Read more.Quote:
Its more than just prioritisation, processor cores will be directly allocated to gaming.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Its more than just prioritisation, processor cores will be directly allocated to gaming.
From the Ars Technica article...
I don't particularly like the idea of blurring the line between console and PC, people don't spend hundreds of pounds on a gaming PC just to have Microsoft gimp it so games can run on their £250 console, then again maybe blurring the lines will cut down on the amount of shoddy PC/console ports and they won't reduce things to the lowest common denominator.Quote:
Overall, though, Walston said that the long-term goals continues to be bringing Windows and Xbox together as a single platform. "When we add new features to Windows, they transfer to Xbox," he said. "[In 2017], the line between console and PC is continuing to blur... The line dividing Windows and Xbox continues to become more of a gradient of features and functionality."
Not really a game player anymore and don't own a console but I agree with the sentiment. I'm sure MS will at least give PC users more advanced options. If 'Scorpio' uses Ryzen/Vega (unlikely I know) maybe optimisation for multiple cores/threads & HBC will alleviate that (1st World :) LOL) anxiety?Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Excuse me, um, yes, I'd like my lines professionally blurred please. Can I get them just blurry enough for access to all console titles and better porting, but not quite so blurry as to require branded controllers, locked environments and games that are only tech demoes on rails? That's great, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Iv'e lost all faith in the Microsoft team working on windows 10.
You do know game mode will also be dumbed down so it helps people play games on a phone or tablet too right?
I think a optometrist can help you with that. :D ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
ok... why are games the only thing being focused on with the cpu code.... there's plenty of software out there that would benefit from this 'prioritisation' or automatic allocationof cpu cores too. Some single threaded apps work better if you assign it to a single core which is not the primary core which is being used by windows etc.
It also looks like its been stuck behind the 'xbox' overlay which most people I know have disabled because it impacts performance...
Surely MS will give us a choice if we want to use this feature or not, right?
Yes. You enable it on a per game basis if you want it using the win+G control panel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macman
Not sure how many people here are on the windows insider group but check out the feedback hub and it's full of problems with game mode.
Are any of them about it stopping critical Windows services or turning off something that wasn't designed to be turned off? Because general bugs with a new piece of software neither surprise nor amuse me, but those in particular, definitely would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubarb
A game requires a lot more than just CPU power. Hopefully they have more planned for Game mode, otherwise this is doomed to failure before it even starts.
What else do you suggest they do in Game mode?Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberScooby
I'm going to call Hexus out for being slow on the ball for this one... Arstechnica reported on this March 2nd, and it's a more thorough article. This title (Further details about Windows 10 Game Mode emerge) a week later makes me think you had something new. This is a total click bait waste of everyone's time...
I would hope they'd be working with CPU and GPU manufacturers, are well as game makers, to find ways to optimize games.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
I often get the impression that task schedulers are too clever for their own good, shuffling tasks hither and thither for a few milliseconds of gain on all tasks from all programs at the cost of the one program that is actually important.Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
Personally I think that this behaviour they have outlined for game mode should be roughly how high priority threads are executed in general. Additionally (as I have said before) there should be an option along the lines of "disable SMT for this program" since plenty of software is negatively affected by SMT.
Alternatively, if we leave such an option out of the management then there's greater onus on getting SMT fixed across the board. Which seems like a better option, to me. If SMT really affects so many critical programs then it can just be turned off system-wide, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAPTAIN_ALLCAPS
In the long run, if issues with SMT and HT end up being somewhat consistently present, a utility like this might end up being useful though.
Right, but what does that mean on the Windows software side (where Game Mode comes from)?Quote:
Originally Posted by globalwarning
I know that in some cases (e.g. most of the mathematical models used in HPC) performance degradation when trying to hyperthread the application is inherent to the model's properties. Nevertheless, it would be handy to use the second logical core for background tasks rather than disabling hyperthreading globally - which is what usually happens in HPC. I am sure there are other scenarios too - after all, power users are likely to know more about the demands of the software they are running than the task scheduler does (which as far as I know largely organises threads on a moment-to-moment basis since it cannot know if a thread is permanently demanding or latency sensitive, or simply has the odd spurt of activity like most threads do).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
I guess one alternative could be having developers writing software profiles to inform a task scheduler of things like what threads a program likes to run, which of the threads to prioritise if any, and whether they benefit from SMT.