Hi SilverAzide,
Thank you so much for your insights. I figured there may be a few edge cases where the math does not work, and I think you got it.
I think I am okay with the 99.9% solution case. It would take a huge amount of effort to close the gap on the last 0.1%.
In my opinion, that is not worth the effort at this time.
Also, my plan is to provide another CPU variant with E-core detection in it, and assuming the user has a 1 socket MB and has not done anything weird like disabling Hyperthreading. So the user would only pick the variant if they thought they had an E-core CPU and wanted to see them detailed out in the skin.
I'm not sure exactly what I will do yet, but wanted to make sure the math was sound first.
If there is a better or cleaner way to get the two numbers from Windows (Cores and Logical processors) than using the wmic command, I would like to check it out. If not, then what I have will be my 99.9% solution with caveats.
Thanks again for your time.
Thank you so much for your insights. I figured there may be a few edge cases where the math does not work, and I think you got it.
I think I am okay with the 99.9% solution case. It would take a huge amount of effort to close the gap on the last 0.1%.
In my opinion, that is not worth the effort at this time.
Also, my plan is to provide another CPU variant with E-core detection in it, and assuming the user has a 1 socket MB and has not done anything weird like disabling Hyperthreading. So the user would only pick the variant if they thought they had an E-core CPU and wanted to see them detailed out in the skin.
I'm not sure exactly what I will do yet, but wanted to make sure the math was sound first.
If there is a better or cleaner way to get the two numbers from Windows (Cores and Logical processors) than using the wmic command, I would like to check it out. If not, then what I have will be my 99.9% solution with caveats.
Thanks again for your time.
Statistics: Posted by TGonZo — Today, 2:20 am — Replies 2 — Views 42