Team OS : Your Only Destination To Custom OS !!

Welcome to TeamOS Community, Register or Login to the Community to Download Torrents, Get Access to Shoutbox, Post Replies, Use Search Engine and many more features. Register Today!

Tutorials Simple way to maximized the use of your processor

Victor24

Young Guns===)>™
Verified Member
Downloaded
55.1 GB
Uploaded
1.5 TB
Ratio
27.98
Seedbonus
3,244
I have created this simple yet useful information.
Mistakenly, we believe that Microsoft by default utilizes all cores of your processor after a successful installation of OS. But were not!
With due respect to the company, maybe they are thinking to give this process to the end users.
And this process can be done by following the step by step image shown below:

1. Go to run > Type "msconfig" and enter. ( Do not include the quote )


2. Click the "Boot" tab


3. Click the "Advance options" button


4. You will see "Boot Advance Option" window. From here you can evaluate how many cores in your processor.
And by clicking the:

  1. box of "number of processors"
  2. by clicking the arrow down
  3. the "maximum memory" must be leave blank if you have no PCI/PCIe video card installed
  4. click OK
5. Click apply button, then click OK


6. Click "Restart"


7. And it's dpne!

Thanks for visiting this tutorials.
May this tutorials shade light.

Victor24
TeamOS
 

Victor24

Young Guns===)>™
Verified Member
Downloaded
55.1 GB
Uploaded
1.5 TB
Ratio
27.98
Seedbonus
3,244
Does the No.of.Processor Refers to Logical Procesor or the Cores ?
Thanks for Info !
allow me by saying this ...
A single physical CPU core with hyper-threading appears as two logical CPUs to an operating system. The CPU is still a single CPU, so it’s a little bit of a cheat. While the operating system sees two CPUs for each core, the actual CPU hardware only has a single set of execution resources for each core. The CPU pretends it has more cores than it does, and it uses its own logic to speed up program execution. In other words, the operating system is tricked into seeing two CPUs for each actual CPU core.

Hyper-threading allows the two logical CPU cores to share physical execution resources. This can speed things up somewhat—if one virtual CPU is stalled and waiting, the other virtual CPU can borrow its execution resources. Hyper-threading can help speed your system up, but it’s nowhere near as good as having actual additional cores.

A dual-core CPU literally has two central processing units on the CPU chip. A quad-core CPU has four central processing units, an octa-core CPU has eight central processing units ...
 
Last edited:

Victor24

Young Guns===)>™
Verified Member
Downloaded
55.1 GB
Uploaded
1.5 TB
Ratio
27.98
Seedbonus
3,244
Thanks for the Brief Explanation ! Setting the MEMORY to 0 makes it comes back to 256 is it ok?
it depends... 1. if you are not using PCI/PCIe video card, unchecking the maximum memory is good. 2. still good unchecking maximum memory even you have external video card, however, you are not using it to the maximum level theoretically. ;) making it comeback to 256? well, only your system will tell. but one thing for sure, your system will doing good.
 

Cyler

Super Moderator
Downloaded
80.2 GB
Uploaded
10.7 TB
Ratio
136.49
Seedbonus
270
Hey Victor, nice post but sadly it is s not entirely right. I don't mean it's your fault but rather its the fault of whoever published it many years ago (I think at the start of Windows 7) and the myth keeps going on but its a myth nevertheless. If I remember correctly, it was first introduced with Windows XP or NT 4 and was as a switch /numproc=number for us oldtimers.

The option has the reverse effect. The option is there in case a user needs to LIMIT the CPU cores. For example, in the past, at the time of the first dual/quad-cores (anyone remembers Pentium D, AMD X2 and Core duo/quad?) some systems had issues during boot to recognize all cores or there were cases that a core was malfunctioning, and so the option was there to LIMIT the cores for debugging reasons and allow users to test if cores and/or motherboard had issues during boot.

Another unofficial use of this option was for programmers to simulate how a program would run on a "slower" PC, without having to buy a new one. Set cores to 1 and it will feel like its an old Pentium.

Sometimes it's used in Virtual machine setups when we want to make sure we enforce No of Cores per VM despite VM setup.

The misconception comes for the fact that when it's unchecked, the number in the box may default to 1 but since it's grayed out, that means the OS will autodetect and use the max No of cores unless there is an issue, regardless of what the box shows. "1" is just the first option which is normally greyed out.

To verify it yourself, set the cores to 1 and reboot, you will see in performance monitor that it says sockets 1, cores 1, logical processors 1. Now set to auto and you will see that it states the max cores/threads. Set it manually to max value and you will see the same as in auto.

Some food for thought. Would we really want the OS to use all cores even if it was possible? I would much rather have the apps/games use the cores than the OS. Microsoft knows that too so most of the time the OS will use 1 core for its needs (most of the time core 0) that after all, and besides the boot process, OS doesn't have many things to do, and so leave most CPU resources for applications and games.

In my opinion, it's best to be left unchecked and let the OS handle it unless someone detects an issue with the No of cores its system reports or has boot issues related to CPU errors.

Again, this has nothing to do with you Victor, and thank you for the post, but I do think that the internet is full of bad info, and we need to correct those when we can.
 
Last edited:

Victor24

Young Guns===)>™
Verified Member
Downloaded
55.1 GB
Uploaded
1.5 TB
Ratio
27.98
Seedbonus
3,244
Hey Victor, nice post but sadly it is s not entirely right. I don't mean it's your fault but rather its the fault of whoever published it many years ago (I think at the start of Windows 7) and the myth keeps going on but its a myth nevertheless. If I remember correctly, it was first introduced with Windows XP has as a switch /numproc=number for us oldtimers.

The option is there for the reverse effect. The option is there in case a user needs to LIMIT the CPU cores. For example, in the past, at the time of the first dual/quad-cores (anyone remembers Pentium D, AMD X2 and Core duo/quad?) some systems had issues during boot to recognize all cores or there were cases that a core was malfunctioning, and so the option was there to LIMIT the cores for debugging reasons and allow users to test if cores and/or motherboard had issues during boot.

Another unofficial use of this option was for programmers to simulate how a program would run on a "slower" PC, without having to buy a new one. Set cores to 1 and it will feel like its an old Pentium.

Sometimes it's used in Virtual machine setups when we want to make sure we enforce No of Cores per VM despite VM setup.

The misconception comes for the fact that when it's unchecked, the number in the box may default to 1 but since it's grayed out, that means the OS will autodetect and use the max No of cores unless there is an issue, regardless of what the box shows. "1" is just the first option which is normally greyed out.

To verify it yourself, set the cores to 1 and reboot, you will see in performance monitor that it says sockets 1, cores 1, logical processors 1. Now set to auto and you will see that it states the max cores/threads. Set it manually to max value and you will see the same as in auto.

Some food for thought. Would we really want the OS to use all cores even if it was possible? I would much rather have the apps/games use the cores than the OS. Microsoft knows that too so most of the time the OS will use 1 core for its needs (most of the time core 0) that after all, and besides the boot process, OS doesn't have many things to do, and so leave most CPU resources for applications and games.

In my opinion, it's best to be left unchecked and let the OS handle it unless someone detects an issue with the No of cores its system reports or has boot issues related to CPU errors.

Again, this has nothing to do with you Victor, and thank you for the post, but I do think that the internet is full of bad info, and we need to correct those when we can.
Ok, it might be myth.. I may agree for some reason. What first comes to my mind was this, why would MS include that in the msconfig (msconfiguration)? Maybe for some reason also, because of many reason that nobody prove it wrong. MS on the other hand, never had denied nor confirm this so called myth. coz the fact that is configuration to make the system works. I've been doing this for a long time. And never had any problem. The fact, it makes my pc responded very accurately on time. Most of my works involved multi tasking. I had imagine, direct downloading, torrenting,, open a lot of site in my browser.. while working on excel and word ,, listening music that is done on a core2duo machine. :D Not only that, I still have a lot of stuff working on the background. Themes, animated desktop and a lot more... ;) Also imagine a machine that is not suppose to run a windows 10 but it runs smoothly.
 

Cyler

Super Moderator
Downloaded
80.2 GB
Uploaded
10.7 TB
Ratio
136.49
Seedbonus
270
What first comes to my mind was this, why would MS include that in the msconfig (msconfiguration)?
Msconfig is a utility to troubleshoot so if you think about it, all the options are there to help you solve potential windows problems and that's why you have the diagnostic startup and the ability to disable services, limit cores and ram among other things. A lot of things are left for compatibility reasons too. As an example 2005 MS SQL server won't run on multicore systems unless the CPU option is used or SQL is patched.

...nobody prove it wrong....
Ok, let's see what other users/experts have to say. You can google it yourself too.


That's just from Google page 1. Thousands of answers saying it's to LIMIT the CPU count. If anything you will not find a test that proves it speeds up anything, only some users under the placebo effect that say it works without proof.

Don't take my word tho, let's do our own test to confirm and verify. After al its PCs and numbers and everything can be tested/proved.

Step 1 Set it to default (no selection), restart, and check the core count via task manager/performance tab.
Step 2 Set it to 1 CPU and restart and check the core count again in the task manager, you will see 1 only (which means it works)
Step 3 Set the value to your max CPU allowed (different for each user) and restart.
You should (will) notice that step 1 and step 3 have the same core/logical CPUs in the task manager. Did the test myself on a 2c/4t Intel and a 32c/64t AMD.

I've been doing this for a long time. And never had any problem.
Of course, you won't have any problems. Having it unticked is the same as having it maxed out as shown on the above test which was my point that it doesn't speed things up and its a myth.

Core duo is an ok CPU for windows 10, I have a Core duo PC around that I use as an MMO bot (I know, shame) and it does well with windows LTSB but that has nothing to do with the CPU limit option.

On my main, I too use multitasking both casually and professionally. Right now my main PC runs 8 Core dedicated python Vm for AI project while 8 more cores are dedicated to video editing/rendering while I play ESO using 2 more in windows mode and use VDI as internet gateway through a 4 core intel PC. There are often cases that I have 4 Vms concurrently doing tasks/tests while playing games waiting for results to finish. I never needed to check the core count in MSConfig.

Even if you logically think about it, 50.000 Windows users here and a few of them, expert programmers/modders/power-users, and a couple of billion around the world using windows, are we all working with 1 core all this time and didn't notice it?

Hope it helped.
 
Last edited:

Victor24

Young Guns===)>™
Verified Member
Downloaded
55.1 GB
Uploaded
1.5 TB
Ratio
27.98
Seedbonus
3,244
Msconfig is a utility to troubleshoot so if you think about it, all the options are there to help you solve potential windows problems and that's why you have the diagnostic startup and the ability to disable services, limit cores and ram among other things. A lot of things are left for compatibility reasons too. As an example 2005 MS SQL server won't run on multicore systems unless the CPU option is used or SQL is patched.



Ok, let's see what other users/experts have to say. You can google it yourself too.


That's just from Google page 1. Thousands of answers saying it's to LIMIT the CPU count. If anything you will not find a test that proves it speeds up anything, only some users under the placebo effect that say it works without proof.

Don't take my word tho, let's do our own test to confirm and verify. After al its PCs and numbers and everything can be tested/proved.

Step 1 Set it to default (no selection), restart, and check the core count via task manager/performance tab.
Step 2 Set it to 1 CPU and restart and check the core count again in the task manager, you will see 1 only (which means it works)
Step 3 Set the value to your max CPU allowed (different for each user) and restart.
You should (will) notice that step 1 and step 3 have the same core/logical CPUs in the task manager. Did the test myself on a 2c/4t Intel and a 32c/64t AMD.


Of course, you won't have any problems. Having it unticked is the same as having it maxed out as shown on the above test which was my point that it doesn't speed things up and its a myth.

Core duo is an ok CPU for windows 10, I have a Core duo PC around that I use as an MMO bot (I know, shame) and it does well with windows LTSB but that has nothing to do with the CPU limit option.

On my main, I too use multitasking both casually and professionally. Right now my main PC runs 8 Core dedicated python Vm for AI project while 8 more cores are dedicated to video editing/rendering while I play ESO using 2 more in windows mode and use VDI as internet gateway through a 4 core intel PC. There are often cases that I have 4 Vms concurrently doing tasks/tests while playing games waiting for results to finish. I never needed to check the core count in MSConfig.

Even if you logically think about it, 50.000 Windows users here and a few of them, expert programmers/modders/power-users, and a couple of billion around the world using windows, are we all working with 1 core all this time and didn't notice it?

Hope it helped.
hahaha,, my friend let me ask you with that reference persons of yours. Please tell them also this. Why MS put that part in the msconfig? Granting that part became useless as what you and that persons have said. Do you think MS put such option to minimize the performance? Where in fact, everybody is concern of machine maximum performance. One said, by default MS maximised the use of the cpu or processor. Granting that is true, again, why MS put that part in the msconfig if by default then it was maximise?! Hope you also consider that point of view. One thing I don't like this world, many people pushed what they believe is true, but failed to prove or show what is wrong and what is right. ;) Last thing, I agree with you that msconfig is a utility for troubleshooting. Have you tried troubleshooting using that part of the msconfig? If yes, what type of troubleshooting?
 
Last edited:

Cyler

Super Moderator
Downloaded
80.2 GB
Uploaded
10.7 TB
Ratio
136.49
Seedbonus
270
First of all, I think you are taking this personally and you really shouldn't. As I said this is not against you. I hope I'm wrong.

...my friend let me ask you with that reference persons of yours. Please tell them also this...
Those people are not people I know from somewhere to go ask them (I hope you don't think that), its random answers, that were given in various technical forums, about what that CPU option does. Pay attention to details, please. I said I found them by searching in google for answeres on the subject and I just copy-pasted their answer as proof. Do you have any tests and proof to show that this is working? Did you do any kind of research to see if what you claim is right?

Do you think MS put such option to minimize the performance? Where in fact, everybody is concern of machine maximum performance
I already answered and so did Microsfot and so did a LOT of other people. It was put there for testing and debugging and not to reduce performance. Let me now ask you this, What does seem more logical? That Windows have a "secret switch", that can make windows run faster (2x or 4x or 8x) and MS doesn't have it on by default but rather hides it to make windows slower? Or that the CPU option, is there for testing reasons?

...Granting that is true, again, why MS put that part in the msconfig if by default then it was maximise?!...
I answered that too but here goes one more. MSCONFIG is a troubleshooting utility, which means it's used when the PC has issues to help us locate and fix it. Don't take my word for it tho...



Keywords: Boot parameters and troubleshooting. Especially with older software or even older motherboards/CPUs, Limiting Cores and Memory size is among the troubleshooting techniques. So yes, it's by default to use all cores and you use the option to Limit the cores. The opposite doesn't make sense.

Have you tried troubleshooting using that part of the msconfig? If yes, what type of troubleshooting?
I can recall 2 cases but there were probably a few more. One was back at the Windows XP / 2k times with a dual CPU (Xeons). The Mobo drivers were buggy and by disabling the Cores at the OS level we would figure out it was booting with 1 CPU and not with 2. We updated the Mobo Drivers and the problem was fixed.

Second and more "fresh" we debugged a task scheduler issue on AMD Threadripper/EPYC CPUs and Windows 10 Pro/Ent/LTSC (was part of my job to validate/test bench) by limiting the Core Numbers. We saw that in older windows 10 1803 and before, the task scheduler would do an excessive amount of unnecessary task switching between OS and Applications on Core 0 whenever we had more than 32 cores/64 Threads (sometimes even above 16c/32t) and would slow down the CPU by about 20 to 50% depending on the task, as it had to keep flushing the caches and keep context switching excessively, something that MS fixed later in an update in 1809 and again in 1903. This behavior was not evident on Linux which showed us it was a windows problem and not a CPU problem.

To close this as there is nothing more to add (it looks like we are talking about the same things) tho I do respect other people's opinions you have to understand that when it comes to PC and numbers it's often not about opinions but about facts and proofs. It's not a matter of opinion how much is 1+1. It's always 2 no matter who is saying it.

I showed you a way to test it yourself on your PC but I believe you didn't even try it. So now is your turn. Do you have any proof that when NOT ticked, Windows limits itself to 1 core as you said on your post?
Mistakenly, we believe that Microsoft by default utilizes all cores of your processor after a successful installation of OS. But were not!
Here is my screenshot with 32 cores and the option NOT ticked. if you were right not me or ANYONE in this forum should see more than 1 core.



Again Victor I will repeat it once more, this is NOT against you so please don't take it personally. It only has to do with facts and truth and nothing more. If you need additional details you can always PM me and will be glad to talk in-depth about it.
 
Last edited:

The_Unforgiven

Registered User
Downloaded
63.9 GB
Uploaded
1.7 TB
Ratio
27.42
Seedbonus
18,409
I am building an 3800X system, my first AMD system, so I will try this out
But I am conflicted as I read what Brink said and I respect him very much, but I will still try it for myself
And when I get my old X99 system going again in the future, I shall try it on that as well; as I know that system like the back of my hand
 

Victor24

Young Guns===)>™
Verified Member
Downloaded
55.1 GB
Uploaded
1.5 TB
Ratio
27.98
Seedbonus
3,244
I am building an 3800X system, my first AMD system, so I will try this out
But I am conflicted as I read what Brink said and I respect him very much, but I will still try it for myself
And when I get my old X99 system going again in the future, I shall try it on that as well; as I know that system like the back of my hand
all things lies on our hand. don't let anyone decide for out fate. There's nothing wrong in trying. :D
for so long in working with OS , and hands on working with hardware. this all I've got..


The same unit survive a lot of cpu spike when creating/building Windows OS . No overclocking on this unit.
Not enabling the 4 cores, when cpu spikes occurs leave my windows black and need to be restarted. (though not at all time but it happen, contrary to ..)
Just try yourself by compressing install.wim to install.esd, every now and then, so you will have cpu spike and try finding out the difference. :D cpu spikes yet playing games while waiting to complete the process. That is how crazy I am, just for a test. :D
 
Last edited:

The_Unforgiven

Registered User
Downloaded
63.9 GB
Uploaded
1.7 TB
Ratio
27.42
Seedbonus
18,409
all things lies on our hand. don't let anyone decide for out fate. There's nothing wrong in trying. :D
for so long in working with OS , and hands on working with hardware. this all I've got..


The same unit survive a lot of cpu spike when creating/building Windows OS . No overclocking on this unit.
Not enabling the 4 cores, when cpu spikes occurs leave my windows black and need to be restarted. (though not at all time but it happen, contrary to ..)
Just try yourself by compressing install.wim to install.esd, every now and then, so you will have cpu spike and try finding out the difference. :D cpu spikes yet playing games while waiting to complete the process. That is how crazy I am, just for a test. :D
I grew up with Slade, and one of their songs is - Mama Weer All Crazee Now
Then I grew up and Prince told me to go - Let's Go Crazy
and I did :rock: have a good 1 :p
 
Loading...
Top