AMD Ryzen and XR

red assassin · Post by **red assassin** » Fri, 10. Mar 17, 05:26

pjknibbs wrote:Oh, certainly, but they have to pick optimisations that will work well on all platforms. Back when the Pentium first came out, which required instructions to be re-ordered in a very specific way to get best performance, it was an easy decision to support that in a compiler because doing so did not adversely affect the 386 and 486 processors the code might otherwise run on. Nowadays, it's all a bit more complicated.

gcc at least has the option to optimise for a particular microarchitecture, with or without retaining compatibility with other processors. That's a bit of a specialist option though; as you say most binaries will just need to run well on a variety of processors.

foxxbl · Post by **foxxbl** » Tue, 14. Mar 17, 14:31

Terre wrote:AMD Ryzen Performance Negatively Affected by Windows 10 Scheduler Bug
A newly discovered bug in Windows 10’s scheduler has been found to be negatively affecting performance of AMD Ryzen CPUs. The bug has been confirmed to affect all Windows 10 versions but not Windows 7. It’s not clear yet if Windows 8.1 is affected.
A truer picture will emerge with time.

Looks like AMD debunked that theory in the latest community update

It seems everything is OK with Ryzen thread scheduling on the Windows10.

Post by **Terre** » Wed, 15. Mar 17, 09:14

foxxbl wrote:Looks like AMD debunked that theory in the latest community update

It seems everything is OK with Ryzen thread scheduling on the Windows10.

At the moment it looks like there are problems when switching threads between core clusters.

The high temperatures which are being recorded, appear to due to a deliberate 20°C offset, just plain daft in my opinion, AMD are not helping their cause with such decisions.

From an AMD community post.

AMD's Robert Hallock
By the first week of April, AMD intends to provide an update for AMD Ryzen™ processors that optimizes the power policy parameters of the Balanced plan to favor performance more consistent with the typical usage models of a desktop PC.

Post by **Tamina** » Thu, 16. Mar 17, 17:26

The next Ryzen processors with 6 and 4 cores and SMT are now officially revealed by AMD to be released 11. April, already!

Originally it was said to be released Q2 but who would have thought?
Unfortunatly, all four processors are just deactivated 8 core units and therefore those configurations were already benchmarked by PC magazines as such and gaming performance is still below expecations.
Prices range from 170 to 250 $.

Personally I find all of this confusing af. How are intels processors priced for the same performance and how are intels processors performing for the same price?
When reading those tech magazines they already expect you to know every intel i-series processor in existence.

Terre wrote:The high temperatures which are being recorded, appear to due to a deliberate 20°C offset, just plain daft in my opinion, AMD are not helping their cause with such decisions.

What decisions? Is it 20° higher or lower? And which fault is it? AMD or the software programmers?

Post by **Terre** » Thu, 16. Mar 17, 19:39

Tamina wrote:
Terre wrote:The high temperatures which are being recorded, appear to due to a deliberate 20°C offset, just plain daft in my opinion, AMD are not helping their cause with such decisions.
What decisions? Is it 20° higher or lower? And which fault is it? AMD or the software programmers?

The offset is higher, AMD say it's to do with the fan profiles and how they are reported, then interpreted by the testing software.

matthewfarmery · Post by **matthewfarmery** » Thu, 16. Mar 17, 20:22

Tamina wrote:The next Ryzen processors with 6 and 4 cores and SMT are now officially revealed by AMD to be released 11. April, already!
Originally it was said to be released Q2 but who would have thought?
Unfortunatly, all four processors are just deactivated 8 core units and therefore those configurations were already benchmarked by PC magazines as such and gaming performance is still below expecations.
Prices range from 170 to 250 $.

Personally I find all of this confusing af. How are intels processors priced for the same performance and how are intels processors performing for the same price?
When reading those tech magazines they already expect you to know every intel i-series processor in existence.

Terre wrote:The high temperatures which are being recorded, appear to due to a deliberate 20°C offset, just plain daft in my opinion, AMD are not helping their cause with such decisions.
What decisions? Is it 20° higher or lower? And which fault is it? AMD or the software programmers?

I suspected this would be the case, AMD cutting corners. Then the new processors won't be any better then the 8 core versions. well, looks like I won't be touching AMD for the foreseeable future then.

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Thu, 16. Mar 17, 22:27

matthewfarmery wrote:Then the new processors won't be any better then the 8 core versions.

I don't think anyone really expected them to be, although there was some hope. However, they might still have Intel beat on price/performance; the cheapest Intel CPU which is a quad core with hyperthreading is the i7-7700, I think, which is around $300, twice the price of the equivalent Ryzen.

red assassin · Post by **red assassin** » Thu, 16. Mar 17, 23:11

Ryzen gets you more threads for your money than Kaby Lake, but the individual thread performance isn't as good. Depends on your workload which is going to be better; I don't think it's as clear cut in favour of Intel as some people are suggesting.

Post by **Tamina** » Thu, 16. Mar 17, 23:30

Well since "games do not use 8 cores" and the 4 core version is essentially an 8 core processor, gaming performance shouldn't drop at all, right?
Then the gaming performance of an R7 1800X for 200 $ against an i7-7700 for 300 $ should actually beat intel for the buck, right?

Post by **Geek** » Sun, 19. Mar 17, 01:56

pjknibbs wrote: However, they might still have Intel beat on price/performance; the cheapest Intel CPU which is a quad core with hyperthreading is the i7-7700, I think, which is around $300, twice the price of the equivalent Ryzen.

I doubt HT is worth it for games though. The cheaper 7600k is probably going to be the real competition.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Sun, 19. Mar 17, 21:01

Has anyone here actually bought one?

I realize such a major purchase isn't all that common, but I'm curious.

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Mon, 20. Mar 17, 12:50

you'd be crazy to run it on a Windows7 system..
MS have said they can't support the upgrade - same goes for Kaby Lake..

Post by **Tamina** » Mon, 20. Mar 17, 20:28

BugMeister wrote:you'd be crazy to run it on a Windows7 system..
MS have said they can't support the upgrade - same goes for Kaby Lake..

In their first press release they were a little bit vague and harsh.
It sounded a bit like: If you try to run the newest processor generations with Windows 7 it will be blocked.
Did they specify?

Not that I care, I am using Win 10.

Tracker001 · Post by **Tracker001** » Tue, 21. Mar 17, 04:18

@ linolafett

You may be interested in Jayzz2cents " Video Editing on the Ryzen 1800X - 30 Day Ryzen Challenge "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIIb5uZfukU

He does do a head to head compair with Ryzen and Intel here as a "Getting Stated"

Post by **Tamina** » Tue, 11. Apr 17, 18:30

- Today, AMD has released its Ryzen 5 processor for the main market.
And it looks like they are beating Intel this time in gaming as well (against similar priced processors).
- Game developers also updated some games for Ryzen, increasing performance up to 32 %.
Additionally a Windows 10 power profile for Ryzen was published squeezing out some additional %s.

Hopefully Egosoft optimizes their upcoming games for Ryzen as well.

I am happy, though. Need a new budget PC and/or laptop mainly for work and sometimes a bit Egosoft. Right on cue

When prices decrease in the next few weeks I am going to benchmark XR

Tracker001 · Post by **Tracker001** » Wed, 12. Apr 17, 20:38

30 days is up and :

Jayz Two Cents

I used ONLY Ryzen for 30 days... So how did it treat me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf_pUECRmAo

Post by **Terre** » Fri, 14. Apr 17, 19:45

It's starting to look like the R7 1700, with it's overclocking headroom, and the R5 1500X are the picks of the bunch.

CulunTse · Post by **CulunTse** » Sun, 23. Apr 17, 13:15

I've posted my brief experiences with XR on a R7 1700X here.

Questions welcome!

aquatica · Post by **aquatica** » Mon, 24. Apr 17, 20:18

I'm interested in comparison between Core i5 2500k (4.2 as turbo) and Ryzen 7 1700.

I know that clock-for-clock the difference really isn't meaningful. However I only see people comparing to 7700k or other Kaby Lakes, not us older brothers.

I have Core i5 2500k with Asus's DUAL 1060 O.C-3GB and 16Gigs of HyperX ram. Games are installed on HDD not SSD for the time being - only OS is on SSD, but I've already ordered R7 1700 with Gigabyte B350 and 16gigs of 2400MHz DDR4 - wondering if I were to see any difference in XR (or the older titles for the matter) with this upgrade in CPU?

CulunTse · Post by **CulunTse** » Mon, 24. Apr 17, 21:09

I'll be very curious after your direct comparison!
Please let us know your experiences.

I'm guessing you won't see the dramatic improvement I did, the 2500k was/is a great CPU, and I don't think XR would have been bottlenecked by it.
But you are the only person who can give us real numbers there!

P.s. welcome to Team Ryzen

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

AMD Ryzen and XR