Why does my pc prefer even numbered cores? - windows

Question

My pc has a 10th gen Core i7 vPRO with virtualization enabled. 8 cores + 8 virtual cores. (i7-10875H, Comet Lake)
Each physical core is split into pairs, so Core 1 hosts virtual cores 0 & 1, core 2 hosts virtual cores 2 & 3. I've noticed that in task manager, the first item of each core pair seems to be the preferred core, judging by the higher usage. I do set some affinities manually for certain heavy programs but I always set these in groups of 4, either from 0-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-15, and never mismatch different logical processors.
I'm wondering why this behaviour happens - do the even numbered cores equate to physical cores, which could be slightly faster? If so, would I get slightly better clock speeds without virtualisation if I'm running programs that don't have a high thread count?

Answer 1

In general (for "scheduler theory"):
if you care about performance, spread the tasks across physical cores where possible. This prevents a "2 tasks run slower because they're sharing a physical core, while a whole physical core is idle" situation.
if you care about power consumption and not performance, make tasks use logical processors in the same physical core where possible. This may allow you to put entire core/s into a very power efficient "do nothing" state.
if you care about security (and not performance or power consumption), don't let unrelated tasks use logical processors in the same physical core at all (because information, like what kinds of instructions are currently being used, can be "leaked" from one logical processor to another logical process in the same physical core). Note that it would be fine for related tasks to use logical processes in the same physical core (e.g. 2 threads that belong to the same process that do trust each other, but not threads that belong to different processes that don't trust each other).
Of course a good OS would know the preference for each task (if each task cares about performance or power consumption or security), and would make intelligent decisions to handle a mixture of tasks with difference preferences. Sadly there are no good operating systems - most operating systems and APIs were designed in the 1990s or earlier (back when SMP was just starting and all CPUs were identical anyway) and lack the information about tasks that would be necessary to make intelligent decisions; so they assume performance is the only thing that matters for all tasks, leading to the "tasks spread across physical cores where possible, even when it's not ideal" behavior you're seeing.

Answer 2

My guess is that's due to hyperthreading.
Hyperthreading doesn't double CPU capacity (according to Intel, it adds ~30% on average), so it makes sense to spread the work among physical cores first, and use hyperthreading as a last resort when the overall CPU demand starts exceeding 50%.
Fun fact: a reported 50% overall CPU load on a hyperthreaded system is in fact a load of around ~70%, and the remaining 50% equate to the remaining ~30%.
If we query the OS to see how logical processors are assigned to cores1, we will see a situation like this:
Core 0: mask 0x3
Core 1: mask 0xc
Core 2: mask 0x30
Core 3: mask 0xc0
. . .
That means logical processors 0 and 1 are on core 0, 2 and 3 on core 1, etc.
You can disable hyperthreading in the BIOS. But since it adds performance, it's is a nice to have feature. Just need to be careful not to pin work such that it is competing for the same core.
1 To check core assignment I use a small C program below. The information might also be available via WMIC.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#undef _WIN32_WINNT
#define _WIN32_WINNT 0x601
#include <Windows.h>
int main() {
DWORD len = 65536;
char *buf = (char*)malloc(len);
if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationProcessorCore, (PSYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX)buf, &len)) {
return GetLastError();
}
union {
PSYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX info;
PBYTE infob;
};
info = (PSYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX)buf;
for (size_t i = 0, n = 0; n < len; i++, n += info->Size, infob += info->Size) {
switch (info->Relationship) {
case RelationProcessorCore:
printf("Core %zd:", i);
for (int j = 0; j < info->Processor.GroupCount; j++)
printf(" mask 0x%llx", info->Processor.GroupMask[j].Mask);
printf("\n");
break;
}
}
return 0;
}