Thinkpads Forum

Are you sure hyperthreading is useless to benefits? You did a benchmark with and without? Certainly when active warms more the processor. I've opened the holes at the side of thermal pad , i'll test results this evening, but now the keyboard remains colder than before

Well, in general, I can certainly attest to the fact that hyperthreading is not useless. You will never get a 100% performance increase, of course, but some improvement will generally be present.

HyperThreading will increase DPC Latency quite a bit, it might provide minor improvements in some apps, but not in games.

FL Studio is one of those multithreaded CPU killer apps that should benefit from HT right? nope the greatly increased DPC Latency causes pops and clicks in the sound with less load on the CPU, compared to without HT.
If you do any realtime audio/video rendering, disable HT.

As for games, you get no improvement:

http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hyper ... g-in-games

http://vr-zone.com/articles/does-core-i ... l?doc=6160

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2 ... -review/10

Synthetic benchmarks, virus scanners, file converters and file compression apps get a improvmenet, it's probably nice for servers too.

Edit: As for DPC Latecny, with HT, latency tends to be in the 170-300us range, if I disable it, it tends to be in the 150-250us range.
Last time I did this test, HT enable gave me like 400-500us, while disabling it gave me results similar to having it disabled well now.

My guess is that nVidia improved their drivers, more testing needed, how high do the DPC spikes go with HT enabled, those are what really matter.

DPC spikes are similar on my system, with HT on or off, around 750us.

It seems a complicated matter, it's probably best to test and make up your own mind:
http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/t ... rformance/

In FL Studio HT still decreases performance, not much though, but I have a project that just exactly runs my CPU with coreparking and HT disabled, with the two enabled, the project struggles to play.

Edit: HT enabled, coreparking disabled, seems to be an interesting combination, I'll try it.

Edit2: I can't seem to make that happen, the logical cores remain parked.

Edit3: I don't think windows is telling me the truth about which cores are parked or not, FL Studio performs poorly in this config.

Edit4: yeah I'm not sure which settings to use, test it for your self.

This app is handy for handling your core parking settings:
http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php

If you used this app prior to the one above:
http://www.coderbag.com/Programming-C/D ... ng-Utility

Be sure to set all cores as "parked" before using the other one.

Edit: Ok so this works now, I can disable core parking for all physical and logical cores, FL Studio doesn't seem to perform any different with HT enabled, coreparking disabled, vs. HT disabled coreparking disabled.
I can integrate coreparking settings in my windows power plans so I can enabled and disable it on the fly.

Alright, my careful recommendation would be to either have HT enabled and coreparking disabled, or have HT disabled and coreparking enabled.
In other words, HT and coreparking doesn't seem to get along well.

Edit: HT does increase the average DPC latency, but the maximum values remain mostly the same as with HT off, so if your DPC latency is already low, you may be able to enable HT will no ill effects.

I have another minor detail, the HD+ display in W510's is able to handle a refresh rate of 130Hz, so if you like more smooth animations at NATIVE resolution, then go ahead.
At non native resolutions, the display doesn't know what to do if you increase the refresh rate by even a single Hz.

perhaps we arrived.
I had to create dissipating sandwich: I unplugged copper foil from the bottom case of a T4X I have filled with the thermal pads in contact with the keyboard and I closed.

http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad28 ... g~original

as I wrote before I left some gaping holes on the sides of the thermal pads that I glued to the keyboard, so I created an active heatsinkfrom keyboard base.


excellent result

http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad28 ... g~original
after an hour of testing with the fan to the max I tried to close tpfancontrol, temperatures have risen but nothing excessive.

http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad28 ... g~original

I then rebooted, enabled hyperthreading and did another test with tpfc closed.
http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad28 ... g~original
ambient temperature 19C

I'm interested about the screen refresh, I have to use some app like powerstrip to set it or you can do it from windows?my screen is 1920x1080 bye.

edit: i've tried from nvidia driver but over 75 don't work very well

I used the nVidia driver setting for changing refresh rate, if I go higher then 130Hz I get artifacts.

My system seems to run 1-2C hotter with HT enabled, vs. disabled.

What's the point in raising the screen refresh rate beyond the stock 60HZ?

Higher refreshrate = higher potential fps shown on the screen = smoother animations, if the video card outputs more then 60fps.

There is of cause a limit beyond witch you can't see (or feel in case you are playing games) the difference anymore, for me that is around 100Hz.

Adda wrote:Higher refreshrate = higher potential fps shown on the screen = smoother animations, if the video card outputs more then 60fps.

There is of cause a limit beyond witch you can't see (or feel in case you are playing games) the difference anymore, for me that is around 100Hz.

100% true, games are moore smootly now, even at 77 hz, thanks.

for me the work is finished, i've played two hours and the gpu temp was around 50C

Most entry-level LCDs are limited to 60Hz anyways, so you get zero advantage going beyond that point.

Some LCDs can do 75Hz, 120Hz and more. These are becoming more common, but do you have any information showing that the W510/W520 is capable of anything over 60Hz?

It doesn't matter what the specs say, what matters is what the LCD is capable of in the real world.
I can see the difference, and if I set a too high refresh rate I get artifacts, or even a black screen, so it works.

The fact that you see artifacts because you stressed the GPU too much says nothing about the ability of the LCD to actually render more than 60 frames per second.

The GPU can handle more then 150Hz, and does so without problems when using a CRT monitor.

Adda wrote:The GPU can handle more then 150Hz, and does so without problems when using a CRT monitor.

Which I presume you are running at 1920x1080, the native resolution of the W510?

As I said earlier, my W510 has the HD+ display...

Different monitors can runt a different resolutions, for CRT and other analogue monitors, the RAMDAC frequency sets the limit.
For digital monitors it's a matter of bandwidth, and apparently, the HD+ display in W510's has a rather large headroom, enabling it to do 1600x900@130Hz.
It doesn't surprise me that the FHD display doesn't go as high, it uses a more bandwidth per image, due to the higher resolution.

The reason we can't use higher refresh rates at lower resolutions, is that the display needs to know how do display each non native resolution, and it only has profiles for certain resolutions at 50 or 60Hz.

Edit: the RAMDAC sets the limit for what the GPU can do, the monitor is unlikely to go as high as the RAMDAC.

I would still like to see some evidence that the screen actually displays 130Hz and doesn't just get 130Hz and throw excess frames away. Unfortunately such experiments are not easy to set up.

I have serious doubts that this is the case, though, as this has not been a documented capability of laptop displays, and I imagine it would be, if they actually could do it.

Then again, the whole area of LCD actual refresh rate abilities is generally poorly documented and poorly understood. But there have been some guides on how to "overclock" the panels, and force them to increase their refresh rate.

Perhaps the fact that the laptop LCDs use direct LVDS connectors instead of the traditional desktop digital video interfaces makes it easier to actually force higher clocks, I don't know...

None of my other ThinkPads can run at increased refresh rates, so I think it must have something to do with the display interface yes.
My guess is that the W510 uses DP or HDMI for the display, rather then something like DVI.

Anyway, the difference is clearly visible, I have set the refresh rate higher then I need to, 100Hz is fine, but why not 130Hz when I can.

Also there is a difference between frame rate, and refresh rate, the refresh rate is the frequency at witch the display updates it image, the frame rate is the number of frame the GPU renders every second.

Oh, got blue garble in an "m" there, so 130Hz seems too much after all, never had that problem at 100Hz though, I have been running at the refresh rate for days.

Edit: my T510 was a freebee with a smashed display, so I can't test it.

Adda wrote:None of my other ThinkPads can run at increased refresh rates

What happens when you try?

Adda wrote:Anyway, the difference is clearly visible

In what way?

Adda wrote:Also there is a difference between frame rate, and refresh rate, the refresh rate is the frequency at witch the display updates it image, the frame rate is the number of frame the GPU renders every second.

Precisely, and there is no point rendering more frames than the display will show.

dr_st wrote:What happens when you try?

Black screen.

dr_st wrote:In what way?

I see smoother movement, like when I move windows around with my 500Hz mouse, or the Aero theme animations.
Or if I play games at native resolution, that can run at more then 60fps.
If you don't want the display to show "unnecessary" frames, then you are out of luck, you can't go lower then 50Hz, about twice of what you need for video playback.

Hmm it seems I can run at very low refresh rates, I'm at 25Hz now, should be enough for a lot of video, it's terribly stuttery and there is a very noticeable delay, making it hard to use a mouse accurately.

dr_st wrote: Precisely, and there is no point rendering more frames than the display will show.

Witch is exactly why higher refresh rate is better.

Enable adaptive vsync, and the GPU will never show more frames then the display refresh rate, higher refresh rate = higher potential frame rate.

Enable normal vsync and the GPU will only output frame rates that match up with the display refresh rate (to prevent image tearing, especially at low refresh rate), 15, 30 or 60 fps for 60Hz or 25, 50 or 100 for 100Hz fx.
Again higher refresh rate = higher potential frame rate.

Disable vsync and the GPU will output as high frame rate as it can, but the refresh rate limits how many frames can actually be drawn on the screen.

Adda wrote:HyperThreading will increase DPC Latency quite a bit, it might provide minor improvements in some apps, but not in games.

FL Studio is one of those multithreaded CPU killer apps that should benefit from HT right? nope the greatly increased DPC Latency causes pops and clicks in the sound with less load on the CPU, compared to without HT.
If you do any realtime audio/video rendering, disable HT.

As for games, you get no improvement:

http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hyper ... g-in-games

http://vr-zone.com/articles/does-core-i ... l?doc=6160

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2 ... -review/10

Synthetic benchmarks, virus scanners, file converters and file compression apps get a improvmenet, it's probably nice for servers too.

Edit: As for DPC Latecny, with HT, latency tends to be in the 170-300us range, if I disable it, it tends to be in the 150-250us range.
Last time I did this test, HT enable gave me like 400-500us, while disabling it gave me results similar to having it disabled well now.

My guess is that nVidia improved their drivers, more testing needed, how high do the DPC spikes go with HT enabled, those are what really matter.

today I tried Mafia 2 without hyperthreading enabled, in certain situations it was not smooth, with hyperthreading active instead there are no problems.

I think it's better to activate it then, bye.

aldimeola81 wrote: today I tried Mafia 2 without hyperthreading enabled, in certain situations it was not smooth, with hyperthreading active instead there are no problems.

I think it's better to activate it then, bye.

Have you tried disabling both HT and core parking?

Adda wrote:

aldimeola81 wrote: today I tried Mafia 2 without hyperthreading enabled, in certain situations it was not smooth, with hyperthreading active instead there are no problems.

I think it's better to activate it then, bye.

Have you tried disabling both HT and core parking?

core parking is set to default

Try experimenting with the tool I link to below, it enables you to turn core parking on or off using windows power manager profiles, handy for testing and flexibility.

http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php

Adda wrote:Try experimenting with the tool I link to below, it enables you to turn core parking on or off using windows power manager profiles, handy for testing and flexibility.

http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php

better than before but still slowly than HT active

Just a minor update.

I have tested my HD+ display more, and concluded that it maxes out at 118Hz.
I loose most of the picture on the screen at 119 and 120Hz while running off battery.
Above 121Hz the GPU can't go in to max power save mode anymore, above 125Hz I sometimes get visual artifacts.

So 118Hz it is.

I also refitted the cooler once more.
A more manageable way to adjust the fit, is to remove all screws and brackets from the cooler.
Put toothpaste on the GPU and CPU, put the cooler on, push down on it lightly and remove it.
Did it make good contact?
If no, readjust the fit and try again.
When it fits, repaste with proper thermal compound and mount the cooler with all brackets and screws.

I evened out the temp differences between cores, but not by much, the fit was pretty good as it was.

Adda wrote:Just a minor update.

I have tested my HD+ display more, and concluded that it maxes out at 118Hz.
I loose most of the picture on the screen at 119 and 120Hz while running off battery.
Above 121Hz the GPU can't go in to max power save mode anymore, above 125Hz I sometimes get visual artifacts.

So 118Hz it is.

I also refitted the cooler once more.
A more manageable way to adjust the fit, is to remove all screws and brackets from the cooler.
Put toothpaste on the GPU and CPU, put the cooler on, push down on it lightly and remove it.
Did it make good contact?
If no, readjust the fit and try again.
When it fits, repaste with proper thermal compound and mount the cooler with all brackets and screws.


I evened out the temp differences between cores, but not by much, the fit was pretty good as it was.

great, I used the shoe polish black, long time ago on my T61P, great job.

in reality 'the thermal paste is a bad conductor, only serves to compensate for the minimal irregularities' surfaces, the contact between the heatsink and the chip is the key thing.

aldimeola81 wrote: great, I used the shoe polish black, long time ago on my T61P, great job.

in reality 'the thermal paste is a bad conductor, only serves to compensate for the minimal irregularities' surfaces, the contact between the heatsink and the chip is the key thing.

Shoe polish as thermal paste?

But yes, thermal paste tend to be a fairly poor conductor of heat, so a well fitted cooler is very important.

There definitely is a significant difference in thermal performance between toothpaste and thermal compound though.