Fundamental Windows 10 Issues: Priority and Focus

In a normal scenario the expected running of software on a computer is that all cores are equal, such that any thread can go anywhere and expect the same performance. As we’ve already discussed, the new Alder Lake design of performance cores and efficiency cores means that not everything is equal, and the system has to know where to put what workload for maximum effect.

To this end, Intel created Thread Director, which acts as the ultimate information depot for what is happening on the CPU. It knows what threads are where, what each of the cores can do, how compute heavy or memory heavy each thread is, and where all the thermal hot spots and voltages mix in. With that information, it sends data to the operating system about how the threads are operating, with suggestions of actions to perform, or which threads can be promoted/demoted in the event of something new coming in. The operating system scheduler is then the ring master, combining the Thread Director information with the information it has about the user – what software is in the foreground, what threads are tagged as low priority, and then it’s the operating system that actually orchestrates the whole process.

Intel has said that Windows 11 does all of this. The only thing Windows 10 doesn’t have is insight into the efficiency of the cores on the CPU. It assumes the efficiency is equal, but the performance differs – so instead of ‘performance vs efficiency’ cores, Windows 10 sees it more as ‘high performance vs low performance’. Intel says the net result of this will be seen only in run-to-run variation: there’s more of a chance of a thread spending some time on the low performance cores before being moved to high performance, and so anyone benchmarking multiple runs will see more variation on Windows 10 than Windows 11. But ultimately, the peak performance should be identical.

However, there are a couple of flaws.

At Intel’s Innovation event last week, we learned that the operating system will de-emphasise any workload that is not in user focus. For an office workload, or a mobile workload, this makes sense – if you’re in Excel, for example, you want Excel to be on the performance cores and those 60 chrome tabs you have open are all considered background tasks for the efficiency cores. The same with email, Netflix, or video games – what you are using there and then matters most, and everything else doesn’t really need the CPU.

However, this breaks down when it comes to more professional workflows. Intel gave an example of a content creator, exporting a video, and while that was processing going to edit some images. This puts the video export on the efficiency cores, while the image editor gets the performance cores. In my experience, the limiting factor in that scenario is the video export, not the image editor – what should take a unit of time on the P-cores now suddenly takes 2-3x on the E-cores while I’m doing something else. This extends to anyone who multi-tasks during a heavy workload, such as programmers waiting for the latest compile. Under this philosophy, the user would have to keep the important window in focus at all times. Beyond this, any software that spawns heavy compute threads in the background, without the potential for focus, would also be placed on the E-cores.

Personally, I think this is a crazy way to do things, especially on a desktop. Intel tells me there are three ways to stop this behaviour:

  1. Running dual monitors stops it
  2. Changing Windows Power Plan from Balanced to High Performance stops it
  3. There’s an option in the BIOS that, when enabled, means the Scroll Lock can be used to disable/park the E-cores, meaning nothing will be scheduled on them when the Scroll Lock is active.

(For those that are interested in Alder Lake confusing some DRM packages like Denuvo, #3 can also be used in that instance to play older games.)

For users that only have one window open at a time, or aren’t relying on any serious all-core time-critical workload, it won’t really affect them. But for anyone else, it’s a bit of a problem. But the problems don’t stop there, at least for Windows 10.

Knowing my luck by the time this review goes out it might be fixed, but:

Windows 10 also uses the threads in-OS priority as a guide for core scheduling. For any users that have played around with the task manager, there is an option to give a program a priority: Realtime, High, Above Normal, Normal, Below Normal, or Idle. The default is Normal. Behind the scenes this is actually a number from 0 to 31, where Normal is 8.

Some software will naturally give itself a lower priority, usually a 7 (below normal), as an indication to the operating system of either ‘I’m not important’ or ‘I’m a heavy workload and I want the user to still have a responsive system’. This second reason is an issue on Windows 10, as with Alder Lake it will schedule the workload on the E-cores. So even if it is a heavy workload, moving to the E-cores will slow it down, compared to simply being across all cores but at a lower priority. This is regardless of whether the program is in focus or not.

Of the normal benchmarks we run, this issue flared up mainly with the rendering tasks like CineBench, Corona, POV-Ray, but also happened with yCruncher and Keyshot (a visualization tool). In speaking to others, it appears that sometimes Chrome has a similar issue. The only way to fix these programs was to go into task manager and either (a) change the thread priority to Normal or higher, or (b) change the thread affinity to only P-cores. Software such as Project Lasso can be used to make sure that every time these programs are loaded, the priority is bumped up to normal.

Intel Disabled AVX-512, but Not Really Power: P-Core vs E-Core, Win10 vs Win11
Comments Locked

474 Comments

View All Comments

  • michael2k - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    One is a bellwether for the other.

    Mobile parts will have cores and clocks slashed to hit mobile power levels; 7W-45W with 2p2e - 6p8e

    However, given that a single P core in the desktop variant can burn 78W in POV Ray, and they want 6 of them in a mobile part under 45W, that means a lot of restrictions apply.

    Even 8 E cores, per this review, clock in at 48W!

    That suggests a 6p8e part can't be anywhere near the desktop part's 5.2GHz/3.9GHz Turbo clocks. If there is a linear power-clock relationship (no change in voltage) then 8 E cores at 3GHz will be the norm. 6 P cores on POV-Ray burn 197W, then to hit 45W would mean throttling all 6 cores to 1.2GHz

    https://hothardware.com/news/intel-alder-lake-p-mo...
  • siuol11 - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    Except that we know that the power-clock ratio is not linear and never has been. You can drop a few hundred MHz off of any Intel chip for the past 5 generations and get a much better performance per watt ratio. This is why mobile chips don't lose a lot of MHz compared to desktop chips.
  • michael2k - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    We already know their existing Ice Lake 10nm 4C mobile parts are capped at 1.2GHz to hit 10W:
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/15657/intels-new-si...

    A 6p8e part might not clock that low, but I'm certain that they will have to for the theoretical 7W parts.

    Here's a better 10nm data point showing off their 15W-28W designs:
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/14664/testing-intel...

    4C 2.3GHz 28W TDP

    Suggests that a 4pNe part might be similar while the 6p8e part would probably be a 2.3GHz part that could turbo up to a single core to 4GHz or all cores to 3.6GHz
  • TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    Yes, once it gets in the way of performance, and intel's horrible efficiency means you need high end water cooling to keep it running, whereas AMD does not. Intel's inneficiency is going to be an issue for those who like air cooling, which is a lot of the market.
  • Wrs - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    Trouble is I'm not seeing "horrible efficiency" in these benchmarks. The 12900k is merely pushed far up the curve in some of these benches - if the Zen3 parts could be pushed that far up, efficiency would likewise drop quite a bit faster than performance goes up. Some people already do that. PBO on the 5900x does up to about 220W (varies on the cooler).
  • jerrylzy - Friday, November 5, 2021 - link

    PBO is garbage. You can restrict EDC to 140A, let loose other restrictions and achieve a better performance than setting EDC to 220A.
  • Spunjji - Friday, November 5, 2021 - link

    "if the Zen3 parts could be pushed that far up"
    But you wouldn't, because you'd get barely any more performance for increased power draw. This is a decision Intel made for the default shipping configuration and it needs to be acknowledged as such.
  • Wrs - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    As a typical purchaser of K chips the default shipping configuration holds rather little weight. A single BIOS switch (PBO on AMD, MTP on Intel), or one slight change to Windows power settings, is pretty much all the efficiency difference between 5950x and 12900k. It pains me every time I see a reviewer or reader fail to realize that. The chips trade blows on the various benches because they're so similar in efficiency, yet each by their design has strong advantages in certain commonplace scenarios.
  • Spunjji - Friday, November 5, 2021 - link

    If the competition are able to offer similar performance and you don't have to shell out the cash and space for a 360mm AIO to get it, that's a relevant advantage. If those things don't bother you then it's fine, though - but we're in a situation where AMD's best is much more power efficient than Intel's at full load, albeit Intel appears to reverse that at lower loads.
  • geoxile - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    Clock/power scales geometrically. The 5900HS retains ~85% of the 5800X's performance while using 35-40W stable power vs 110-120W for the 5800X. That's almost 3x more efficient. Intel is clocking desktop ADL to the moon, it doesn't mean ADL is going to scale down poorly, if anything I expect it to scale down very well since the E-cores are very performant while using a fraction of the power and according to Intel can operate at lower voltages than the P-cores can, so they can scale down even lower than big cores like ADL P-cores and zen 3. ADL mobile should be way more interesting than ADL desktop.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now