Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Lowest possible latency

W

wedda

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 11, 2014
46
0
Hello guys,

I'm curious how you guys achieve the lowest possible latency.

I've tried throttlestop, putting on the fans at max so the gpu / cpu can run as smooth as possible.

- Deleted and stopped appleHFS, appleMN, keyAgent.sys,

- Disabled a lot of services in windows, switched to windows basic theme.

- Turned off a lot of devices in device manager including stuff in the hidden devices (microsoft acpi-compliant control method battery, mouse/keyboard, cam, network adapters, audio, non-plug and play drivers some here too)

If you look at my picture - is the latency for the CPU0 normal? It seems a bit higher than most other cores everytime I run the test?

This is my best result so far - have a look at the 3htest
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    637.1 KB · Views: 147
  • 3htest.txt
    10.5 KB · Views: 314
If anyone else run this test do you also get that CPU0 has the highest ms?
 
Any gains you make will only serve as a placebo effect. As far as games are concerned, a slow CPU will only equal out to one thing: dropped FPS. If it's spending too much time working on a single instruction, the longer it'll take to output that instruction, with the end result being a lower framerate.

BUT...

Since computers are capable of working on millions, if not billions of operations per second, and any game you're running will demand the priority of your CPU time, you really don't have anything to worry about. Especially not with an i7. Turning off all that stuff is nothing more than a pain in the butt with no real gain.

Think of it like this, if you're getting 60+ FPS in your game, you're good. Don't worry about it.
 
wedda said:
I feel like when I'm gaming having a low latency will just make the gameplay more smooth, so it's basically the only reason.. :)
Click to expand...

You are worrying about something you can't do anything about. There's 4 cores and 8 threads to spread the load, plus a dedicated GPU.

CPU0 is most likely dealing with the background system gubbins for Windows.

If you want a Windows gaming laptop then you should have bought one. The rMBP will play games just fine, but it's not intended primarily as that.
 
MagicBoy said:
You are worrying about something you can't do anything about. There's 4 cores and 8 threads to spread the load, plus a dedicated GPU.

CPU0 is most likely dealing with the background system gubbins for Windows.

If you want a Windows gaming laptop then you should have bought one. The rMBP will play games just fine, but it's not intended primarily as that.
Click to expand...


I still think the rMBP work for gaming very well! :) At least after I've tweaked it the way I did.. I can get a steady 150+ fps.. Sometimes even stable at 200+... It's just about setting it up properly
 
MagicBoy said:
150fps running what - Quake III?

You do realise the LCD is 60Hz only? Anything over 60fps is pretty much an utter waste.
Click to expand...
I play CS GO. Of course I know its a waste, but gaming at 60fps and gaming at 150 is a big difference.. I set the fps_max at 999 and it runs fine
 
As you wish. I've heard similar a few times over the years. Personally I've never been able to detect any difference in gameplay between 60fps and 100fps+ on a 60Hz display.
 
The biggest performance difference for you PC in general is adding a ssd if you do not have one and having the right amount of RAM. Windows will swap memory between your hdd and Ram. If you have a regular hdd that operation is the slowest part of the hardware causing the os to wait the longest.

I have had friends with 32 gb of ram turn off his swap file. This can cause you to blue screen if you open a really large file. However, video editing is about the situation were that would apply.
 
wedda said:
Throttlestop won't do this I assume.. I tried it but don't really see any performance increase.. =)
Click to expand...


What is the load distribution on your cores now?

It may be that you have got another bottleneck rather than the CPU. Things to consider are e.g. the number of clock cycles of your memory, how many channels your memory has to the CPU cores, does your data gets swapped out to the drive, etc etc. It may be that the GPU is not powerfull enough, especially when you start running multiple high resolution screens. Lots of items to investigate.
 
MacMini-Windows said:
What is the load distribution on your cores now?

It may be that you have got another bottleneck rather than the CPU. Things to consider are e.g. the number of clock cycles of your memory, how many channels your memory has to the CPU cores, does your data gets swapped out to the drive, etc etc. It may be that the GPU is not powerfull enough, especially when you start running multiple high resolution screens. Lots of items to investigate.
Click to expand...

ProcessLasso told me 20 % avg cpu load while I'm gaming.. And I know for a fact my CPU is powerful enough, I can even disable turbo and it will be just fine. It's the GPU, it's 926 core and 2568 memory while its running.. If I tune it up by 135 core and 500 memory I'll get some more fps.. I haven't tweaked the standard 1600mhz ddr3 memory but I believe they are just fine too. :)

I'm just curious about other peoples Latency and what tweaks they've made for a better gaming experience. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back