CatMerc
Golden Member
Right, only looked at one result.
Didn't see the one with 49GB/s.
-
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.
Ryzen: Strictly technical
Page 59 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
- Status
Didn't see the one with 49GB/s.
imported_jjj
Senior member
The fact that memory bandwidth scales with CPU clocks in the 2933MHz results is way weird. At stock you get very low BW and for the 2 overclocks, the BW is too high.
3200MHz wouldn't explain this so it has to be something else.
EDIT: Any changes in 4k writes perf with the new AGESA? Would be nice to see some fixes in the SSD area too.
Last edited:
William Gaatjes
Lifer
There is something i am wondering about, when using several logic units on different clock domains, it is necessary to synchronize when data goes from one logic unit to another logic unit while both having different clock domains. I wonder if there are memory speeds where ryzen just no longer benefits from the increased memory speed.
For background information about synchronizing between different clock domains.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1279906
For background information about synchronizing between different clock domains.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1279906
looncraz
Senior member
Actually, I've seen this with every scaling test I've done - Ryzen memory performance goes up with CPU clocks. This isn't really unexpected when you consider all of the logic and cache running at core clocks. The DF interface, for example, seems to run at the L3 speed, whereas the DF itself runs at memory clocks.
Running at DDR4-3200 would explain it pretty well, I think. But a funky PLL might do so as well.
More testing to do. I've mostly focused on NVMe benchmarks. 4k-64Thrd results seem low, but everything else is higher than on Intel. Real world testing (copy tests, for example) show higher performance than Intel and latency is lower.
Most of my SSDs are well traveled, so they don't all have their full new write speeds in any event... which can be a major factor to consider. My 850 Evo, however, still does - and performs rather similar on Ryzen as it did with my Sandy Bridge, with an edge for Ryzen overall - especially in 4K-64Thrd write results, which are doubled.
mattiasnyc
Senior member
I've got a question regarding the PCIe implementation...
I've been looking at the x370/b350 motherboards and I understand that the 'higher end' boards have two x16 slots that run x8/x8 when both are populated. Both of those pipe straight into the CPU from what I can gather.
What I don't understand though is why all of the boards with legacy PCI (as well as some others) have a single x16 to the CPU, and then for the second x16 it'll max out at x4 but drop to x1 if the PCIe x1 slot(s) are occupied. It just seems like the two should be ultimately unrelated to each other since the legacy PCI slots by definition hang off of the chipset, not the CPU. Is this just a coincidence or?
PS: I have a legacy PCI card that I want to keep one way or the other (because if I don't I'm likely looking at a $800-$1,500 additional cost for pro-audio), and all the PCI cards have this odd 'coincidence'. Unfortunately I'd also like the option of running two GPUs where one runs video editing processing and the other powers monitors, i.e. x8/x8 off of the CPU.... Not finding mobos for that combination yet... And this is what I have read and thought I understood:
I've been looking at the x370/b350 motherboards and I understand that the 'higher end' boards have two x16 slots that run x8/x8 when both are populated. Both of those pipe straight into the CPU from what I can gather.
What I don't understand though is why all of the boards with legacy PCI (as well as some others) have a single x16 to the CPU, and then for the second x16 it'll max out at x4 but drop to x1 if the PCIe x1 slot(s) are occupied. It just seems like the two should be ultimately unrelated to each other since the legacy PCI slots by definition hang off of the chipset, not the CPU. Is this just a coincidence or?
PS: I have a legacy PCI card that I want to keep one way or the other (because if I don't I'm likely looking at a $800-$1,500 additional cost for pro-audio), and all the PCI cards have this odd 'coincidence'. Unfortunately I'd also like the option of running two GPUs where one runs video editing processing and the other powers monitors, i.e. x8/x8 off of the CPU.... Not finding mobos for that combination yet... And this is what I have read and thought I understood:
Last edited:
looncraz
Senior member
I've got a question regarding the PCIe implementation...
I've been looking at the x370/b350 motherboards and I understand that the 'higher end' boards have two x16 slots that run x8/x8 when both are populated. Both of those pipe straight into the CPU from what I can gather.
What I don't understand though is why all of the boards with legacy PCI (as well as some others) have a single x16 to the CPU, and then for the second x16 it'll max out at x4 but drop to x1 if the PCIe x1 slot(s) are occupied. It just seems like the two should be ultimately unrelated to each other since the legacy PCI slots by definition hang off of the chipset, not the CPU. Is this just a coincidence or?
PS: I have a legacy PCI card that I want to keep one way or the other (because if I don't I'm likely looking at a $800-$1,500 additional cost for pro-audio), and all the PCI cards have this odd 'coincidence'. Unfortunately I'd also like the option of running two GPUs where one runs video editing processing and the other powers monitors, i.e. x8/x8 off of the CPU.... Not finding mobos for that combination yet... And this is what I have read and thought I understood:
All PCI-e 2.0 slots come from the PCH. 3.0 slots come from the CPU.
PCI will be coming from the PCH.
You should note that you can probably manage to run graphics off PCI-e 2.0 x1, but you will need to take care about what card you choose. If you can wait a while, though, a board that can suit your needs more directly will eventually be released.
mattiasnyc
Senior member
Yeah, that's what I figured more or less. I just find it curious that there aren't any boards with legacy PCI and PCI-e 3.0 x8/x8.... Oh well, I may have to go with an adapter board instead.
looncraz
Senior member
That would certainly be a better long-term proposition. I'd suggest buying one and testing out how it works before fully investing into a legacy free platform.
imported_jjj
Senior member
Your results with the DRAM at 2666MHz do not scale and not quite sure it would make any sense for memory BW to scale with core clocks. Some impact on latency maybe but not this huge impact on BW. Not aware of any evidence to back your claim either, quite the opposite.
The scaling is better than linear in your 2933 results. 41.7GB/s at 3.5GHz, 46.5GB/s at 3.8GHz and 48.9 GB/s at 3.9GHz for read.
On SSDs i was just asking if the new AGESA changed anything.
Edit: there are some suspicious results and some variance with the DRAM at 2666MHz too but the majority don't show scaling.
Last edited:
CrazyElf
Member
Just a head's up everyone, it may be worth upgrading to Kernel 4.10 or newer for testing.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMD-Ryzen-Newer-Kernel
Anyways, you can use the Ubuntu Kernel Updater (works with Mint too as Mint is based on Ubuntu)
http://www.teejeetech.in/2016/04/ubuntu-kernel-upgrade-utility.html
Alternatively:
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/
What I'm really wondering is what this is looking like with the memory unlocked.
So far:
- The new AGESA largely gets rid of the SMT penalty (in other words, the SMT on Ryzen is even better than Intel's now)
- Faster RAM largely gets rid of the gaming penalties that we've seen (a few apps like 7-zip benefit as well)
- A few games here and there have even received patches (Ashes of Singularity, Total War: Warhammer, and Bathesda has indicated their desire to work with AMD)
- Haswell (or better than Haswell in a few cases) IPC
- Gaming gap is almost entirely gone now
- Power efficient (more so than Broadwell E)
- Very impressive SMT scaling
Only disappointing part is that we are stuck at 4 GHz OC it seems. Broadwell E can do 4.2 to 4.4 GHz at 24-7 voltages. Maybe with 14LPU and better IPC, we'd have something that could take on Skylake E in early 2018.
looncraz
Senior member
Bandwidth is a function of not just memory speed and the IMC, but of the CPU being able to process the data. I had higher bandwidth with core overclocks on Sandy Bridge, but that was rather minimal by comparison... but Sandy Bridge didn't rely on the same type of data mesh operating in multiple clock domains (IMC -> DF -> CCX fabric -> CORE).
The Ryzen 5 1400 results with DDR4-2400 CL14 on another computer entirely show scaling as well, but not as extreme.
Also, be careful to ensure you are looking at the same core counts in my results.
DDR4-2667 16-16-16-38 CR1
8x 3.0Ghz: 31501
8x 3.5Ghz: 36055
8x 3.9Ghz: 40639
It's important, too, to note that benchmarks that are sensitive to memory bandwidth also improve slightly more than just the CPU clocks would suggest - so it is a real effect.
imported_jjj
Senior member
Sorry but you are choosing the results that fit your theory, a theory that doesn't make sense and is not supported by any 3rd party data.
You make 2 very risky assumptions
- the DDR was at 3200 not at 2933 as displayed by AIDA
- the memory BW has extreme scaling with core clocks
Why do that before making sure it's not the obvious suspect, software.
I do get the core saturation point and could be interesting to look at that.
Maybe try Geekbench 3 , the memory tests?
Last edited:
looncraz
Senior member
I'm not making any assumptions, you are comparing results without taking into consideration the control results - they all show the same pattern of increased bandwidth with core clocks. And it's not just the one test - it's everything, including Geekbench 3 - though I'm not yet back to the DDR4-2933 testing.
Very few people do as much testing as I am doing or as many controls as I do.
Update:
This statement was made before I realized the actual scale of the variation. Agreement between benchmarks ended with AGESA 1.0.0.4, now only AIDA shows the absurd bandwidth scaling with CPU clocks.
Last edited:
imported_jjj
Senior member
The results you have shared don't quite support the claim and no 3rd party data supports the scaling claim. The extreme scaling is rather absurd too.
Based on these results he core is borderline saturated at 3.5GHz-2666 and 3.8-3.9GHz assumed 3200MHz with something else providing more than 10% scaling for memory BW
3.5-2660=40.6
3.5-3200?=41.7
3.8-3200?=46.5
3.9-3200?=49
Less than 10% increase in core clocks between the 2 saturation points and 20% gains in read.
That's too much and on top of that you have 2933MHz reported instead of 3200 and maybe a flaw in the benchmark that saturates the core far too early with w/e workload is used.
Last edited:
Timur Born
Senior member
Does this mean that there is still native PCI available on AMD chipsets? I assumed they had to use PCIe-PCI bridges just like every current Intel board?
imported_jjj
Senior member
looncraz
Senior member
This seems to be a bug with AIDA. I didn't recognize how large the climbing was, despite writing the numbers, LOL! Guess that can happen when running 1,000 different numbers through your head.
Geekbench 3 shows 2% scaling on the memory subtests with AGESA 1.0.0.4 using the 8C/16T configuration and the Ryzen 5 1400. However, the former AGESA showed 14%... between 3Ghz and 3.4Ghz with the 4C/4T configuration, which lines up pretty well with AIDA results.
That is far too much for CPU clocks to explain, as you said. No idea why, but my brain was thinking we were talking about 10% total, not 30%.
GB ST Memory, 4C / 4T, DDR4-2667 CL15, ASRock AB350 BIOS 1.41 Windows 7 (Windows 10)
3.0Ghz: 3500 (3635)
3.4GHz: 3997 (4225)
3.8GHz: 3953 (4315)
GB ST Memory, 8C/16T, DDR4-2667 CL14, C6H BIOS 0083 Windows 10
3.0Ghz: 3608
3.4Ghz: 3654
3.8GHz: 3688
Only 2% total (though I didn't restart with these new tests, contrary to the former tests). HPET always active.
I will play around again with DDR4-2933 tomorrow and test higher speeds on the Ryzen 5 1400 as well. Something weird is going on, that's for sure.
imported_jjj
Senior member
If it were a few % it wouldn't necessarily be unexplainable but it's a lot more so yeah...
Will add a 3rd party result for context, could dig for more but i can't find anything to support BW scaling with core clocks in a large manner or any tests with very low clocks or for core saturation.
At the very least the graph shows no core saturation at stock for the 1700 with the DRAM at 3200.
Last edited:
Insert_Nickname
Diamond Member
Something like this -should- work. But check first, there are no guarantees. Even if it works, it might not function 100%, some cards do not like bridges.
https://www.startech.com/Cards-Adapters/Slot-Extension/PCI-Express-to-PCI-Adapter-Card~PEX1PCI1
They do. I don't think anything AMD has had native PCI since the 900-series.
Timur Born
Senior member
It would be a very strange design if an onboard PCI bridge would slow down CPU bound x16 then. It's rather off-topic, but since the question came up, here is what I discuss in a Gearslutz (forum) thread:
The Startech card uses a Pericom Semiconductor PI7C9X113 PCI Express to PCI-X Bridge. This is a good thing, because I had good experience with the PI7C9X111 in another adapter. Both the Startech card and the other adapter allow me to drive RME PCI cards down to 32 samples buffer.
On the other hand I had a bad experience (as in did not work at all) with a PCI adapter card that looks similar to the Startech, but used an Asmedia based chipset. That being said, I think it was more a thing of these cards being cheap (10+ EUR compared to 40+ EUR for the Startech) than a problem of the chipset. Asus/Asrock boards usually use a current revision of the Asmedia ASM1083 chipset, which in the past I tested to be working properly, but older revisions caused trouble for some people. My Z87 Gigabyte board uses a IT8892E.
One drawback of the Startech card is that you absolutely need to use the power-cable, even though there should be enough power from the PCIe bus. My Pericom based adapter even drives two (2) PCI cards from the PCIe bus alone. It does provide an extra power-plug (SATA based), but I don't need to use it for the RME cards.
My PC case offers a single vertical slot opening. This allows me to combine the Startech card with an extender cable and then have a RME card properly installed in the case. You need to be careful with these extender cables, because the quality is not so great. I had one solder pin bent to its neighboring pin, which I noticed before using the cable and then fixed with a soldering iron.
If your old audio card doesn't work then this can be a sign that the card itself has some defect, too. The DSP MADI shown in the image sometimes causes my PC not to boot when it's used with the Startech + extender cable, a AES works without problems. In this case I happen to know that my MADI card had some defects for some time (aka needs repair), so the adapter problems are just a symptom of those card based defects.
My other mentioned Pericom based adapter is this Sintech one (bought via Ebay from China):
They also sell a 5.1/4" slot/external chassis based solution:
The Startech card uses a Pericom Semiconductor PI7C9X113 PCI Express to PCI-X Bridge. This is a good thing, because I had good experience with the PI7C9X111 in another adapter. Both the Startech card and the other adapter allow me to drive RME PCI cards down to 32 samples buffer.
On the other hand I had a bad experience (as in did not work at all) with a PCI adapter card that looks similar to the Startech, but used an Asmedia based chipset. That being said, I think it was more a thing of these cards being cheap (10+ EUR compared to 40+ EUR for the Startech) than a problem of the chipset. Asus/Asrock boards usually use a current revision of the Asmedia ASM1083 chipset, which in the past I tested to be working properly, but older revisions caused trouble for some people. My Z87 Gigabyte board uses a IT8892E.
One drawback of the Startech card is that you absolutely need to use the power-cable, even though there should be enough power from the PCIe bus. My Pericom based adapter even drives two (2) PCI cards from the PCIe bus alone. It does provide an extra power-plug (SATA based), but I don't need to use it for the RME cards.
My PC case offers a single vertical slot opening. This allows me to combine the Startech card with an extender cable and then have a RME card properly installed in the case. You need to be careful with these extender cables, because the quality is not so great. I had one solder pin bent to its neighboring pin, which I noticed before using the cable and then fixed with a soldering iron.
If your old audio card doesn't work then this can be a sign that the card itself has some defect, too. The DSP MADI shown in the image sometimes causes my PC not to boot when it's used with the Startech + extender cable, a AES works without problems. In this case I happen to know that my MADI card had some defects for some time (aka needs repair), so the adapter problems are just a symptom of those card based defects.
My other mentioned Pericom based adapter is this Sintech one (bought via Ebay from China):
They also sell a 5.1/4" slot/external chassis based solution:
Timur Born
Senior member
According to Elmor the overheating emergency shutdown is initiated by Tctl, not by SIO CPU. Going by my measurements the shutdown temperature would be 115C Tctl then, not 110C SIO as I first thought.
This makes no difference concerning the shutdown problem, though, because the current Sense Skew defaults on an Asus SH6 still prevent the shutdown - and even hard throttling - from happening. A Code 8 happens shortly before emergency shutdown would/should happen and then keeps about 1.0 V Vcore applied to the CPU. For a system that its CPU cooling failing this seems somewhat dangerous to the CPU, doesn't it?!
I don't know how other mainboards implement this, though, so maybe it's an Asus related problem.
This makes no difference concerning the shutdown problem, though, because the current Sense Skew defaults on an Asus SH6 still prevent the shutdown - and even hard throttling - from happening. A Code 8 happens shortly before emergency shutdown would/should happen and then keeps about 1.0 V Vcore applied to the CPU. For a system that its CPU cooling failing this seems somewhat dangerous to the CPU, doesn't it?!
I don't know how other mainboards implement this, though, so maybe it's an Asus related problem.
looncraz
Senior member
http://zen.looncraz.net/ now online.
I don't have time for the next few weeks, maybe as much as a month, to finish more than what has been done.
At that point in time I should also have more Intel results as I will be upgrading an Ivy Bridge Xeon system to Ryzen and will have the parts on consignment for a short while (long enough to run a series of benchmarks at 3Ghz with and without Hyper-threading).
I don't have time for the next few weeks, maybe as much as a month, to finish more than what has been done.
At that point in time I should also have more Intel results as I will be upgrading an Ivy Bridge Xeon system to Ryzen and will have the parts on consignment for a short while (long enough to run a series of benchmarks at 3Ghz with and without Hyper-threading).
tamz_msc
Diamond Member
A big thanks for the incredible amount of effort you put into this work.
Timur Born
Senior member
Thanks. I just had a case where I closed and reopened the browser and found the main text content empty (Looncache enabled). That was the "X Threads" page. I then clicked on the "1 Thread" page and it was empty, too. Only once I clicked the "Home" page I could access the other pages again.
man.... you are a big balancing force to juanrga in the universe
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
