Does the 7950X3D perform better in AVX-512? Do AVX-512 workloads benefit greatly from V-cache? I don't think anyone has investigated that much. Best I can do is this:
Maybe the DC folks are missing out on even better performance at much lower power consumption and heat output?
The AVX-512 workloads in distributed computing require less than 32 MB level 3 cache. (Actually, I haven't checked the recently introduced AVX-512 version of Asteroids@Home's application yet. However, its AVX-2 variant is not looking like a heavy user of the vector units to begin with. Plus I also never had the impression that it was memory-bound even if all SMT threads were loaded on AMD and Intel CPUs. The power meters of my computers would give away hints of such application behavior.)
Several of us who do have 5900x, 5950x, 7900x, 7950x and so on already operate them with reduced package power tracking limit, to greatly increase power efficiency versus stock.
How about monitoring two systems, one with 7950X and other with 7950X3D, to see which one completes more work units in a given timeframe? Like in a month?
In practice, the intermittent nature of Rosetta@home's work availability may make this too imprecise even if tracked for a long time frame like a month or so. There are periods during which the reception of work to a specific host is luck of the draw. One host might grab a bunch while another may only get few or miss out entirely, for days to weeks. Second, it is more complicated than just counting completed workunits in case of Rosetta@home. Their workunits have a fixed user-configurable duration, within which several simulation runs with changing randomized starting values are performed. One would have to count the number of these simulations-within-the-simulation. But different workunit batches are not comparable at all; some get just a couple of these internal simulations done within one round, others do hundreds.
Also, maybe (or maybe not) WCG's African Rainfall project could benefit. It is similar in nature to ClimatePrediction.net's applications, and I would hope that it is optimized similarly to these.
On second thought, it probably doesn't make sense to cache the data which are transferred to and from the GPU. Except for pre- and post-processing by the CPU, but then, normal sized caches should suffice because the CPU ideally does not have to perform multiple passes over the data with interdependency between all the data; that's what the GPGPU part of the application is for.
Package power tracking should get the same results as with 9554. A difference between 9654 and 9554 however is that the latter runs into the f_max cap earlier, due to obviously higher power budget per core. And the rest of the power consumption which happens outside the package is the same for all 9004 series EPYCs, naturally, depending on mainboard make, memory population, etc pp.
I am still doubting that Process Lasso, at least with the configs which I have seen posted, aligns tasks with caches as much as desired.
@emoga, this cooler is similar to the one in the HP Z6 G5 A (Threadripper Pro workstation), except that I suspect that the fans in the HP workstation can go higher than 2200 RPM (M99 spec). And the number of heatpipes in HP's cooler isn't known. Anyway, look around for reviews of the HP workstation to get an impression if this style of cooler, or a 4U air cooler in general, would work for you.
For DCing, if possible I always try to optimize the cpu or gpu voltage (set lower than default curve) for less heat output and better computational efficiency in terms of PPD (points per day) per watt. The most dominant factor affecting the power consumption/heat output is obviously the cpu and gpu core voltage. I generally try to google for information if someone had already mapped out, say the 7950x clock versus voltage curve and use this as a starting guide to optimize the cpu clock-voltage for a particular DC project for my own system. I never had any great success with ryzen master (ECO mode or with CO offset) so I go into the bios and adjust the clock and voltage directly. Once you get a baseline, it is easy to optimize your system for other projects.
Now thats odd... My QS 9554's run 3.5 ghz, all 4 of them ! Faster than retail. same motherboard, stock bios, no changes. one using linux, the other 3 using windows 10.
The non-avx workloads are easier to undervolt with a fixed cpu core voltage. With avx workload, I've to add additional voltage for stability. I just use a simple formula to estimate how much voltage I need to add to the cpu. For e.g. if the avx workload increases the cpu temp by 20°C over a "typical" cpu temp when running non-avx workload, I just add about 40mV to compensate for the cpu voltage drop due to heating (assuming typical temperature coefficient of a silicon is about -2mV/°C, add at least 2mV/°C * 20°C = 40mV). My 7950x is air-cooled with Noctua nh-u9s (smallest desktop noctua cpu heatsink cooler, I think). I don't run at default curve or overclock, so a single 92mm fan is sufficient for my use case.
The clock speed of my EPYC, like all (production) EPYCs, depends on the workload.
Same but at 400 W PPT limit: 415 W at the wall, min/avg/max core clocks =
