That’s not true. Regular sysclk does pause and let boost mode do it’s things. I have tested this.
Incorrect, test again and check the timings carefully.
That’s not true. Regular sysclk does pause and let boost mode do it’s things. I have tested this.
I have, several times. You must be using an old version or something.Incorrect, test again and check the timings carefully.
I have, several times. You must be using an old version or something.
Incorrect, test again and check the timings carefully.
I have, several times. You must be using an old version or something.
A mystery! Curious what is in fact true Maybe someone who worked on sysclk might know what is going on
It's really not a mystery, it's already known that sys-clk custom profile values override boost mode but I'll go ahead and prove it anyway so people don't get bad information. The most likely explanation is that he tested a custom profile that only consisted of CPU OR GPU and misinterpreted the fact that sys-clk was only changing one of values as sys-clk working with boost mode. Both of the following examples were from a log produced from the latest version of sys-clk: 0.13.0
Here is an example of Link's Awakening with a CPU and GPU overclock of 1581MHz and 844MHz. First of all we see our custom profile applied, then we see boost mode: 1785/76.8, within a split second of boost mode starting sys-clk reapplies 1581/844. When boost mode ends 4 seconds later the default clock of 1020/768 is applied and again within a split second sys-clk reapplies our profile of 1581/844.
[2019-11-06 13:15:45.754] [mgr] TitleID change: 01006BB00C6F0000
[2019-11-06 13:15:45.788] [mgr] CPU clock set : 1581.0 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:15:45.804] [mgr] GPU clock set : 844.8 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:15:47.391] [mgr] CPU clock change: 1785.0 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:15:47.429] [mgr] GPU clock change: 76.8 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:15:47.464] [mgr] CPU clock set : 1581.0 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:15:47.500] [mgr] GPU clock set : 844.8 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:15:51.440] [mgr] CPU clock change: 1020.0 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:15:51.472] [mgr] GPU clock change: 768.0 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:15:51.492] [mgr] CPU clock set : 1581.0 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:15:51.516] [mgr] GPU clock set : 844.8 Mhz
Here is an example with only a GPU overclock of 844MHz, this is probably where he got confused. First of all we see our custom profile which is GPU only at 844MHz, then we see boost mode: 1785/76.8, within a split second sys-clk reapplies 844 GPU but the CPU is not changed because we don't have it in our profile. Boost mode ends 4 second later and the default clock of 1020/768 is applied and again within a split second sys-clk reapplies our profile of 844 GPU.
[2019-11-06 13:18:20.365] [mgr] TitleID change: 01006BB00C6F0000
[2019-11-06 13:18:20.397] [mgr] GPU clock set : 844.8 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:18:22.334] [mgr] CPU clock change: 1785.0 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:18:22.370] [mgr] GPU clock change: 76.8 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:18:22.404] [mgr] GPU clock set : 844.8 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:18:26.276] [mgr] CPU clock change: 1020.0 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:18:26.336] [mgr] GPU clock change: 768.0 Mhz
[2019-11-06 13:18:26.425] [mgr] GPU clock set : 844.8 Mhz
yes, forest areas are better nowDid anyone try with Pokemon already? Do you notice any improvements?
When I started, my battery was at 100%. 9 hours later, my battery was down to 87%. Is this normal behavior? I'm worried that I'm straining my battery or system pretty hard that it can't even grab enough power.
Wow yea, sys-clk never had any special treatment for boost mode, for the simple reason I never deemed worth to break the underclock use case (since then you UP the CPU if boost mode).
The short period of time boost mode is active makes it next to pointless, because of how close you usually are to the actual boost mode cpu freq (if you have OC profiles like all you mad lads do). Even if, let's say you only increased to 1224Mhz, with the sys-clk loop polling and the time where it's actually applied, it would appear to be a far fetched hacked-in treatment with low rewards.
Yup, I get the logic that you're trying to explain after, but you're still breaking it in a sense that you're setting something different from the user profile, where it's supposed to apply what you requested.Are you really breaking underclock?
May or may not, I don't have numbers either, I'd even argue for theories sake that an underclock use-case would be on games with no intense loading times anyway, making the whole underclock case non-existant. My most used underclocked game is Picross, it never had any boost mode to begin with.I'd argue that minimum GPU and a shortened loading time may not have much of a different power draw to a longer loading period with a potentially higher GPU clock.
It would be close to trying to put it in percentage just so that it makes "big numbers", correct? I would not agree with you in that case. "deeming worth" the "spaghetti code" handling would take numbers noticeable by users on typical uses cases. (The "spaghetti" term might be more extreme than the actual situation, it's just about picturing the costs vs reward, because I prioritized having dumb straight logic on this sysmodule up until now). I want to stress that from my POV, it comes down as just a matter of taste/opinion.you should be thinking of this as a percentage total gain across all games, even 5% would save the user a lot of loading time after a certain amount of time.
It would probably strenghten your points if you did, most of my responses are me saying there are no metrics, remember that as i said sys-clk doesn't immediately readjusts or apply profiles on charger type changes, or when apm profiles are requested, that's what i meant by "with the sys-clk loop polling and the time where it's actually applied", so it may be smth to take into consideration too.I haven't recorded any metrics as to how much time that translates to in real world but that could easily be tested
Simple paperwork, if you wanted answers you would ask them on this thread as you did. I may have missed your message, or assumed it was for the other thread OP. I also don't log in here daily, so I often get back with people answering on my behalf.I asked you why you made that statement and didn't receive a reply so I'm curious to know why you say that unless it's simply for the reasons you gave above?