5 ms·
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 gam
by 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 agoAh excellent. Thaks for correcting my erroneous correction attempt
- chongli 3y agoI 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 agoOn my PC, I limit my FPS to 24 (via graphics card settings). It uses far less power, and runs considerably cooler.
- Alupis 3y agoThis 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 agoMeh, 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 agoGsync/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.
- neurostimulant 3y agoHow high the electricity cost in your area for you to notice an extra 200 watts during gaming? Assuming $0.3/kwh, if you play 8 hours everyday (which is a lot), you'll increase your bill by $14.4. If you only play 2 hours everyday on average, the increase is only $3.6.
- withinboredom 3y agoAs I mentioned in another comment down-thread, my costs (after taxes + fees) is €0.60 a kWh.
- perryizgr8 3y agoThat sounds horrifying. I can't comfortably watch video at 24 fps, let alone play an interactive game. But to each his own, who am I to dictate your preferences?
- bigstrat2003 3y agoI'm not the GP, but it makes sense to me. I can't even see a difference between 24 and 60 FPS. It has to get down into the teens before I can tell. I haven't capped my graphics like that, but that's more because it never occurred to me than because it would bother me.
- withinboredom 3y agoAbout 10 fps is my lower limit. I can’t tell the difference for anything higher than 18 fps.
- d_k_f 3y agoHonest question, not intended to be disparaging: do you not see a difference between the various animations on [1], for example? To me, they are very apparent. [1] https://www.testufo.com/ https://www.testufo.com/
- bigstrat2003 3y agoThe bottom one looks different. Like I said, I can tell once the FPS gets into the teens. The top two look exactly the same to me. I realize they are different, but I can't see it.
- Sakos 3y agohttps://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=4&background=stars&pps=960 https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=4&background=stars&... This is better, because we're talking about the lower range right now anyway. That said, I think the difference between 144Hz and 72Hz is a lot more subtle and can't be seen if you try to glance at them directly. Try viewing them with peripheral vision and there's a difference in smoothness. That shows up in things like moving a window around (or even just moving a mouse). It makes a huge difference in input latency/response, but the difference can't be seen easily by just staring directly at a moving image.
- ClassyJacket 3y agoThat's kinda like saying to save money you eat only plain rice, uncooked. Like yes it will technically work but most people would not be willing to subject themselves to that.
- AvesMerit 3y agoHow much money could it possibly save? It might be more worth it to sell your GPU & buy a cheaper one. You might even be able to run at a higher framerate with those savings!
- withinboredom 3y ago10-20 Euro per month, just from gaming. From all things, it makes a difference of about 50-100 Euro a month. 20fps uses 70 watts, full speed is 200 watts. Times 5 hours, times 30 days, times €0.60.
- dimask 3y agoI 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.