Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Number of CPUs/threads per CPU settings on i.e. Ryzen CPUs?
TandyPop
#1 Posted : Sunday, September 10, 2017 7:49:27 PM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Posts: 16

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hello.

With Ryzen CPUs, or others with 8/16 cores, or more, does it make sense to change any of the CPU settings in the Hearthranger.ini?

i.e. by default it's

[VICPU]
CPUNumber=6
ThreadPerCPU=8

which is 48 threads total.. Would changing the CPU number to i.e. 8 and ThreadPerCPU to 6 make any difference?

Similarly, with a 4/8 core CPU i.e. the Intel 6700K, does it matter to change the CPUNumber to i.e. 8 due to the hyperthreading?

Cheers
JoyAdmin
#2 Posted : Sunday, September 10, 2017 10:15:57 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators
Posts: 4,881

Thanks: 808 times
Was thanked: 4545 time(s) in 1642 post(s)
These settings are fine tuned with high spec computer, unless you have low spec computer, I don't think it's a good idea to set the values higher than default.

ralphy
#3 Posted : Sunday, September 10, 2017 11:33:01 PM(UTC)

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Posts: 38

Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Wouldn't it make sense to set cpunumber to the number of physical cores and threadpercpu to the number of threads per core?
TandyPop
#4 Posted : Sunday, September 10, 2017 11:53:59 PM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Posts: 16

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
ralphy;51407 wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense to set cpunumber to the number of physical cores and threadpercpu to the number of threads per core?


The default settings are to have 48 threads total, and most people don't seem to have issues with that. Setting it to your actual logical core amount would lower that amount (on every CPU I know of). So I don't think that would help.

I was wondering whether it would somehow make the bot run faster to have it i.e. 8 cores, 6 threads per core, rather than 6 cores, 8 threads per core, or even 16 cores with Ryzen or some Intel CPUs. But maybe it just multiplies the numbers and the code doesn't try to optimize it somehow based on the number of cores.

And it sounds like going over 48 threads doesn't really help either. I might try it sometime anyway, just for fun ;)
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.061 seconds.