Core i7 notebooks and pcsx2: SLOW

[shoegazer]

I think turbo mode might not be kicking in due to some background application utilizing the remaining two cores. Try using CPU-Z to check the clock on that CPU during PCSX2.

I'll quote from my first post:

"CPU-Z shows that the CPU frequency is all over the map, even when only running pcsx2 with nothing else - it jumps from 1.7ghz to 2.2ghz to 3ghz and down to 1.5 ghz."

...and while using CPU-Z with a core i7, there's no way to select a specific core - you get Core #0 and the drop-down selection box is greyed out.

---

Damn. Maybe you can open task manager and restrict pcsx2 to 2 of your cores? That way load balancing doesn't get in the way of turbo mode.

You know, that's a really good suggestion, and I was very hopeful - but I tried it and nothing changed..

[echosierra]

I think turbo mode might not be kicking in due to some background application utilizing the remaining two cores. Try using CPU-Z to check the clock on that CPU during PCSX2.

I'll quote from my first post:

"CPU-Z shows that the CPU frequency is all over the map, even when only running pcsx2 with nothing else - it jumps from 1.7ghz to 2.2ghz to 3ghz and down to 1.5 ghz."

Well there's your problem.

The C2D is (presumably) running at 2.66 Ghz constant, depends on your power save settings. The Core i7 is clocking up and down, who the hell knows what it does to the execution time.
You need a way to force the clock to 2.66Ghz or close enough at all times to make an actual comparison.

This is a problem with your notebook, not Core i7's in general. I have a desktop Core i7 at the same clock as my old C2D, and I've seen nothing but improvements.

[mackoyski]

Seems like speedstep is really botching up the clocks, huh...

[Air]

SpeedStep is notoriously bad still on quad core CPUs. If I enable SpeedStep on my C2Quad, the same thing happens. There is nothing anyone can do, short of some tricks that will cause overheating and will disable the built in Turbo mode.

So yeah, unless you can disable the SpeedStep features, you're cooked.

[shoegazer]

SpeedStep is notoriously bad still on quad core CPUs. If I enable SpeedStep on my C2Quad, the same thing happens. There is nothing anyone can do, short of some tricks that will cause overheating and will disable the built in Turbo mode.

So yeah, unless you can disable the SpeedStep features, you're cooked.

Thanks, Jake. However in my original post I said, "I've disabled Speedstep in the BIOS - no difference". I had hoped this was it too, but it wasn't.

Keep in mind, CPU-Z shows the speed fluctuating all over the place, but even while it's doing that, other benchmarks such as Cinebench run very well, and show much better results than with my c2d. Other programs, even emulators, also run much better than my c2d, just not pcsx2 unfortunately, for whatever bizarre reason.

Again I appreciate your suggestions. If you have any more I'm certainly interested in trying them.

[Air]

Thanks, Jake. However in my original post I said, "I've disabled Speedstep in the BIOS - no difference". I had hoped this was it too, but it wasn't.

There are also other power saving features like C1E, which is almost identical to SpeedStep. I think all power saving modes besides C1E are ok (C2E, C4E, etc). C1E is basically an open standards version of SpeedStep.

Keep in mind, CPU-Z shows the speed fluctuating all over the place, but even while it's doing that, other benchmarks such as Cinebench run very well, and show much better results than with my c2d. Other programs, even emulators, also run much better than my c2d, just not pcsx2 unfortunately, for whatever bizarre reason.

Not bizarre at all. Entirely expected. PCSX2 is a complex multithreaded application, and unfortunately there's just not a lot of "real" support for that kind of stuff yet. Most other emulators, games, and applications are single threaded or are, at best, simple multithreaded apps. Many of them are poorly coded and do not use kernel-level thread management tools like wait objects or events. Benchmarks are either single-threaded or specifically designed to place full stress on multiple cores.

Honestly I don't think turning off SpeedStep or C1E is a good idea. The Laptop is designed to operate with them enabled. It's just the easier answer form a tech-support standpoint, because we tire of the daily complaints from people who spend lots of money on a laptop an then expect the stupid thing to be able to perform like a desktop. and if turning those off shuts them up, yay more for us.

What's better for quad+ CPUs (ie, your case) is something that I'm sure will sound entirely bizarre: Run something else in the background. For example, download Folding@Home and force it to always run at max (which would be 25% of your CPU) while using PCSX2. That'll force your stupid expensive CPU (that itself really should effing know better by now how to handle properly coded multihtreaded apps) to kick into high speed mode and stay there.

... plus maybe you'll even fold a protein or two, and save the world in the process. (... or not )

Edit: Doing that will probably kill Turbo Mode benefits, however -- but a flat 2.8 ghz will be a whole lot better than a fluctuation from 1.6->3.0ghz.

[Air]

If I sound frustrated, it's because I am. I work very hard to write proper high-performance parallel/threaded code that, on a desktop machine, runs using less power and with higher performance than other lazier (and more common) methods of threading. Unfortunately CPU-level power-saving technology just hasn't caught up yet, and the internal heuristics for measuring CPU load depend on apps either being simple single-threaded, or simple multi-threaded.

For what it's worth the new 0.9.7 version (when it's released) will be even more likely to run at 1.7ghz rather than 2.8 ghz. But on the bright side, it might also allow the i7 to kick into Turbo mode when using the Folding@Home trick.

[Koji]

Silly Air, programming to standards that hardware manufacturers don't follow. You should know better than to play by the rules as that only puts you behind

[mackoyski]

Maybe Intel or AMD should come up with an OS-based cpu control software rather than relying on speedstep or c1e.

[echosierra]

Maybe Intel or AMD should come up with an OS-based cpu control software rather than relying on speedstep or c1e.

Oh standards like that exist, and are typically implemented through custom programs by the motherboard manufacturer. Problem is Intel and AMD thought it was smart to make some speed-control mechanism independent from motherboard control. So you may not be able to disable them from BIOS because it's likely out of the motherboard's hands, which is probably the case here.

Even then, the motherboard itself may be clocking the processor down on it's own for whatever reason. My old laptop would report whatever processor speed the OS told it to, but never actually rose the clock above ~50% that number for "power saving" reasons.