• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 527 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hans de Vries said:
It's using a new benchmark version from September 9th that increased the number of used cores from 8 to 16.
("Cores simultaneously interacting with the GPU")

https://twitter.com/x/status/1440077316848173059
Click to expand...

So did I.

EDIT: I own the game and have the latest version installed (I'm one of the few that actually plays it lol) and I benchmarked it before I posted that.

Initially I thought "Oh no, it must be Golden Cove + PL2 that turned in these scores" (or overclocking), but with NVIDIA drivers being known to have considerable CPU utilization, I'm wondering if THAT workload got pushed off to the Gracemont cores, which allowed the the game to run on the Golden Cove cores without competing with the GPU drivers and background threads for CPU time. If THAT is the situation that plays out, and it plays out across several workloads, AMD is going to be in trouble when it comes to an AMD + NVIDIA system for gaming.

I guess we'll find out.
 
Last edited:
Hans de Vries said:
This only make sense for the 12900K. Money talks...
Click to expand...
He's baaaack! Cringe post, mate. I think only you, the 5900x and 5950x are not too enthused about software of any kind getting an update to take advantage of more threads now that Intel is wielding 16 'fake' cores on the desktop. Wait. I think you're alone in this rabbit hole.

In the near past we, as a collective on this forum, lamented the proverbial hardware/software chicken and egg situation. God forbid that a developer goes to lengths to make their software more performant at the same time Intel gets ready to launch a more competitive processor! God forbid that such an update benefits AMD processors as well.
You're really reaching with the conspiracy theories, and outlandish claims, mate.
 
I really have to laugh at these two thinking AotS devs of all people are paid off by Intel.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1440112739880472576
Same versions, High_1440p preset, 12900K still 25-40% ahead depending batch levels.

3.0 vs 3.10, margin of error difference in CPU performance for a 5950X by doubling threads
3.0 https://www.ashesofthesingularity.c...k-result/cd5b5ea3-730c-44df-a6ca-0aa72a9528cb
3.0 https://www.ashesofthesingularity.c...k-result/0a39658e-f1ce-430a-9e96-a2e5bcc3ee82
3.10 https://www.ashesofthesingularity.c...k-result/bd4db007-d0f4-4be2-9584-f17e709f3a03

AotS has no scaling past 8 threads, which is the expected behavior as synchronization and driver overhead dominates CPU time as threads increase:
semiaccurate.com

Investigating DirectX 12 CPU Scaling

CPU core count does matter for gaming. It’s particularly important in DirectX 12 games as our testing in this article shows.
semiaccurate.com semiaccurate.com

Therefore a more plausible crackpot theory is that AMD paid AotS devs to uselessly double GPU threads to sow confusion. 😉

A reasonable person would say that AotS benchmark is extremely branchy and has an unusually high dependency on memory performance and so should not be taken too seriously as a pre-release release leak.
A less reasonable person comes to the forums and posts conspiracy theories that can be sanity checked by looking at a few benchmarks.
Strive to the be former.
 
I am not sure if AoTs is relevant for real world game performance at all ? IF there are plenty of threads communicating between each other ( locks guarding updates to same structures from multiple threads, submitting rendering work to DX framework, that in turn deals with multithreaded drivers etc ), you are bound to hit into ZEN architecture limitations due to CCX size.


vs


Kinda obviuos that if the number of threads is > 16, average comm speed on ZEN3 will slow down. It can happen sooner with not optimal scheduling, for example if physical cores are loaded before HT threads that share same L3 cache domain. Consistency on 5950x could be hilariuosly bad too, due to random factors like NV drivers getting scheduled on wrong core complex or esp bad arrangement of critical threads between CCXes. In fact from my MT programming practice, it could be down to just two busy threads, that have bad case of false cache line sharing between them, getting scheduled on different CCXes sometimes and ping pong of cache line owner ship impacting performance some 15% or so.*


The real question is how relevant is this sort of scenario now that AMD is up to a chunk of 8C? Hard to imagine any of current games needing more than 8C of ZEN3.

So in my opinion what AoTS is after this update, is providing insight into hypothetical future limitation that we are already aware from AT testing.


* extra point of fun debugging it when it happens across sockets on MP system.
 
jj109 said:
You're assuming throwing more cores at driver submission threads always increases performance. We already see that 16T barely increases performance over 8T. 24 threads trying to queue could very well decrease performance relative to 16T or even 8T.
Click to expand...

This word salad did not answer the question.

Why not 12C/24T or 16C/32T?
 
DrMrLordX said:
Gee, they coulda made their software more performant back in 2019. I've had 24 threads since then. Lots of us have.
Click to expand...
By waving a magic wand, you reckon? This exactly the scenario enthusiasts wanted to see; Intel and AMD release the hardware, and the software plays catch up. I suppose no one dropped the memo on how long it was gonna take. All this over one benchmark. I think a lot of y'alls prediction about Intel hardware is about to be trashed so we're back to accusations of rigging.
 
DrMrLordX said:
Gee, they coulda made their software more performant back in 2019. I've had 24 threads since then. Lots of us have.
Click to expand...

I think the way they word what those "threads" do, it hurts ZEN3 to go above 16 threads. I hope some redditor or twitteror will test Ashes with game pinned to cores from one CCX to see how/if that impacts the scores on 5950x.
 
jj109 said:
You're assuming throwing more cores at driver submission threads always increases performance.
Click to expand...
Nobody is assuming anything here (except that you assume I do). This thread is actually already filled with remarks that the AotS benchmark is barely useful for anything. Doesn't change the fact that raising the amount of cores to 16 and threads to 24 at the same time is completely arbitrary and off-balance if it weren't for Intel's upcoming gen which "incidentally" perfectly matches that configuration.
 
No sane person should try to argue away a lead this large. ADL will be much better than RKL. About time too, I'd say.

That being said, the sudden utilization of 16C/24T of all reasonably possible combinations is nothing short of hilarious 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top