• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 180 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
Problems caused by Ryzen design and the only real way to fix it is to only use half the cpu for a gaming process and its subprocess. Or you trully belived that bs that devs need to baby sit threads? Look at that F1 2016 fail because is using that obsolete design.
You are misunderstanding the situation. F1 was identifying it as 16 cores not 8 cores, that's all.
In some reviews, it was likely identified as a quad ( and so were the Intels with more cores) but few tested F1 anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatMerc

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,898
1,524
136
Yes people have been reporting more fluid, smoother game play on Ryzen all along. Which makes it more curious than ever that sites like PCPer, the champions of smooth game play, refuse to investigate.
It might perfectly be netcode or some bugs at play. But its fun.
 

TimCh

Member
Apr 7, 2012
52
45
91
Problems caused by Ryzen design and the only real way to fix it is to only use half the cpu for a gaming process and its subprocess. Or you trully belived that bs that devs need to baby sit threads? Look at that F1 2016 fail because is using that obsolete design.
You completely misunderstood the F1 2016 issue. The issue is that F1 2016 is that when it is is installed it saves the CPU topology in the settings, the settings is backed up in steam and if you reinstall on a new system the settings will downloaded again with the topology for the old CPU.

A second issue is that on a fresh install on Ryzen, one core with SMT is detected as two cores (most likely because prior AMD CPUs did not have SMT), on Intel CPUs 1 core with SMT is detected as one core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

innociv

Member
Jun 7, 2011
54
20
76
She acknowledged there were games that are not playing well on Ryzen and that there are developers committed to resolve what they can with updates in the future. That was blaming developers? She simply stated there are games that aren't optimized for the new CPU. What's wrong with saying that?
What's wrong with it is the vast majority of games (talking close to 100%, not simply over 50%), don't do their own User Mode Scheduling.
Expecting these tens of thousands of games to suddenly get patched to implement that, many of which are made on an old engine they didn't make, is freaking absurd. Games tend to have uneven thread loads so they let the more omnipotent OS scheduler put threads where it thinks they should go instead... and assume they all share the same L3 cache.

This is a problem in the Windows 10 scheduler. It should prioritize putting software threads of the same application on a hardware thread that is shared with the program that is spawning it when possible, unless otherwise instructed to assign it elsewhere.

Windows is trying to aggressively to balance load among warm threads for power saving instead of trying to keep the threads of a program under the same L3. This is a "bug" in my eyes.

There are ways to further improve performance by having groups of threads utilizing each L3 cache, yes. These are the situations that go beyond what can be expected from an OS scheduler. But that is meaningless for 99%+ of current games. THAT is the case where you'd expect a game to use User Mode Scheduling, not simply to get the OS to keep all/most threads on one CCX!
 
Last edited:

ultima_trev

Member
Nov 4, 2015
148
66
66
computerbase.de revisits Ryzen gaming performance using Windows 10 with various power profiles and HPET On/Off versus Windows 7. Apparently with the High Performance profile enabled in Power Settings it bridges the gap with the 7700K:

http://imgur.com/a/TRaUM

Source: https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/ryz ... e-parking/

Hopefully this will put to rest the idea that Ryzen "sucks for gaming."
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
14,330
4,612
136
computerbase.de revisits Ryzen gaming performance using Windows 10 with various power profiles and HPET On/Off versus Windows 7. Apparently with the High Performance profile enabled in Power Settings it bridges the gap with the 7700K:

http://imgur.com/a/TRaUM

Source: https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/ryz ... e-parking/

Hopefully this will put to rest the idea that Ryzen "sucks for gaming."
That BF1 bench is quite telling. I am sure there is no "bug" in the windows 10 scheduler but i'd sure like to know why win7 pulls ahead some times
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
computerbase.de revisits Ryzen gaming performance using Windows 10 with various power profiles and HPET On/Off versus Windows 7. Apparently with the High Performance profile enabled in Power Settings it bridges the gap with the 7700K:
Is it bridging the gap when CB.de at launch day had gap at 5% in the first place? Add that 5% to every other review result and results will still be not pretty.
 

innociv

Member
Jun 7, 2011
54
20
76

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
Their 7700k results are oddly low for many games.
Yeah, their review of cores before Ryzen launch fired up the "Ryzen will totally be good at gaming, because more cores are now all the rage in gaming!" gear

That BF1 bench is quite telling. I am sure there is no "bug" in the windows 10 scheduler but i'd sure like to know why win7 pulls ahead some times
Looncraz's idea of nV driver simply acting up on Win10 is satisfying enough.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
Ryzen could boost DIY PC sales and that would help discrete GPU sales where Nvidia has a lot to gain.
If Ryzen sells, it's great for Nvidia even if they lose some share to AMD because some buyers would prefer to pair AMD CPU and GPU.
 

ultima_trev

Member
Nov 4, 2015
148
66
66
For the most part, it takes a Titan X Pascal or GTX 1080 Ti to really be bottlenecked by Ryzen at 1080P, any one with a GTX 1080 or GTX 1070 and does streaming/encoding would be very well off with Ryzen.

Is it bridging the gap when CB.de at launch day had gap at 5% in the first place? Add that 5% to every other review result and results will still be not pretty.
Add 5% to most reviews and that would put it on par with the 5960X, which certainly isn't a "bad" CPU by any means.
 
Last edited:

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
6,998
521
126
I am sure there is no "bug" in the windows 10 scheduler
The thing that could possibly improve certain area's is optimizing the scheduler for the ccx's. But the current scheduler is aware of core/smt on Ryzen already.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
The thing that could possibly improve certain area's is optimizing the scheduler for the ccx's. But the current scheduler is aware of core/smt on Ryzen already.
As F1 2016 and Ghost Recon Wildlands show us, some apps can make a bit of a mess on their own.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,110
786
136
You are misunderstanding the situation. F1 was identifying it as 16 cores not 8 cores, that's all.
In some reviews, it was likely identified as a quad ( and so were the Intels with more cores) but few tested F1 anyway.
No, i got it right, if the game needs to identify anything means its not using the new model of "just create threads and forget about them", creating threads and letting the O.S. scheduler do its job, thats the new and current model. If you do that its the same if is 4, 8, 16 or 128 cores, or if it runs on Window,s Linux, Android or console, your code should aways run right, as long you dont run intro main thread bottleneck. If you need to idenfity CPU then you are doing it the old way.

If you mean try to use the most important threads in the best possible way for the CPU, sure why not?
For every CPU out there + future cpus? on every platform you game will be running?! good luck!
Thats an outdated MT concept dating back from the C2Q days running Windows XP. Its not recomended to do that howdays.

There's a big difference between "developers fault" and optimizing for Ryzen. The basic scheduler is working but there are ways to take advantage of the Ryzen design specifically that future titles could see, or changes to current titles if the developer chooses to do so. And that's the line AMD has been saying all along, that there can be optimizations that can be performed, she's not blaming developers as if they did something wrong.
What she means "if the game doest run right, its the developer fault for not optimising for Ryzen", so every game that doest run right is the developer fault because is not optimised for it... its the developer, its not the CCX design. That what that means, and it seems to have worked right because ppl are blaming the software for performance problems with Ryzen.
I still wonder what AMD expect devs to optimise for... more and more threads may actually hurt Ryzen performance once you get out of what a single CCX can handle.
 

TimCh

Member
Apr 7, 2012
52
45
91
What's wrong with it is the vast majority of games (talking close to 100%, not simply over 50%), don't do their own User Mode Scheduling.
Expecting these tens of thousands of games to suddenly get patched to implement that, many of which are made on an old engine they didn't make, is freaking absurd. Games tend to have uneven thread loads so they let the more omnipotent OS scheduler put threads where it thinks they should go instead.

This is a problem in the Windows 10 scheduler. It should prioritize putting software threads of the same application on a hardware thread that is shared with the program that is spawning it when possible, unless otherwise instructed to assign it elsewhere.

Windows is trying to aggressively to balance load among warm threads for power saving instead of trying to keep the threads of a program under the same L3. This is a "bug" in my eyes.

There are ways to further improve performance by having groups of threads utilizing each L3 cache, yes. These are the situations that go beyond what can be expected from an OS scheduler. But that is meaningless for 99%+ of current games. THAT is the case where you'd expect a game to use User Mode Scheduling, not simply to get the OS to keep all/most threads on one CCX!
Nobody is expecting games to implement user mode scheduling, the potential 3-7% performance improvement is simply not worth it.

There is a difference between a lack of optimisation and a bug, it is pretty big stretch to claim that the windows scheduler is buggy due to the missing CCX optimisations. Hopefully they will add the optimisations in the future

AMD made their choice with the CCX typology, it is a compromise - I doubt the performance penalty comes as a surprise to AMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prtskg and Zucker2k

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
No, i got it right, if the game needs to identify anything means its not using the new model of "just create threads and forget about them", creating threads and letting the O.S. scheduler do its job, thats the new and current model. If you do that its the same if is 4, 8, 16 or 128 cores, or if it runs on Window,s Linux, Android or console, your code should aways run right, as long you dont run intro main thread bottleneck. If you need to idenfity CPU then you are doing it the old way.
.
What are you smoking?
The game takes the core and thread count and it does so properly for Intel but not for Ryzen.
You need to take a step back and think before going on a raging rant. Unless your aim to troll and then, have fun.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,110
786
136
What are you smoking?
The game takes the core and thread count and it does so properly for Intel but not for Ryzen.
You need to take a step back and think before going on a raging rant. Unless your aim to troll and then, have fun.
The games does not need to read ANYTHING AT ALL. Just create the threads you need and keep on going, is the O.S. job to do load balancing and thread affinity.
If it needs to read core count thats because it runs on a outdated programing model.

If you have any doubt open the resource manager and take a closer look at the number of threads a game starts howdays.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
The games does not need to read ANYTHING AT ALL. Just create the threads you need and keep on going, is the O.S. job to do load balancing and thread affinity.
If it needs to read core count thats because it runs on a outdated programing model.

If you have any doubt open the resource manager and take a closer look at the number of threads a game starts howdays.
ROFL
 

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
755
410
136
I was going to buy 1700 for gaming only and now Im not sure with this... https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/13/amd-ryzen-community-update?sf62107357=1 ... 7700K looks like the way sadly :/
If you were only ever going to use your CPU for gaming the 8-core Ryzens were never really the best choice. I'm not certain why that link would have finally changed your mind.

I don't even think the 7700K is the best choice, either. That is, unless you already have a fantastic GPU and need some more power. You'd probably be better off spending $150 less on a CPU and upgrading from a 480/1060 to a 1070. Or getting a 480 and buying a Freesync monitor (because Freesync and Gsync are great but Freesync is much cheaper).
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,110
786
136
This is very simple, a program should not act diferently if it has 2, 4 or 256 cores, it is as simple as that, a modern MT code will scale properly, and i think you will have a hard time finding the "first check how many cores you have at runtime" on any programing guide. F1 2016 is using old style programing if it needs to know how many cores it has avalible. /period
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY