5 ms·

> With the introduction of Game Mode in Sonoma, CPU scheduling can now work differently, with E cores being reserved for the use of games. - shouldn't that be

> With the introduction of Game Mode in Sonoma, CPU scheduling can now work differently, with E cores being reserved for the use of games. - shouldn't that be 'P cores'?

samtheprogram 3y ago
That was my first impression too, but it actually makes sense. According to a linked article by the same author: > it’s apparent that during Game Mode, the game was given exclusive use of the two E cores, and threads from other processes fixed at low QoS, which would require them to be run on the E cores, were kept waiting. The game’s threads were run on a combination of E and P cores, with much of their load being concentrated on the E cores. This appears to be energy-efficient, and ideal for use on notebooks running on battery power. So: the E cores are resevered for the use of games, but the game still makes use of some P cores. https://eclecticlight.co/2023/10/18/how-game-mode-manages-cpu-and-gpu/ https://eclecticlight.co/2023/10/18/how-game-mode-manages-cp...
- Angostura 3y ago
  Ah excellent. Thaks for correcting my erroneous correction attempt
- chongli 3y ago
  I like the sound of this! I play a lot of older games on my MacBook Air and one of my biggest annoyances is when the game gets the machine to heat up (and in previous iterations spin up the fan) despite being a very graphically undemanding game. I think there are a lot of otherwise graphically simple games that poll or sit there in busy wait loops or render more frames than the display can show. It’s like they’ve been built for a resource starved environment and don’t know how to properly handle abundance. It’s really frustrating!
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    On my PC, I limit my FPS to 24 (via graphics card settings). It uses far less power, and runs considerably cooler.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      This is bad, in a gaming setting, for several reasons. You should at least make your frame limit be equal to your screen refresh rate.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        Meh, gsync keeps it sane. But no, my screen refresh rate is 165hz. If it were to be running that many fps, it would result in ~200 watts of power be utilized. Maybe this is "good" for gaming, but it is def bad for my wallet who has to pay the power bill. Maybe when electricity prices go back down, I'll turn it up.
        Alupis 3y ago
        > Meh, gsync keeps it sane. GSync isn't magic. It can only do so much. In this situation, where you've tied your frames to 24 (for some reason?) and your monitor refresh rate is 165Hz, GSync isn't going to save you. GSync will help you if there are sudden, brief drops in FPS below the refresh rate and keep things in sync. It will not save you if your refresh rate is 165Hz and your frame rate is 24... > Maybe when electricity prices go back down, I'll turn it up I don't think you'll notice the extra $5 a month it costs to run that a couple hours a week. We should at least use a real reason why you'd do this. Saving a smidge of power is not one of them. You should, instead, under-clock your monitor refresh rate to something low, like 75 or 60Hz, then frame-limit to that number as well.
        bpye 3y ago
        Gsync/variable refresh rate should be able to make that work. Even if the display doesn’t go down to 24Hz, it only needs to drop to 144Hz to be an integer multiple of 24Hz - you’d just get each frame being displayed for 6 frames.
  - dimask 3y ago
    I did notice that my MBA M1 running Baldur's Gate 3 heats up much less under Sonoma, which moreover makes the performance more consistent (it would heat up and throttle however the resolution/settings, which meant it was better to run in low power mode actually). I had no idea it was because of the OS update.
btown 3y ago
Brings a whole new meaning to “idle” games!
MrRolleyes 3y ago
[dead]

> With the introduction of Game Mode in Sonoma, CPU scheduling can now work differently, with E cores being reserved for the use of games. - shouldn't that be 'P cores'?

samtheprogram 3y ago

That was my first impression too, but it actually makes sense. According to a linked article by the same author: > it’s apparent that during Game Mode, the game was given exclusive use of the two E cores, and threads from other processes fixed at low QoS, which would require them to be run on the E cores, were kept waiting. The game’s threads were run on a combination of E and P cores, with much of their load being concentrated on the E cores. This appears to be energy-efficient, and ideal for use on notebooks running on battery power. So: the E cores are resevered for the use of games, but the game still makes use of some P cores. https://eclecticlight.co/2023/10/18/how-game-mode-manages-cpu-and-gpu/ https://eclecticlight.co/2023/10/18/how-game-mode-manages-cp...

Angostura 3y ago
Ah excellent. Thaks for correcting my erroneous correction attempt
chongli 3y ago
I like the sound of this! I play a lot of older games on my MacBook Air and one of my biggest annoyances is when the game gets the machine to heat up (and in previous iterations spin up the fan) despite being a very graphically undemanding game. I think there are a lot of otherwise graphically simple games that poll or sit there in busy wait loops or render more frames than the display can show. It’s like they’ve been built for a resource starved environment and don’t know how to properly handle abundance. It’s really frustrating!
- withinboredom 3y ago
  On my PC, I limit my FPS to 24 (via graphics card settings). It uses far less power, and runs considerably cooler.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    This is bad, in a gaming setting, for several reasons. You should at least make your frame limit be equal to your screen refresh rate.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      Meh, gsync keeps it sane. But no, my screen refresh rate is 165hz. If it were to be running that many fps, it would result in ~200 watts of power be utilized. Maybe this is "good" for gaming, but it is def bad for my wallet who has to pay the power bill. Maybe when electricity prices go back down, I'll turn it up.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        > Meh, gsync keeps it sane. GSync isn't magic. It can only do so much. In this situation, where you've tied your frames to 24 (for some reason?) and your monitor refresh rate is 165Hz, GSync isn't going to save you. GSync will help you if there are sudden, brief drops in FPS below the refresh rate and keep things in sync. It will not save you if your refresh rate is 165Hz and your frame rate is 24... > Maybe when electricity prices go back down, I'll turn it up I don't think you'll notice the extra $5 a month it costs to run that a couple hours a week. We should at least use a real reason why you'd do this. Saving a smidge of power is not one of them. You should, instead, under-clock your monitor refresh rate to something low, like 75 or 60Hz, then frame-limit to that number as well.
        bpye 3y ago
        Gsync/variable refresh rate should be able to make that work. Even if the display doesn’t go down to 24Hz, it only needs to drop to 144Hz to be an integer multiple of 24Hz - you’d just get each frame being displayed for 6 frames.
- dimask 3y ago
  I did notice that my MBA M1 running Baldur's Gate 3 heats up much less under Sonoma, which moreover makes the performance more consistent (it would heat up and throttle however the resolution/settings, which meant it was better to run in low power mode actually). I had no idea it was because of the OS update.

btown 3y ago

Brings a whole new meaning to “idle” games!

MrRolleyes 3y ago

[dead]