows 10 scheduler does not care about your P or E cores and shovels the work onto any of them

From the resmon graphs it seems to me that any program tested is using perf2 cores for rendering, perf1 cores for rendering/common and perf0 for IO, the only one with a stuck core while idle is DCS. (be aware that my W10pro installations are highly customized/debloated for performance and with updates disabled after last stable)

1 hour ago, Special K said:

Win10 will run out of service anyway in October

I'm so lucky that the HW required for my CAD-CAM is not compatible with W11, so for at least 2y I will keep W10 on all WS/PC, EOS doesn't mean that it will stop working the day after, it takes a total rewrite of DCS core engine to cause potential issues. (hate W11 UI, instability and new spyware)

As I said MSI AB is used only for fan control (with 50-54°C, without 65-70°C), I always use only NVCP for change settings, if needed. Avoid ASUS sw like the plague, in particular Armoury Crate or any other phoning home "feature" installed in the BIOS.

1 hour ago, Special K said:

the problem started with whoever tried to get a nobel price with this new chip design of Intels Core Ultra CPUs...

Totally agree, my next machines will be all AMD.

[Special K]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb BJ55:

From the resmon graphs it seems to me that any program tested is using perf2 cores for rendering, perf1 cores for rendering/common and perf0 for IO, the only one with a stuck core while idle is DCS. (be aware that my W10pro installations are highly customized/debloated for performance and with updates disabled after last stable)

I'm so lucky that the HW required for my CAD-CAM is not compatible with W11, so for at least 2y I will keep W10 on all WS/PC, EOS doesn't mean that it will stop working the day after, it takes a total rewrite of DCS core engine to cause potential issues. (hate W11 UI, instability and new spyware)

As I said MSI AB is used only for fan control (with 50-54°C, without 65-70°C), I always use only NVCP for change settings, if needed. Avoid ASUS sw like the plague, in particular Armoury Crate or any other phoning home "feature" installed in the BIOS.

Totally agree, my next machines will be all AMD.

I wouldn't go with their GPUs though. What they lose in GPU marketshare is what Intel loses in the CPU market share (both for a reason).

[Special K]

@The_Nephilim I have looked deeper into the Core Ultra stuff and made a suggestion to the developers on how to handle them.

Lets see if that works out.

[PawlaczGMD]

8 hours ago, Special K said:

Yes it is. Lasso tries things based on the assumption that the related program (here DCS) can't do it properly. As shown above, the DCS logic is quite good already, where any additional program might just only add disruption.

There is one use case where you might need lasso, if you're still on Win10 on a P/E-core CPU. 

Yes and Yes, but it seemed to do more harm than good.

[The_Nephilim]

8 hours ago, Special K said:

@The_Nephilim I have looked deeper into the Core Ultra stuff and made a suggestion to the developers on how to handle them.

Lets see if that works out.

Hey Great thank you. I will keep an eye out for such an update.. I have been testing with Process Lasso and running 8 E Cores in with the 8 P Cores and it seemed ok not sure if it is worse, Same or better but it seems ok. I am flying tonight so I will give it a better long term test with some e cores in the mix..

 

Altho all the E Cores are spiked @100% but it does not seem to hurt performance in DCS.. will test further..

 

Edited March 6 by The_Nephilim

[Special K]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb The_Nephilim:

Hey Great thank you. I will keep an eye out for such an update.. I have been testing with Process Lasso and running 8 E Cores in with the 8 P Cores and it seemed ok not sure if it is worse, Same or better but it seems ok. I am flying tonight so I will give it a better long term test with some e cores in the mix..

 

Altho all the E Cores are spiked @100% but it does not seem to hurt performance in DCS.. will test further..

 

The culprit lies in the E-cores themselves. There are 2 kinds of E-cores now with these CPUs, the old E-cores (now "LPE cores") and new E-cores (which are located on the main package of the CPU and with that much more performant than the LPE cores). In combination with the changes in scheduling (in the past, DCS could just say, the higher the scheduling class, the faster the core), this results into a bad core assignment for DCS.

So, you have P-cores that you want to use (probably for rendering), fast E-cores (that you also want to use, probably for the common pool) and slow E-cores (that can be used for IO for instance, if it makes sense due to the low number). Atm, all E-cores (being them fast or not) are being used for the IO pool. That in fact is wrong.

It is not that much of EDs fault honestly, Intels decisions are quite frankly strange and do look more like as if they gave the task to some young graduate that tries to live out his theoretical dreams than to someone that has any idea of how gaming works. But it is adressed and I am pretty sure the guys will come up with a good idea how to tackle it.

For the time being, you can try to disable all but one of your P-cores (or limit them as much as it works) and see if DCS starts to use your E-cores for rendering and common pools also. Maybe a limit of 1 or 2 or even 3 to 4 P cores will do it, unsure honestly. You might see much better results, if you manage to use the (fast) E-cores for the rendering / common pools.

[diamond26]

5 hours ago, Special K said:

The culprit lies in the E-cores themselves. There are 2 kinds of E-cores now with these CPUs, the old E-cores (now "LPE cores") and new E-cores (which are located on the main package of the CPU and with that much more performant than the LPE cores). In combination with the changes in scheduling (in the past, DCS could just say, the higher the scheduling class, the faster the core), this results into a bad core assignment for DCS.

So, you have P-cores that you want to use (probably for rendering), fast E-cores (that you also want to use, probably for the common pool) and slow E-cores (that can be used for IO for instance, if it makes sense due to the low number). Atm, all E-cores (being them fast or not) are being used for the IO pool. That in fact is wrong.

It is not that much of EDs fault honestly, Intels decisions are quite frankly strange and do look more like as if they gave the task to some young graduate that tries to live out his theoretical dreams than to someone that has any idea of how gaming works. But it is adressed and I am pretty sure the guys will come up with a good idea how to tackle it.

For the time being, you can try to disable all but one of your P-cores (or limit them as much as it works) and see if DCS starts to use your E-cores for rendering and common pools also. Maybe a limit of 1 or 2 or even 3 to 4 P cores will do it, unsure honestly. You might see much better results, if you manage to use the (fast) E-cores for the rendering / common pools.

If it's any help I have attached my dcs.log from my Laptop with Intel Core Ultra 9 185H. Its performance is definitely below par for a gaming laptop (definitely below my desktop i7 12700K).  

dcs_laptop.log

[The_Nephilim]

11 hours ago, Special K said:

The culprit lies in the E-cores themselves. There are 2 kinds of E-cores now with these CPUs, the old E-cores (now "LPE cores") and new E-cores (which are located on the main package of the CPU and with that much more performant than the LPE cores). In combination with the changes in scheduling (in the past, DCS could just say, the higher the scheduling class, the faster the core), this results into a bad core assignment for DCS.

So, you have P-cores that you want to use (probably for rendering), fast E-cores (that you also want to use, probably for the common pool) and slow E-cores (that can be used for IO for instance, if it makes sense due to the low number). Atm, all E-cores (being them fast or not) are being used for the IO pool. That in fact is wrong.

It is not that much of EDs fault honestly, Intels decisions are quite frankly strange and do look more like as if they gave the task to some young graduate that tries to live out his theoretical dreams than to someone that has any idea of how gaming works. But it is adressed and I am pretty sure the guys will come up with a good idea how to tackle it.

For the time being, you can try to disable all but one of your P-cores (or limit them as much as it works) and see if DCS starts to use your E-cores for rendering and common pools also. Maybe a limit of 1 or 2 or even 3 to 4 P cores will do it, unsure honestly. You might see much better results, if you manage to use the (fast) E-cores for the rendering / common pools.

Well that is great how can I ID the fast cores on my 265K CPU? I had played DCS tonight and in the Caucus I was able to run at 100% Rez in the G2 and it worked great. So I do beleieve the CPU has helped alot and it is performing great with DCS.

 

I think even if I could get a better GPU I would only be able to run @90Hz with maybe full rez so either way I am getting that @60Hz and it looks great.. so far no GPU needed and with the reviews of the 5070 series is not good not sure I am going to upgrade even if I could afford it..

 

Look forward to hearing some info on how I can ID the faster ECores.. thnx

[Special K]

Am 7.3.2025 um 03:34 schrieb The_Nephilim:

Look forward to hearing some info on how I can ID the faster ECores.. thnx

Do you have Python on your PC? If yes, I can send you a small script later and we can see if we figure which ones are the LPE cores.