disabling cpu parking in windows 10

[TTayl2]

Hello,

I have been reading about "core parking" being impossible to turn off in Windows 10.

The problem with this, is in high end gaming rigs, core parking tends to have too much hysteresis in situations where the system goes to 100% load often. As the load shifts within a high res 3d game for instance

many systems have poorer gaming performance with core parking on than they do with it off. In some cases the difference is surprisingly large as it varies with different combinations of hardware.

According to my understanding of Microsoft's explanation of how it manages power for the cpu, is it uses information from the chip itself to determine what profile to use for each power management property.

This is described here https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/mt422910%28v=vs.85%29.aspx Processor power management options - Windows 10 hardware dev

Microsoft is getting increasingly aggravating with trying to get me to switch from windows 7 to 10. Eventually I am going to be forced to upgrade my win 7 to win 10

Some gaming rigs are experiencing performance issues after switching from windows 7 to windows 10. I think this is due to the configuration of the power management system which the OS is setting up based on instructions from the chip.

I have a wonderful Intel 2600K and eventually I am going to get forced into win 10. I really do not want to take a huge performance hit because the power management system decides to turn off too many cores, and then waits too long to decide to wake them up. (the situation in windows 7 was this problem, thankfully it was able to be turned off)

I am hoping Intel can issue everyone patches for their Intel processors that would set up a maximum performance profile for Windows 10. It could be a special "Gaming profile"

According to the microsoft article linked above, there are about 16 parameters that can be set, and almost that many again for each core.

What Gamer's need are some updates from Intel for their cpu settings instructions that tell Windows this rig has a need for speed and core parking is deactivated. Or at least keeps a minimum of 50% of the cores active at all times. Something needs done that prevents this "power saving feature" from significant lowering a gaming system's overall performance. Right now, it appears it does significantly reduce performance in many gaming systems.

[TTayl2]

I should add, I repair computers for people and I build high end rigs for folks who cannot find what they want in a store somewhere.

This is why I am asking about this....because I see this becoming a huge issue in gaming communities as more games become 64bit multi thread games, this is going to get worse.

[EstebanA_C_Intel]

Hello, Zath:

Thank you for bringing that up.

I would like to know, have you experienced this with different hardware? Meaning different models of processors from different generations/families.

This is find out whether the issue follows an specific hardware or not.

Additionally, as an observation, I checked different NUCs and desktops with different processors from different generations and none of them were "parked". I checked this in the task manager > Performance tab > Resource monitor.

I look forward to your reply on this.

Regards,

Esteban C

[TTayl2]

Hello, thank-you for your reply. I will try to give you a clear picture of what I have seen building gaming rigs.

First I only use i7 processors for a big desktop gaming rigs. I know this problem exists for the first two generations

of i7 processors. My impression is everyone I have helped with gaming issues, got significant improvement by turning

core parking off regardless of which generation of "i series" Intel processor they had. This included some i5's as well.

This has been true with even very new rigs built in the last 12 months.

A system I have in my office right now (an older system that runs too well to replace) is configured as follows:

i7-2600K processor retail box.

ASUS Maximus Extreme motherboard

Corsair 850 watt power supply.

8 gigabytes Corsair pc1600 ram CMZ8GXM2A1600C9R

Gigabyte Radeon 7970 Ghz edition OC

Window 7

As an example, when I first setup the above system, I saw a very interesting problem when watching the CPU with third party software.

Settings:

1)Windows 7, system left stock with both turbo mode and core parking on.

This system did pretty well in this configuration in a variety of games. However when I installed a 64bit game, I noticed that even though I had a quadcore with 8 virtual cores, the system seemed to only use 2 cores most of the time. Although it showed I had 94 different processes running, everything was being forced through 2 cores.

To add insult to injury, the system was indicating that the CPU was a "bottleneck" for the graphics card due to apparent hysteresis in the "waking up of cores".

In addition, the system seemed to surge periodically in its performance.

I noticed that there seemed to be a hysteresis in both the turbo and core parking features that seemed to keep the CPU activating more cores out of sync with the demands of the software running.

2)I turned turbo mode off, locked the CPU at 3.4 ghz. This actually improved the system a little bit but not much. It was

no longer "surging in performance" so the turbo mode was degrading things for stability. But it was still trying to only use

2 cores... and seemed out of sync in adding additional needed cores. There were 94 processes running, yet it still crammed everything through two cores.

As I watched, I realized that by it only using 2 to 3 cores, combined with being out of sync with demands, the system was lowering it's performance ceiling.

3)I left cpu locked at 3.4ghz with turbo mode off, then turned core parking off also.

Suddenly, the system began spreading the load of 94 processes across 6 virtual cores with all of them running at below 50%.

The system performance improved radically. The average FPS actually increased about 15% and the 64 bit game was very smooth with no surging. The CPU was running cooler in this configuration also.

Therefore, what I see is this.

1)Turbo mode degrades system stability in applications using most of the computer's hardware assets capabilities.

2)Core parking seems to set up a default of using the minimum number of cores necessary to do the job. However due to hysteresis and other factors, this significantly lowers the system's capability.

3)Turning core parking off, creates a situation where the OS allows many cores to be used simultaneously even at lower loads to the CPU. This is a far more efficient and safe situation for the CPU in a gaming rig.

Every gamer I have run into using an intel CPU (that was having performance issues), saw significant improvement after turning core parking off.

A gaming rig owner is not interested in power efficiency that reduces performance. It is self defeating. A gaming rig needs to use what it has... all the time.

From a gaming rig's perspective, it is pretty dumb to force it to only use 2 cores.....

It MAY be ok if there was no hysteresis, but I doubt it. Really, when building a gaming rig with a quadcore processor, it needs to use all of its cores. This is especially true with newer graphics

cards that many times have the capability to get ahead of the CPU if it is forced to be "limping on two cores".

I hope this gives you a better picture of the problem.

[TTayl2]

So to be clear, in summary

1)Turbo mode and Core Parking have hysteresis that degrades system performance, by getting the CPU out of sync with the GPU. It appears once out of sync, they stay out of sync and the CPU is continuously chasing itself.

2)Gaming rigs do NOT have power efficiency anywhere in their top priorities. Anything that improves power efficiency at the cost of system performance is a mismatch of profile vs. actual use.

3)Windows 10 cannot turn off core parking with a registry entry like windows 7. Only the CPU can turn this off in windows 10.

[TTayl2]

I should also add,

This problem does not seem to correlate to nVidia graphics systems vs. AMD graphics card systems. It happens in both.

What I have noticed, is the higher the capability the graphic's card in "texture fill rate" or "texture fill bandwidth", the worse this problem with hysteresis is.

Therefore very powerful graphics cards tend to get "bottle-necked" often by a CPU that has core parking on. That millisecond hiccup occurring many times per minute degrades the system's performance and game stability.

[CAbbo1]

I second this question/fact. It indeed is interesting, and IMHO should be addressed for power users, not just gamers. People using any modern 64-bit software that is hardware dependent can benefit from this type of core 'un-parking.' This issue should really be looked into thoroughly.

[EstebanA_C_Intel]

Hello, All:

I would like to know the following.

1. What is the software/Game that you are experience this issue with?

2. What is the OS version and build that you are currently using?

I would also like to get your system configuration:

-OS:

-CPU:

-Motherboard Model:

-BIOS Version:

-Storage:

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Esteban C

[TTayl2]

Hello Esteban,

I will give you what you request. However I want you to understand, this problem happens with any 64 bit game or any 64 bit graphics intense software installed on a system that has a very high power graphics card combined with an Intel processor.

The problem is, due to hysteresis, core parking causes a GPU to become "bottle necked" periodically if the GPU has a high texture fill rate.

As near as I can tell, if the graphics card has the capability to provide 125 G texels/s or more, this bottle neck problem due to core parking occurs.

This was very obvious in my current gaming system, because the Radeon 7970 I use has a texture fill rate of 186 G texels/s with the CPU locked at 3.4 Ghz.

My current gaming rig, is specified as follows: (note it runs great because I have turned core parking and turbo mode OFF)

OS = Windows 7 Home premium 64 bit service pack 1

CPU = Intel i7-2600K retail box

Motherboard = ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z, LGA 1155, Intel Motherboard, z68

Bios = It is updated to the latest bios from ASUS for this motherboard, but right now I cannot find the bios number without rebooting.

Storage = Samsung SSD 840 PRO 256 gig.

Video card = Radeon HD 7970 Ghz Edition by Gigabtye.

I cannot over stress that this problem is associated with powerful video cards that can leap ahead of a processor stuck on two cores.

My i7-2600K was constantly "bottle necking" my HD 7970 Ghz edition video card with core parking on. As soon as I turned core parking off, the bottle neck vanished and the system improved in performance.

So really, studying what configurations we have is not very productive for you. This happens with ANY configuration that is running 3d graphics intense 64 bit software combined with a very powerful

video card. I am convinced it is due to the "texture fill rates" these newer video cards are capable of achieving. They have become so powerful, they can get ahead of a CPU with core parking on.

[TTayl2]

Oh.. and a game I used to troubleshoot this problem was "Planetside 2" 64 bit.

I fixed another computer last week who was having terrible fps issues in planetside 2. We turned core parking off, and his machine immediately did much better.

This was the latest generation i7 combined with an nVidia GTX980 using Window 7 64 bit.

Nobody want to go to windows 10, because we cannot turn core parking off... and it destroys the performance of our gaming rigs.

[CAbbo1]

I'm going to test today/tomorrow doing some benchmarks in windows 7 and windows 10, especially for the texture fill rate numbers, with core parking on/off on each OS. I will post the results and my specs at that time too, to further prove this issue.

[EstebanA_C_Intel]

Hello, All:

Thank you for the information provided.

Now that I have a clearer overview of the possible scenario, let me perform some tests on my end.

I will be providing you with my outcome.

Regards,

Esteban C

[CAbbo1]

Sorry about my delay, I had a motherboard failure last week, and just got back up and running. I will be posting my own results sometime on sunday or late monday.

[EstebanA_C_Intel]

Hello, wangmauler:

Thank you for your answer on this.

I found this tutorial to install an app or utility that seems to "un-park" the cores in your PC, with Windows 10*.

You could try with this procedure to check if it helps with the performance in your system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72flt8Od1BM HOW TO:Disable CPU Core Parking Utility - YouTube

NOTE: This link is being offered for your convenience and should not be viewed as an endorsement by Intel of the content, products, or services offered there.

Additionally, it would be great to have your results on this to check if the utility works properly.

If you require any further information or support, do not hesitate to contact us back.

Regards,

Esteban C

[TTayl2]

Well..... yes I am aware of this utility.

Consider this:

1)According to Microsoft, Windows 10 will rewrite core power management during the boot sequence based on instructions from the CPU.

2)Once you run this utility, you must reboot to finalize the registry changes... yet... win10 is going to rewrite them again during the boot based on the CPU instructions.

3)Therefore... the results will be no change since the cores will remain parked, since core parking seems on by default based on CPU instructions.

So... really.... using this utility seems like a complete waste of time? I will try it but based on what Microsoft says on this subject it will be a futile effort.

[EstebanA_C_Intel]

Hello, Zath:

I understand your concern, as of now, my recommendation would be to check with Microsoft* directly to see if the CPU parking can be disabled or not.

If any additional questions or inquiries are present, feel free to contact us back.

Regards,

Esteban C

[TTayl2]

Hello,

I have to admit, initially I was very frustrated by your answer above, but I went back to the original Microsoft page I linked in my first post for this thread and discovered

some things have been added.

It appears now there is the possibility to control many of these parameters with .xml files. If this works out as indicated by them, the problem is resolved.

Thank-you for your efforts in getting this resolved.

[EstebanA_C_Intel]

Hello, Zath:

Thank you for your answer.

I am glad to hear that there is a possible workaround to get this changed.

If any additional questions or inquiries are present, feel free to contact us back.

Regards,

Esteban C