- Nov 27, 2016
You don't need process lasso for that, just process hacker or process explorer will do. Although process lasso isn't a bad choice but it also affects the game/application & could result in unrealistic gains wrt systems that don't have it installed.has anyone tried yet to tie up 8 threads with process lasso of a game that uses only up to that on a single CCX and compared results?
It's not misleading when you have the graphs CLEARLY marked in percentage difference. Quit the over-sensitivity.
I'm sorry, but where's the rest of this graph? I picked this one, but I could have picked any of at least a dozen others that suffer from the same problem as this one does.
By cutting out 85% of this graph, you've made Haswell and Kaby Lake look like they have at least twice the performance of Zen. In other graphs it's a different story with Zen apparently being massively better than the others. Stop it. Stop misleading and deceiving people with these misleading graphics.
It's not even consistent. In some graphs you have included the entire thing. For example
But at a glance (and first impressions matter) the first graph shows a far more impressive performance lead than the second one does, even though the second one has an 52% margin!
Stop it. Stop being deceitful, stop being misleading.
Not for the final silicon unfortunately.Hello Stilt, can you share some information about the current and load-line specification for the AM4 socket infrastructure? This information would be useful for evaluating motherboard VRM's.
UCLK, FCLK & DFICLK default to half of the effective MEMCLK frequency (i.e. DDR-2400 = 1200MHz).Lurker here.
I noticed in overclocking and ryzen master guide on AMD's official website that it lists both FCLK and UCLK as values for OC in Ryzen platform. I do not at present have a ryzen with mobo and I have not seen them listed for modification in any bios unless they are located under "advanced core options." Can these values be modified stilt? You mentioned some bios options that are currently hidden.
Now the FCLK(I believe this is infinity fabric on amd) seems plenty fast enough(even superior to intels ring bus). However, the UCLK memory controller speeds seem downright abhorrent(at half memory speeds) and I believe this might be the major cause for poor memory latency and odd game and draw call behavior.
I read back on intels nehalem architecture and its changes going into kabylake today. Originally the ideal was to have 2x the uncore to 1x Full memory speed(I.e if ddr 1600...3.2ghz uncore or higher was ideal.) This has moved toward parity as ddr speeds have substantially improved. However, there have been warnings on some throw away threads in message boards to always set uncore ABOVE the complete memory speed package otherwise it could substantially reduce performance. Some suggested this was most noticeable in linpack and games.
Even the 6900k has default 2.8 uncore. When using higher memory and OC its suggested to raise the 6900k up to 3.2 to a maximum of around 3.5(heat supposedly becomes an issue above this point).
So my question is, can the memory controller be modified in any way to achieve a much higher UCLK(as it only listed the existent on their webpage and didn't mention location for modification or even if in any ryzen bios)?
If not, Can anyone take a current GEN intel i7 (preferably a broadwell) and downclock their uncore to the abyssmal speeds of ryzens memory controller, and make a comparison on majincry's drawcall benchmark, on memory latency measurements and by playing games and give a comparison both before and after?
Did you miss my questions? Post #38776573.Frankly I don't believe that the 14nm LPP will significatly improve any more. 14nm LPE, which is extremely closely related to LPP has been in mass production for 21 months now. Also the 14nm LPP itself has been in mass production for 15 months.
AMD most likely could tweak thing or two in the design in order to reach higher Fmax, however I fear that most of the tricks were already used in the final stepping of Zeppelin.
For the upcoming Zen iterations I would rather see AMD staying on a process, which has been fully tested in practice. Regardless if it means falling behind in the absolute node size. 16nm FF+ is extremely well proven and also 14nm HP (IBM) should be available at some point from GlobalFoundries. Moving immediately to a new 7nm node would be like taking a head dive into unknown waters, once more.
Thanks for the response. Is it possible they could be convinced to work with mobo manufacturers to update bios so UCLK could be changed for normal use outside of debug mode, possibly with a public release of technical information to know its frequency and/or voltage limits both 24/7 safe and maximum?UCLK, FCLK & DFICLK default to half of the effective MEMCLK frequency (i.e. DDR-2400 = 1200MHz).
There is a way to configure the memory controller (UCLK) for 1:1 rate, however that is strictly for debug and therefore completely untested. The end-user has neither the knowledge or the hardware to change it.
AFAIK FCLK & DFICLK are both fixed and cannot be tampered with. However certain related fabrics, which run at the same speed have their own frequency control. The "infinity fabric" (GMI) runs at 4x FCLK frequency.
I don't think it's even possible without external hardware (HDT), so pretty much no.Thanks for the response. Is it possible they could be convinced to work with mobo manufacturers to update bios so UCLK could be changed for normal use outside of debug mode, possibly with a public release of technical information to know its frequency and/or voltage limits both 24/7 safe and maximum?
While I currently have no way of knowing for certain, I'm fairly confident low UCLK is the major reason for poorer than expected showing in memory latency performance and in certain benchmarks where it was unable to maintain parity with 6900k.
Other clock rates seem more than sufficient (infinity fabric itself seems extraordinary), which is why i'm primarily focused on this singular issue.
This is without an external CLK generator I take? Now some people are fussing about what mobos have it and what don't, but IMO all mobos should BCLK OC, but only the ones with an external CLK generator would BCLK OC without the PCI-E and SoC SATA corruption problemsI'm not sure.
Gen. 3 can be sustained usually up to 107MHz thou.
PCIe is tied to the BCLK, regardless if external or internal Pll (FCH) is used. The linking occurs at silicon level so there is nothing you can do about it.This is without an external CLK generator I take? Now some people are fussing about what mobos have it and what don't, but IMO all mobos should BCLK OC, but only the ones with an external CLK generator would BCLK OC without the PCI-E and SoC SATA corruption problems
With the single CCX and MHz apples to apples it's equal to the 7700k in gaming performance as well. That's very impressive for their first generation of a new architecture. Would love to see more tests like this to confirm results.
Probably somewhere in the middle. Improvements but likely not something that is completely removable. New CPU architectures have a history of such things. What's great is what we're starting with in my opinion.People seem to be placing their hopes in the upcoming windows update to fix Ryzen gaming performance. Is there any reality to this?
Think about 2 proc systems.how does the os know that the l3 cache in the proc n1 is not shared at the silicon level with the l3 cache of the proc 2, so the cores of proc1 arent tasked with searching data in proc2 (which would be damn slow)? With NUMA nodes. This is how you diffetentiate 2 procesor's memory subsystems and avoid such conflicts. This can be really an easy task for the kernel/OS if done. Hopefully its implemented soon so we dont see more cach trashing and thread shifting between cores from different ccx'sPlease excuse my ignorance, but I am just curious about all of this CCX talk limiting Ryzen's gaming performance. People seem to be placing their hopes in the upcoming windows update to fix Ryzen gaming performance. Is there any reality to this? I personally expect the performance of the chips to stay the same, but I don't know, so here I am asking the smart people.
And ,indeed, we found the key to the 6900K's poor performance. By disabling four of its cores, we were able to make the 6900K perform just like a quad-core! Ironic that it requires this step to allow the eight-core CPU to keep pace with its $250 and $350 cousins.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Question If you have bought a CPU in the last 3 years or so (since Ryzen came out) What was it ?||CPUs and Overclocking||88|
|B||Question What is the better choice Ryzen 5 3200G or 3400G?||CPUs and Overclocking||9|
|Question Ryzen 2700 and RAM, what should I do? Any good known OC settings for CPU?||CPUs and Overclocking||10|
|I||Question Weird Ryzen 1700 behaviour||CPUs and Overclocking||1|
|M||Question AMD Ryzen 3 3300X Stock availability||CPUs and Overclocking||32|
|Question If you have bought a CPU in the last 3 years or so (since Ryzen came out) What was it ?|
|Question What is the better choice Ryzen 5 3200G or 3400G?|
|Question Ryzen 2700 and RAM, what should I do? Any good known OC settings for CPU?|
|Question Weird Ryzen 1700 behaviour|
|Question AMD Ryzen 3 3300X Stock availability|