Right on point.
2 Likes
Thanks for sharing kind sir :)
Once the efficient scheduler has been patched in I don't think it should be a problem anymore in most cases. As long as for instance a game has most of its workload that involves frequently sharing resources running inside four of the cores it will be able to run even a little bit faster than with a "flat" eight core setup. We know that four cores/eight threads are still enough for almost any game, and a game with tons of physics work or whatever could offload that to some of the spare cores.
This kind of 4x4 core setup has already been up on the major consoles for a while now, so it's not something unusual or unfamiliar to the game studios.
Let's just hope the updated scheduler gets it "right" the first time.
1 Like
huh, cool.
well shit
the temp sensors are 20C off on ryzen
K
https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/13/amd-ryzen-community-update?sf62109582=1
Thanks for that link Cavemanthe0ne.
Hmm, I see the following unexpected statement in there:
Based on our findings, AMD believes that the WindowsÂŽ 10 thread scheduler is operating properly for âZen,â and we do not presently believe there is an issue with the scheduler adversely utilizing the logical and physical configurations of the architecture.
That would mean there's in fact no scheduler update in tow. Not sure what to make of that since there's been so many indications of some kind of problem. Now I'm a bit worried...
couldnt it be that those 128bit fpu´s play some role in this?
I have a hunch that the new 'Gaming Mode' for Windows 10 that is coming this year might solve this solution. I've not looked into it much but it sounds like it sets processor affinity and priority for games so in theory could be configured to recognise 8C/16T Ryzen and lock the game to 4 Threads of the last 8.
Actually not unexpected at all. From the PCPer article:
In fact, though we are waiting for official comments we can attribute from AMD on the matter, I have been told from high knowledge individuals inside the company that even AMD does not believe the Windows 10 scheduler has anything at all to do with the problems they are investigating on gaming performance.
And the official comment was as expected. Nothing wrong with the win scheduler. Ryzen has compromises, that's about it. You can't magically fix the inter CCX latency problem, only work around it. And that is best done on an application level as the OS has no idea what kind of logic your app will use.
I don't think so. Games in particular don't use AVX2, no game to my knowledge does. Do please correct me if I'm wrong. Ryzen can do 256bit operations (AVX2) but gets a hefty perf impact as it needs two cycles to do one such operation. Effectively cutting the throughput in half compared to Haswell and later.
That sounds like a really bad idea, don't it? You waste a lot of your CPU resources. Also modern games like many cores, think DX12/Vulkan. Again, this isn't something you can solve on the OS level, it needs to be done on application level. Every game needs to optimize for Ryzen.
Best solution I've found so far is to lock core affinity on a per process basis to one CCX. I will post benchmarks next week once I have the time to do some thorough testing.
2 Likes
Are you using Processor Lasso for that?
Nope just plain Windows 10 Task Manager as of right now. It works.
Not really, gaming is just a side show distraction for me. The reason I loved the FX 8320 was that it gave me the ability to game whilst my machine did other useful tasks without either hindering the other if I set processor affinity correctly.
To me wasteful would be buying an R7 just for a gaming machine that does nothing else. I could see streamers making good use of them, but just for gaming? Nah I think the 4C/8T R3's will have that covered nicely. But each to there own :-)
1 Like
You're right I should have read their article right away instead of their video and getting bored by their being ill prepared to present their findings. If indeed the sheduler refrains from bouncing threads between the CCX'es when it doesn't have to, then I'm good. It's just that before this article with their one test on the subject, I've read several accounts claiming findings of the opposite. But at least I have a bit more hope now and am eager to get into getting my own Ryzen system up and running in a day or two.
I also plan to play around with Process Lasso a bit. After all most games still can't use more than 4c/8t and wouldn't necessarily lose much from being limited to such. Or if given access to five-six cores rather than eight, there just might be a chance to lower the amount of threads bouncing between the CCX'es at least a bit. It'll be fun testing at any rate and I'm already familiar with the software anyway.
AMDâs blog post illustrates the importance of not rushing to judgment when a brand new CPU debuts and throws some odd performance results. Forum dogpiles can be attractive, but that doesnât make them right.
1 Like
Posting data is always appreciated, can't have too much data :-)
Can I ask for frame time data? It is actually pretty easily done with AMD's OCAT. You can download it here:
It is only a GUI on top of PresentMon (which is open source). AMD has more or less promised to release the source for OCAT, but nothing so far. GamersNexus has a short article on it:
I have used it a bit, you can set it to record frame time data for a set time or set it to zero for toggling it on and off. You get csv files with data in your Documents\OCAT\, and there is a summary file with average frame times and 1% minimum. PresentMon ha updated recently to 1.0 though, I haven't tried that version yet.
2 Likes
The concern about this is in my Hanbrake testing. Using medium speed, quality of 23 and hevc encoding. I get it on par with my 5820k. The ryzen is clocked at 3.8ghz and the 5820k is at 4ghz. So I don't see the point of this new architecture change. It is double my 8320 clocked at 4.4ghz. If the windows scheduler is no longer a problem I don't know what can be done. A 8 core vs 6 core isn't winning right now. AMD was comparing the lineup to intels top dogs and the 5820k isn't top dog.
for an idea my 8370 at 5.2 Ghz does the same speed in Handbrake as my 1800X does at stock.
Also handbrake is weird it likes speed as much/more than cores @Argone
Looks promising will try this once I get to testing.
1 Like