AMD makes public statement on Ryzen and its issues two weeks

And /g/ told me AMD was a deceptive company wtf

lul amdfags are hilarious

literally in denial

File: 2017-03-13 19_03_19-AMD Ryzen Performance Possibly Inhibited by Windows 10 Scheduler _ Digital Trend.png (11KB, 663x120px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 663x120px

wew

>>59389237
are you implying PCPer is more competent than AMD who fucking designed the thing?
>>59389232
this

3rd thread about this topic

>>59389237
came here to post this. not disappointed

>>59389249
AMD commented on the PCPer article and has said they believe the Windows 10 Scheduler is operating correctly for Ryzen

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-and-Windows-10-Scheduler-No-Silver-Bullet

>>59389267
In other words AMD made a poor choice by making 2 x CCX because Windows shitty schedular throws to random cores and is shit slow over 2 x CCX instead of a single CCX. Bad CPU design decision IMHO.

>>59389295
That's so it can scale up to 32 or 64 cores

Hopefully the 4c/8t version is only one ccx so we can see baby gamers BTFO'D

>Windows shitty schedular throws to random cores

I wonder if we'd see better performace by manually setting the cpu mask

https://forums.dolphin-emu.org/Thread-quick-tip-20-performance-improvement-for-hyperthreaded-dual-core-cpus-i3-etc

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/change-the-processor-affinity-setting-in-windows-7-to-gain-a-performance-edge/

Reddit are up in arms about this. AMD need to get their shit together.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5z7x0o/gaming_amd_ryzen_community_update/

File: amdloo.png (316KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 882x758px

>>59389212
DELET SIR

File: 1456591795524.png (289KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1200x600px

>>59389295
This is a non issue in HPC and server applications. Basicly what the Zeppelin die was designed for.

AMD's priority is regaining the HPC and server market. The margins are MUCH higher there. AMD cannot currently afford to put out separate dies for home and enterprise. As such they are going to focus on the more profitable market.

>>59389237
>>59389249
PCPer clearly says Windows scheduler needs to be CCX aware.
https://youtu.be/6laL-_hiAK0?t=1540

I wonder how it went

>AMD to Microsoft: Fix your stupid scheduler
>Microsoft: lolno
>AMD: Windows 10 is fine

>>59390091
AMD themselves even said the scheduler is not a problem

>>59390269
They did. But the article is wrong about what PCPer said.

File: 1301537945739.jpg (28KB, 404x402px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 404x402px

AMD went through the same pains with Bulldozer on Win7. Why can't Microsoft write a process scheduler anymore? Nobody enjoyed having to deal with unofficial patches to deal with the microstutter while MS fixed their shit.

>>59390296
>>59390192
>>59390091
>>59389490
>Make processor with many issues
>Basically a flop/win depending on how you look at it
>Too late now CPU is released no excuses
>Decide fuck it and make up some bullshit about the scheduler being broken
>Blame microsoft for never fixing the broken scheduler
>In reality nothing to fix
>stays the same forever
>all blame is wiped from AMD and everyone has an excuse to fall back on until the end of time
>muh scheduler
I forgot what the excuse was with bulldozer. What was it like "Applications check to see if it's an intel processor which gives AMD chips bad scores" or something?

>>59390337
They still do that. The intel compiler deliberately picks less optimal code routes on non-intel chips

>>59390337
AMD's statement is obviously self-contradictory, and there's enough evidence against Windows not being a problem. For instance, Ryzen is just fine on Linux.

But believe whatever you want, I don't want to burst your bubble.

File: 1454719578855.jpg (76KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1024x1024px

>>59390371
Oh yeah sure bud

Ryzen uses a 2 x CCX setup and MS scheduler treats it as a single CCX throwing threads to random cores/SMTs. This might be 'proper' for MS scheduler but it is not optimum. AMD should have made a driver or something that forces threads to a single CCX for certain applications.

MS are Intels bitch and always has been though. AMD are just too afraid to rock the boat.

>>59390396
>>59390378
>>59390371
So which excuse are we going to be running with
I need to know so I can put it in the bio of my Team Red+ account

>>59390414
Your mom is my bitch

>>59390378
There's definitely some kind of problem with windows 10 even if it is not actually the scheduler, because it still performs noticeably worse than windows 7

>>59390414
Both AMD and MS are at fault. MS don't like changing anything major in their shitty OS unless it benefits them in some way. AMD are too much of a whimp (or just don't care) to fight their corner. They are after the server market anyhow so probably don't really give a shit about a few gamers until R5.

>>59390487
What excuse will we use when R5 comes out?
Should we blame memory again or the developers of games?

>>59390516
We go with it's half the price for 80 percent of the performance.

>>59390516
Same. Tech companies are pretty shit when it comes to actually supporting consumers. Ever tried ot get support from MS? Good luck with that.

>>59390564
It's actually looking closer to 90+% performance.

>>59390564
>>59390566
So should we use price as an excuse or software companies?

>>59390594
Uh huh sure it is

>>59390602
Price because gamers are poorfags.

Just wait for Raven Ridge. Those APUs will have only one CCX.

>>59390644
What if the R5 ends up not having very good performance in games. We need an excuse for that too

>>59390659
>Just wait

>>59390675
What if you didn't shitpost?

>>59390675
the jews at intel

>>59390675
They are already using AMD FX for gaming no need for an excuse.

>>59390694
I'm not I'm trying to gain ammo for my Team Red+ account
We need as many excuses as we can get

>>59390675
>>59390602
>>59390516
>>59390414
>>59390337
>>59390706
I can't recall the name of this type of psychological manipulation, but it's pretty effective.

You guys are forgetting that it's shit even under Linux.

File: Screenshot_4.png (123KB, 226x258px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 226x258px

>>59390732
its actually fucking with my head he needs to stop

>>59389963
>I happen to be an anime fag who thinks he's an expert on this

File: Screenshot_19.png (282KB, 1041x929px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1041x929px

https://archive.is/AzDnA

>>59390753
What are you talking about? It's perfect for installing Gentoo.

>>59390810
>Gentoofags can now install Gentoo and have a life

You should be worshiping AMD

>>59390337
Bulldozer is better the 2500k 5 years later fag

>>59390845
>Wait five years for new AMD processor
>Gotta wait another five for it to be good

>>59390781
It's definitely passive-aggressive, but there's another element into it.

>>59390881
I dunno but its definitely a new level of shitposting
it's actually creative

>>59390857amd is better in the long run if you only update GPU and increase res fag

>>59390910
>Just wait(TM)

>>59390900
Does it count as concern trolling?

>>59390940
Honestly at this point I have no idea it's pretty close but different

>>59390955
I guess it's more like ironic concern trolling or something.

>>59390979
who knows

>>59389295
>windows shitty scheduler is at fault
>AMD sucks
I don't care if AMD is shit but my god you're an idiot.

>>59390940
Actually, it meets every definition of concern trolling. Glad to see Intel has budget to hire better shills.

File: whore.jpg (12KB, 138x175px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 138x175px

>>59390845
>the lies and delusions of an amdtard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76-8-4qcpPo

>>59391428
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test

Who is lying? Ze germanz or the aussie cunt?

File: 801858fcce416a3dd54af17b036b4103.jpg (963KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 1920x1080px

>>59391428
>adoretard and ayymdtards completely BTFO

>>59390487
Even if it was true, why the fuck would microsoft change their OS to suit AMD? Are they obligated to cater their shit to the budget brand CPUs or something?

>>59390857
Do you even understand how new architectures work?

No shit things aren't going to be optimized on day one. How much is Intel paying you idiots? Surely you couldn't be posting this sort of drivel for free...

>>59389295
This is like blaming Intel for reintroducing HT and Windows being unable to be aware of it back in the Nehalem days
>>59390296
>Why can't Microsoft write a process scheduler anymore?
They never could
The same problem happened during the Nehalem era
They eventually fix their shit to stop their server marketshare from dropping even lower
>>59390396
The scheduler isn't something AMD can fix, unlike the Linux kernel they can't submit a patch to Microsoft
They can work with Microsoft but they hardly ever work with anyone >>59390753
All the benchmarks from Phoronix and ServeTheHome that aren't from some old ass game put it just behind the 7700K in ST loads and beating 2P 4c Xeon's on MT loads, even beating 2P 8c Xeon's in the best case scenario
>>59391720
Supporting hardware is part of their job dumbfuck

>>59391428
>>59391569
BACK TO /v/. Games don't matter!

>>59390910
>amd cpus are way better if you move to scenarios where another piece of hardware does all the work.

my god pajeet! you're on to something.

It's all an elaborate ploy to force you into using Win 10 and its upcoming 'game mode' feature

damage control by amd because ms told them to piss off?

>>59393818
AMD never said anything about the scheduler tard', it was the community and the reviewers
There's been a constant trickle of patches from MS that address Ryzen's support, from power related fixes to scheduler related fixes

File: 1474382137026.png (81KB, 652x912px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 652x912px

>>59389267
Nobody contacted PCPer.

>>59393849
>There's been a constant trickle of patches from MS
are you retarded or never used windows 10?

>>59390381
look it up intel was sued and lost because of this, the thing is, even though newer compilers should not do this, many people still use the fuck amd compiler.

>>59389249
try reading the article dipshit, it says AMD doesn't believe it's a problem with the scheduler either

>>59394257
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BORHnYLLgyY

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

OP posted clickbait.

>>59394270
Are you retarded? Why are you ignoring half of the post just to astroturf your retardation?
There's at least a dozen patches that address issues that degrade performance of Zen in Win10, they had been discovered by the people at ArsTechnica forums

>>59390381
>No way does intel do something they've been CAUGHT FOR DOING BEFORE AND SUED FOR AND HAVE YET TO PAY THE SETTLEMENT FOR

>>59390378
AMD's statement literally says windows isn't the problem. It's the real world evidence that says it is.

Where the fuck are you getting your info from? It's literally the opposite of what's actually happening, like you're completely ignorant of the situation and just looking for excuses to shit on AMD.

>>59394295
point is, nothing is patched yet=> nothing moved from starting point for users

>>59390378
>>59390464
Here is the problem

"Microsoft, can you patch your shit to work?"
"Do you ever want a driver for any of your hardware to ever get validated again?"
"!!!"
"There is no problem, but microsoft are looking into it, deviate from that and maybe it performs worse once fixed"

You can just see through all evidence that microsoft is the issue, be it the cpu works better on linux, or better on windows 7, but amd has to say they don't believe windows 10 is the issue for bullshit microsoft is a monopoly in the home space reasons.

>>59394310
>AMD's statement literally says windows isn't the problem.
where? from PCper article? it's not AMD statement, it same asspull they did saying 1060 is 60% better than 480 last year

>>59391975
one of the serve the home benchmarks had a 4 processor 8 core per system marginally beating out amd

>>59394336
https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/13/amd-ryzen-community-update?sf62107357=1

okay, ryzen is fucked. all hope is lost.

>>59394401
there you have it, on the actual amd website, it was like you fucking retards can't even read

>>59394470
That PR guy gets fired for jumping the gun. There is too much evidence of losing 20% in drawcalls because of windows.

>>59394334
>better on windows 7
it's funny because the exact same thing happened to bulldozer.
didn't get patched until vishera pretty much.

File: 1478329931550.png (66KB, 620x434px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 620x434px

>>59394401
>>59394470
Funny thing is that Microsoft says the contrary
>>59394508
AMD isn't trying to create more hype now, they are trying to avoid another PR disaster like Bulldozer, that's why they're pretending there's no issues with Win10
>>59394516
MS took around 9 months to fix Nehalem's issues back then, they have always been incompetent at supporting new hardware

>>59394528
>that's why they're pretending there's no issues with Win10
look, I had hope for 1700, it's decent now but it would be sidegrade from i72600 if it doesn't work properly=>they lost several sales with that statement

also the guy from anandtech forums reports 300ns latency difference for L3 on Ryzen compared to intel
that's why games perform so badly, it's already a PR nightmare
why AMD always sucks at these things?

>>59394288
Ok, so Windows schedules CCXs wrong, but CCXs are slow as fuck in communication, how is this acceptable?

This really looks like hardware problem.

>>59394574
>but CCXs are slow as fuck in communication, how is this acceptable?
Most heavily threaded workloads have little if any inter-thread communication, if Windows wasn't shit as always no one would had noticed the issues
It just works on Linux

>>59394574
the point is windows schedules thread at random
on a good day you will get decent performance and on the next it goes to hell for 4 threaded application

all you need is so windows do not do that for for 4 threads and put them in one CCX

>>59394567
the cache latency should be 30% faster at worst and 100% faster at best than comparable intel. the worst I have seen is the between ccx latency of 140ns compared to 40 in ccx

as for side grade from a i7 2600, its an upgrade all round from the benches I seen and that's just games, where amd takes the biggest performance hit.

>>59394602
>>59394596
Problem is, if program has inter-threaded communication, Zen efficiency drops to oblivion.

>>59394528
> says the contrary
> We'll look into it

>>59394625
No?

>>59394528
>MS took around 9 months to fix Nehalem's issues back then, they have always been incompetent at supporting new hardware
Dude 90% of the posters never witnessed Nehalem launch.

>>59394625
>if program has inter-threaded communication
for example? software doesn't need thread juggling, windows does it for power management not performance
The only game that works on ryzen(let's take it as most random example of threading) Battlefield 1 which runs on 16 threads - it's exactly 5% slower than 6900K in it, hardware is not the problem.

>>59394725
nehalem? wats dat

>>59394748
A river.

>>59389212
>Finally, we have reviewed the limited available evidence concerning performance deltas between Windows 7 and Windows 10 on the AMD Ryzen CPU. We do not believe there is an issue with scheduling differences between the two versions of Windows. Any differences in performance can be more likely attributed to software architecture differences between these OSes.

WINDOWS 10 CONFIRMED SHIT!

>>59394770
kek. AMD just confirmed Windows 10 shittier than Windows 7. I find this amusing as hell.

>>59393480
THE JEw$!!1!

have to congratulate g

you can't read but you can write.

>>59390845
No, it's not. Go looks at actual benchmarks from several competent sites and see for yourself.

And for fuck's sake, stop watching AdoredTV, the guy is an absolute dipshit.

File: 1472003147173.png (102KB, 1824x432px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1824x432px

>>59390381
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#112

before you ask
>b-but it's a blog
he's a Professor at Denmark Technical University, which is a top tier engineering university, and writes extensive optimization guide for low level programmers.
>b-but AMD shill
he's using a VIA processor for this

>>59394625
>Problem is, if program has inter-threaded communication, Zen efficiency drops to oblivion
this is true for any processor cpu/gpu what have you out there.
Concurrency kills performance and should always be avoided.

>>59394728
"thread juggling" by the scheduler is something different. inter-thread communication is something every game needs to do at least several times per frame and you're doing 60+ frames per second

>>59390269
they actually did, its technical.
>microsoft knows about the topology of the processor but they don't know the behavior of the workload. a generic implementation of "pinning" workloads to a given CCX is prohibitively complicated and only best-effort; run-time analytics of thread-to-thread communication could act like a software implementation of branch prediction. Implementing something like NUMA (for multi-CPU servers) could cause performance degradation in other ways.
>any change microsoft makes to the scheduler would involve guessing, and it would be better if the CPU or software could just tell the OS what to do. AMD suggested in the blog post that the software should do it.
>AMD suggested in the blog post that the software should do it.
>software should do it.
which is why amd has been going on and on about working with developers to properly code for ryzen. ryzen clearly has the potential. we can see it in tasks that either fully peg a single core 100% and doesn't move it around, and in tasks that fully saturate all of ryzens cores. ryzen has the single threaded performance but its going to take time for game developers to properly code for multi-socket setups because ryzen functions awfully similar to a multi-socket setup.
>hurr multi-socket setups already work
yes they do, but ryzen is unique with being two, in all intents and purposes, independent processors on a single socket.

>We do not believe there is an issue with scheduling differences between the two versions of Windows.

OK.

>Going forward, our analysis highlights that there are many applications that already make good use of the cores and threads in Ryzen, and there are other applications that can better utilize the topology and capabilities of our new CPU with some targeted optimizations.
>with some targeted optimizations.

So the default scheduling, which is supposed to be fine, is not fine.

What?

>>59395043
>which is why amd has been going on and on about working with developers to properly code for ryzen.
Oh, so people should JUST WAIT for thing to magically become better.

Because, as we all know, coders JUST LOVE to optimize for fringe platforms.

And all that old ancient software you are using now?
Too bad, so sad.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>59395051
>What?
pretty sure legal team of 10 or 15 people worked on that statement.

Here is a thing about MS not wanting to fix it: they use AMD for consoles, it's pretty big chunk of their revenue and predicted revenue.
They can't piss off AMD same way AMD can't piss them off, thus that convoluted statement.

>>59394978
Bullshit, this is only problem with NUMA cores, Intel doesn't do NUMAs unless it's 2 LGA board.

>>59395073
>And all that old ancient software you are using now?
it's more than enough for that, the point is how well it works with modern software there is enough power for old soft to run 10 instances of it at the same time

File: intel_j.png (148KB, 763x930px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 763x930px

>>59390675
>>59390602
>>59390516
>>59390414
>>59390337
>>59390706
It's a brand new architecture you dumb fuck, of course there are going to be issues on release. Just like there were with Intel X99.

Lucky most people on here are actually tech literate so your dumb shilling doesn't really work.

File: 1489465333280.jpg (270KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1920x1080px

>Nothing wrong with Windows 10
>Windows 7 13% faster

File: wait-good-point_o_1144675[1].jpg (32KB, 640x492px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x492px

>>59395112
>most people

>>59395109
by "old" I meant stuff coded in 2016, of course.

>>59395119
not in everything, WD2 runs worse on w7 for example, not that anyone playing it
but 6900K runs that game excellently

>>59395043
>fully saturate all of ryzens cores
>properly code for multi-socket setups
in your dreams

>>59395073
ryzen 8 cores are two legit quad cores tossed onto a single chip sharing a single socket. these have been issues since multi-core processors became a thing. the pentium 4 d suffered a similar fate.

>>59390296

BUT ANON!!!!

we all know only intel stutters. raisins with more cornz is so smoooooth.

>>59395125
>100fps is not enough for me

are you expecting performance to degrade with newer GPUs? I highly doubt that.

>>59395136
>since multi-core processors became a thing. the pentium 4 d suffered a similar fate.
because the pentium d, and core 2 quads where similarly designed as being two chips slapped together into a single package.

>>59395140
everyone blamed bulldozer for being stutterfest though
it is still a stutterfest even compared to 2500K which now became stuttering mess as well with newer games

>>59390371
developers don't use the intel compiler though

>>59395123
well, more than average at least..

>>59390900
It's learning.

>>59389212
Two weeks too late, it's already a dead meme.
All hail invidia overlords. Down with the new and up with the old.

>>59395092
This is a HUGE point when it comes to gaming performance. You would think games would be moving to a more multithreaded approach, since both the PS4 and Xbox One use 8 core AMD CPUs.

Zen has proven itself as ridiculously good at multithreaded performance.

>linux, co-developed by amd, pushed patches into the kernels scheduler to treat ryzen as a 2x4 setup
>sees some big performances boosts
>clearly shows it is a scheduling issue
>but claims on windows 10 everything is working as intended, nothing to see here.
what

ok amd i get it, i understand what you're trying to say. windows 10 scheduler is seeing ryzen as a 8 core, 16 threaded processor and is scheduling on it. but its doing it inefficiently. not optimally like how linux is doing it.

ffs does any company have the backbone to call m$ out on its shit?

http://www.phonandroid.com/amd-ryzen-microsoft-confirme-problemes-windows-10-patch-approche.html
well at least microsoft acknowledges there are smt issues which contradicts what amd stated.

>>59395196
>call m$ out on its shit?
Why the fuck would m$ care?
What the fuck is AMD going to do about it?

>>59395119

That GPU clock though

>>59395192
ass long as data doesn't move from one CCX to another.

>>59395216
imagine their shiny new scorpio going out in flames? scorpio that they wasted several more billions on? the one that supposed to kill ps4?

amd barely gets paid for those designs

>>59395227
still frame, it's nvidia card probably it's boost throttles significantly time to time
probably the same in video

>>59389295
It werks just fine on Linux.

>>59395228
that's the point though, they already have a 2x4 core architecture they are optimising for games on consoles, it would have the same CCX data issue, but it's obviously not hindering progress

seems like something odd is still happening, like Windows doesn't recognise the topology properly or something, or else why would games optimised for a 2x4 topology still be having issues? if anything they should be running better than Intel's single 4 core architecture, which they aren't optimised for

thoughts?

>>59389295
>>59389490
aren't the PSU and Xbox One consoles a 2 x CCX topology anyway?

shouldn't modern games run better on a 2 x CCX topology since that's what they are optimised for already?

>>59395331
the big licence-model engines should be optimized fairly quickly.

>>59395319
> like Windows doesn't recognise the topology properly or something,
>thoughts?
Did you read the article? They clearly said Windows dindu nuffin wrong.

>>59395531
Windows dindu nuffin wrong with SMT (it did everything wrong with Prescott and Nehalem back in the days, MS patched that). It still schedules threads like crazy.

>>59395136
guess why NUMA exists.

>>59395319
Jaguar on consoles doesn't have CCX it has piledrive an optimized bulldozer, CPU with strange as fuck topology.

CCX is new thing, basically 4 core modules that are stitched together, problem with this stitch is that it's slow making potential 2xCCX performance drop down to 20% with is not good.

>>59395550
because in the 90's they made shit ton of "super computers" that had shit tons of CPUs on them?

File: XB1SOC-2.jpg (78KB, 588x455px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 588x455px

>>59395331
It's similar

>>59391569
source?

File: amdinanutshell3.jpg (2MB, 700x5000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x5000px

When will they ever learn?

>make shit chip
>blame the OS
cringe
AMD stock is gonna hit rock bottom because of this latest flop

File: Let's kill the AMDman.png (58KB, 550x490px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 550x490px

>>59395165

>>59395708
>>59395709
Why do you people even come to a fucking TECHNOLOGY board? to gloat that you didn't buy a CPU that some other people did?

Fuck off with your bullshit and discuss actual technology.

>>59395723
stop embarassing yourself

>>59391428
Considering the fact that Hardware Unboxed is full blown AMD shill that just CUTS benchmarks where Nvidia is 20 fps ahead of AMD's GPUs because of "unfair optimization due to gameworks" I think AdoredTV really is losing it.

>>59395739
Everyone is AMD shills. Now neck yourself, Ramesh.

>>59395749
well well well, that goes for you 2 ramesh.

>>59395739
Adoredtv was always a retarded fanboy of the worst kind. Anyone who watches him seriously should commit sudoku.

>>59395761
Stop shilling Rajeesh.

File: worthlessfuckingshills.png (535KB, 2560x1080px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 2560x1080px

>>59395749
>Triggered Hassan can't handle the truth

This is their graph on the update video of 980 Ti. They literally cut off all titles highlighted in orange from the round up average fps chart because it's "unfair towards AMD".

>>59395770
>"unfair towards AMD"
Maybe, maybe because it is, Ramesh?

>>59395776
>It's only okay when AMD does it with Vulkan and Dice.

LMAO.

>>59395770
why? why does anyone even care about Fury X at this or any other point of time.

>>59395780
>vulkan
It's open-source, Ramesh. NVIDIA's shitty async implementation just sucks.

>>59395780
Thing about Vulkan is, it doesn't hinder anyone it just makes world better for AMD, Intel and nVidia.

>>59395785
Because it's still literally most powerful GPU AMD has to offer and as such it has to be shilled as "justifiable" competition against 980 Ti and 1070?

>>59395792
>>59395794
Back to /r/AMD now Rajeed.

>>59395804
Stop shilling for gookjew, Ramesh.

>>59395606
Jaguar is a 2x4 core design similar to Ryzen in that regard

INDIANS OUT

>>59395820
Biggest difference being that Jaguar lacks L3 cache, the thing that is the problem with CCX.

>fuckheads concerned about cpu not being good enough

>the cpu is identical to intels offering clocked 1ghz higher in games when running 1440p.
>anyone who considers an 8core or a 7700k is probably running 1440p or higher.
>1080p is so fucking irrelevant, yet people bitch and moan.

>1070 is a godlike cpu that can do twice as much as the 7700k.
>1800x identical in performance to a 6900k and costs half of it as well.

>people somewhow try to skew this into amd being shit. THEY LITTERALY SHAKED THE FUCKING MARKET AND WE WILL GET CHEAPER CPUS FROM BOTH INTEL AND AMD.

>the performance war is finally back on after a cease fire for 8 years.

>people somehow will shit on amd for what they did instead of praising it for giving intel a run for their money.


Ffs people. /g is such a shithole sometimes.

Oh and for the idiots who drag up youtube reviewers all the time, please do us a favour and KYS.

>>59396036
You're the epitome of everything that is wrong with this board.
Kindly bite a bullet and off yourself.

File: 1266373221997.jpg (24KB, 600x436px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x436px

>>59396036
>1070 is a godlike cpu that can do twice as much as the 7700k.

I think your post gave me brain damage.

>>59396075
Clearly just a typo silly

>>59396107

I wasn't talking about the typo.

>>59396075

nigga shut your mouth. its an 8core that isnt limited like the 4core is, you can literally do twice as much on it.

also if you are obsessing over the typo then i do hope you actually have brain damage, but i dont think its anymore than you already have.

>>59395043
There is no way you can optimize this shit to overcome latency when there is cross thread comunication, and its going to happen a lot on several user computing tasks like gaming.

File: amd-radeon-1080p-owners[1].jpg (139KB, 1020x572px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1020x572px

>>59396036

>1080p is so fucking irrelevant, yet people bitch and moan.

not according to AMD.

>>59396124
>IT HAS TWICE THE COARZ
>YOU CAN LITERALLY DO TWICE AS MUCH ON IT

Is this a false flag by Intel shills? I refuse to believe you're actually this retarded.

>>59396191
>Is this a false flag by Intel shills?
Yes. Usual shilling stoped working like two weeks ago.

>>59396186

According to AMD its only valid for radeon analysis not for ryzen

>>59396210
>it's valid only for the product we're currently shilling
ftfy

>>59396236
Marketing 101.

File: amd_-_Google_Search_-_2017-03-14_18.39.56.png (9KB, 324x119px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 324x119px

>>59389212
not bankrupt or finished.

>>59395227
end of benchmark the card throtles down

Given we can use a program (some hacked together .NET shit) to change the processor affinity of a process, couldnt we just use that and run it in the background to assign gaymes to 1 ccx?

>>59395331
Consoles don't run windows 10 though.

>>59396317
everyone would have to find out which core in which ccx first

also its not that simple, people tried

>>59396319
xbone runs NT kernel

>>59396352
What would be the problem? Couldn't one just read it in the linux kerne? Or alternatively: Load all combinations of two cores with processes, communicating with each other, benchmarking?

File: ryzen_ccx.png (37KB, 600x662px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x662px

Ryzen 2+2 core config vs 4+0

>>59396435
Really this shows that windows works fine, what is not working fine is software.

>>59396435
dat 20% drop in battlefield 1

>>59396472
Windows scheduler works fine for the SMT but it's not CCX aware. They can still patch it to keep the threads on a single CCX when they are not 100% pegged.

>>59395606
Jaguar and piledriver cores are entirely different.

>>59396514
This shows that CCX doesn't need special treatment from windows, really it's the software that doesn't like what CCX is.

So since linux sheduler isn't shit with ryzen then doesn't that mean that games running in wine would get better performance than in windows?

>>59396619
>This shows that CCX doesn't need special treatment from windows,
Need? No. But scheduler optimization would benefit old programs.

>>59396650
Core disabling doesn't seem to benefit linux scheduler (except for the unmature vulkan drivers some other bug might be going on there)
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-ryzen-cores

Jewtel and Nvidiots are so shit but Amdfags are absolute cancer. Ryzen is just nowhere near worth the price for gaming compared to Intel period.

>>59396619
why should programs care about the core-topology?
that's the OS' job.

>>59396771
what if 2+2 is all you got? what is OS going to do? all it can is tell program that there is 4 cores available.

>>59389212
ok but who cares about a toy OS
linux doesn't have any weird issues with ryzen does it?

>tfw when using a 1700x in a VM with GPU passthrough
It's pretty comfy guys

>>59396650
Potentially, but you'd probably only see it happen if you're using a recent AMD graphics card on the open drivers so you can avoid the slow down from wrapping D3D9->OpenGL.
Though there are a few Vulkan games on Windows that it would be interesting to test with.

>>59396811
>all it can is tell program that there is 4 cores available.
but that's wrong.

File: butbutmuhAMD.jpg (175KB, 1324x584px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1324x584px

I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait for the Ryzen review from AdoredTV

>>59396472
No, it's Windows.

It works fine in non-games because those other applications use shared cache less than games do, and thread load is more constant which keeps them from being moved around.

Win 8 and linux works perfect with ryzen .
It is win 10 problem, not ryzen problem.
/g/ can't imagine that they were wrong.

>>59397455
>PCPer gor it wrong
But PCPer confirmed scheduler issues with CCX? They only confirmed SMT is working as it should, not the scheduler issues related to CCX.
>>59390091

>>59396186

again, if you are gaming at 1080p then the 7700 or even the 1700 are overkill.

at 1440p the difference between the 1700 and the 7700k becomes non existant, and the benefits start going in favour of the 1700 since it has 4 cores that are free compared to the 7700k that runs at 100%

>>59396191

are you dense? software designed to run on 4 cores will run on guess what? 4 cores. with an 8core you can set the batch to run on 2x4 thus doubling the throughput and doubling or near doubling the performance.

of course there are restrictions like caching etc, but its not far from being 100% increase in gains.

learn2cpu m8

>there's an obvious issue specific to windows 10
>it was assumed to be caused by windows mishandling load balancing on threads and cache optimization based on given pieces of information
>upon investigation it is found this specific issue is not to blame and the information used was not accurate
>amd states this ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE is not the case in an attempt to keep retards from flying off the handle
>handles are freed from the moist, meaty palms of retards regardless

Jesus fucking Christ is reading comprehension a lost artform? All they've said is the assumed inital cause is not the actual problem. What happens when you introduce a brand new architecture with brand new features on a brand new chipset to a generally incompetently designed operating system for a platform that has been largely driven by the established techniques catered to the industry dominating competitor's offering? You get a bunch of incompatibility bugs on every level of abstraction in every conceivable form. The likes of which can only be sniffed out and squashed as quickly as they're diagnosed, and as competently as the respective software engineers can solve the actual problem.

>so why don't they say what the actual issue is, huh smart guy?

Probably because they still don't fucking know what it is. It's not like they can just google the solution like the faggot "programmers" on /g/ always do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQilK2dOJTg

Works as intended.
4>8, everyone knows that.

>>59398003
It still looks like the cores are not being evenly loaded on Ryzen. The extra headroom Ryzen has is not being utilized which I assume is either a game issue or an issue in DirectX?

>>59398123
Note: I was referring to normal 8/16. BTW by forcing to 4+0 does that affect how the CPU is being polled causing extra overhead? I would have though 4+0 would not be Ryzens normal operating mode some perhaps something causes extra strain being forced to run that way. I don't know how Ryzen is forced into 4+0 mode so I am just guessing.

>>59398178
4/4 or 4/8 is ideal for any game that can GPU bottleneck on just those 4 cores. Which is many games. Or any game that is threaded in such a way that it's highly dependent on certain threads sharing the L3 cache.

It's only not ideal for very CPU intensive games like BF1, which still benefit from using all 8 cores for the extra processing power even when it doesn't understand the two caches and the latency between CCXs properly.

>>59398123
It's because the main thread is waiting on the latency of threads across another CCX calling back in a suboptimal manner, which keeps it from churning through work. And threads are being moved around a lot from one CCX to another, adding more delay.

In cases like BF1, it is the fault of the game's programming and not the Windows Scheduler. But better OS scheduling could improve things.

>muh scheduler
Told you there was no bug and it's poor design. I was called a shill.

>>59389295
>Windows shitty schedular throws to random cores
It doesn't do that randomly, it's for balancing core use and lower consumption/temperature.

>>59398338
>we do not presently believe there is an issue with the scheduler adversely utilizing the logical and physical configurations of the architecture
They are commenting about SMT not CCX. Performance hits from SMT are well known since Intel has them too.

>>59398396
it's called doublespeak. They have not really addressed what others have witnessed at all. It's smoke and mirrors and PR bullshit.

>>59398396
It's also about CCX performance since the perf issues come from the slow "data fabric" link for when certain cores/thread have to take stuffs from the other CCX's L3 cache. When windows scheduler moves threads to the other CCX, they still have cached datas from the other CCX.

>>59390296
So, windows is like 90% of computers, wouldn't you try and design your hardware around them?

>>59398459
Not in the server market no. That's where AMDs bread and butter business is.

>>59398416
> When windows scheduler moves threads to the other CCX, they still have cached datas from the other CCX.
It's not a bug per se but suboptimal behavior, keeping threads in a single CCX if there is enough headroom would yield better results. Is there a hardware limitation preventing Windows differentiating between CCXes? I would call it bad design in that case

can someone tell me straight up if gaming performance will get better at all via software updates or if its a hardware problem which can't be fixed to the same extent as a software problem?

>>59398437
Read this guys. It tells us a lot.

>>59398512
Whatever, the data fabric link will remain at 22Gbps, they can't correct that with software. The only thing they can do is trying to mitigate the effect by making windows 10 scheduler move the threads only in the same CCX.
So you can say it's bad design from AMD having such a slow link between CCX because it affects performance in certain situation.

>>59398592
>Whatever, the data fabric link will remain at 22Gbps, they can't correct that with software
That's conscious design decision and accepted penalty hit for workloads utilizing all cores, Zen wouldn't scale up to 32 core naples without it. The situation that can be improved by windows is lightly threaded loads that can saturate only up to half of the computing power.

>>59394528
>""""""high-end"""""" processor

>>59398592
This can be alleviated a bit by using faster memory because the fabric runs at half RAM speeds. Nearly all these tests were done very early on at 2133MHz. Moving up to 3200MHz memory increases this by 50%.

Unfortunately memory support is still pretty shitty now, only certain Samsung B-die memory is even kinda working at 3200MHz most of the time and most of the timings are still not exposed but new BIOS and AGESA will improve this in coming months.

>>59398552
If you only care games buy a nintendo or whatever toy you like.

>>59398552
>can someone tell me straight up if gaming performance will get better at all via software updates or if its a hardware problem which can't be fixed to the same extent as a software problem?
If games patch for it, yes. But most games won't.

MSFT could update their scheduler to give an average like 20%+ performance improvement across all games, but they seemingly won't.

>>59389212
What I dont understand about this whole thing is this:
>tech reviewers able to check our Ryzen live before it launched
>ran benchmarks vs Intel CPUs live @ AMD HQ (or wherever)
>benchmarks very promising
IF Windows is at fault, which fucking OS did these shills run their benchmarks on?
What can run muh gaymes and all the benchmarks they used besides Windows and score better benchmark results on both gaymes and artificial benchmarks than Intel CPUs?

I have lost a picture when was written "If /g/ would make a smartphone"

Just wait until 2030 and AMD will fix it

File: average.png (72KB, 601x830px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 601x830px

>>59398727
20% is more likely to be best case. Average gains would be around 5-10%

>>59398737
You are missing the point. Average lightweight load aka gaming performance of 6900k is 10% faster than 1800x, with some optimization they can be equal. You are still getting 100 frames without any optimization, that can be hardly called bad.

>>59398866
In Doom there is a 40-70% difference in many cases.
Not 20%.

No, 20% is likely the average increase if the Windows scheduler worked as optimally as one could reasonably expect it to. Your benchmarks there are just GPU limited on the higher end.

>>59398866
I think YOU are missing the point.
On Linus Shill tips scored better with Ryzen on the live benchmark then with the unit they got for reviewing on artificial benchmarks, raising following questions:
1: if Windows is a bottleneck, was Windows used on the machines of the first benchmark or a different OS?
2: was it a legit benchmark?
3: did the underlying code get changed post benchmark?

The most likely thing: It was a fucking fraud, just like every pre release stuff we see in the tech world, which is why noone takes this shit seriously anymore. Still makes me wonder what exactly happened.

>>59398866
Kill yourself.

>>59394849
Except I'm right tho.

>>59398552
>>59398437
read shit

>>59393480
I wouldn't be surprised. Either way I don't care, w10 is first windows in 20 years I have legitimate license for, not going back to piracy.

>>59398287
Can't you force all activity to one CCX with processor affinity?

So now that the dust has settled can we all agree neither microsoft or the game developers will ever optimize their shit for ryzen, the consumer battle is decisively lost for AMD and the intel Jews will keep charging whatever they want for gaymen chips?

>>59400221
Ryzen 7 was not intended for gaming to begin with. Ryzen 3 and Ryzen 5 are far more optimal for gaming than Ryzen 7. AMD implied that Ryzen 7 could game not that it would always be the most optimal at it.

>>59400221
Or the R5 and R3 will come out, gamedevs will continue to optimize for 4c/8t and nothing will change. Assuming R5/R3 only have one CCX.

>>59400253
>AMD implied that Ryzen 7 could game not that it would always be the most optimal at it.

they implied that it was better than the flagship 6900k at gaming which we now know was a straight up lie

>>59400282
What games did they demonstrate and how far were the demonstrations from reality?

File: 1489507441726.png (96KB, 630x758px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 630x758px

Ryzen is actually only 3.6% behind a 7700K when core parking and HPET is disabled. This will improve over the coming months to the point where newer games will actually run better on Ryzen.

>>59400282
It's off by about 10 FPS at 1080p vs. a CPU that costs twice as much. And well over 60 FPS in any case. Fuck off, shilltell cocksucker.

>>59400303
>this shilling level of delusional expectations
People like you are killing the AMD consumer base

>>59400266
The 6c/12t model(s) will have an advantage over the others, I'm curious how well they will perform. Extra cache can be a huge difference.

>>59400303
http://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/ryzen-windows-7-benchmark-core-parking/

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2017-03%2Fryzen-windows-7-benchmark-core-parking%2F&edit-text=&act=url

>>59400303
> over the coming months
AMD drones on suicide watch

>>59400294
up to 20% behind

I just want a nice 4/8 under $200. That's all I want.

>>59400472
Then wait for r3 and r5

>>59400175
Manually? Yes, basically. Except games often spawn and remove new threads that you can't keep up with I don't think?

But the OS thread scheduler should do that automatically, is the point.

>>59400419
you realize only argument against getting 1700 is how long it will keep up with more pwoerfull GPUs? the answer is it will live forever and wouldn't devolve into stuttering mess like intel quads did
8 core sandy is very good for gaming even now, thing is it was very expensive
ryzen is affordable

>>59400544
Meh I don't know.

It's an amazing CPU, but only if software utilize it.

Since MSFT has apparently said "nope, Windows isn't going to utilize it" that hurts a lot. It means every single game is going to need to use User Mode Scheduling, and use it properly, when currently almost no games use it at all.

I'll just get the cheap ass 4c/8t and if MS decides to fix their shit, or at least Linux does and I can game more on Linux, then I'll get a 4core.
Or maybe AMD will move to 6 cores per CCX and I can get a 6 core then without having to worry about this issue making games run 10-20% worse than they should.

I shouldn't have to fuck around with different settings to use the optimal settings for each game. That's what the fucking OS is for.

>>59400533
At least there's a workaround. CCX should be limited to just one with the 4 core ryzen CPUs.

>>59400577
no GPU can reach 144fps 1440p anyway
you argue 0.2ms rendering time difference at 100fps+ which it can reach now

>>59400375
If they had also tested CSGO and DX12 Tomb Raider it would show a large discrepancy between Win 7 and 10. Overall Win 7 is about 15% faster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr6CYZmjKcA&list=PL_sfYUCEg8Oio5MKmK6z7CfFvWKmoZBG2

>>59400634
Muh SLI 1080 ti's

>>59400671
it can run it though
I don't see how it wouldn't be able to

anyone tested it?

>>59389237
>Ryan Shrout

>shouting any fud he can try to pin on AMD out of his tiny capacity lungs while flat out ignoring, misleading or sticking even more fud on any fixes or mere statements.

when will you ever learn /g/?. That deuche deserves less clicks than wccftech or fudzilla, at least those two can be somewhat entertaining occasionally.

File: 1323123516269.jpg (51KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x600px

>>59394287
>try reading pcper

>>59400303
does this mean the r5 6 core and r3 will just be fine out of the box with no fucking around with parking cores and be on the same level as a 7700k for 130$ and 230$?

>>59394574
you swallowed the potentially false premise too early, anon.

PCPer showed higher inter-CCX latency but didn't actually come close to proving that it's any part of measurable differences.

The other possibility that people are throwing around is that Zen is simply more heavily handicapped when threads are migrated between different cores, especially to opposite CCXs, and that schedulers should be less eager to move things around on Ryzen systems.

>>59389212
ANOTHER
MASSIVE
(you finish)

>>59400419
>buy 1700
>enjoy continuing performance increases as more programs get optimized
>upgrade in 4 years with a simple CPU swap
vs.
>enjoy stagnating performance of a mature architecture
>enjoy having to buy another socket for no fucking reason

>>59400932
>PCPer showed higher inter-CCX latency
they also showed lower intra-CCX latency

>>59401057
Relative to newer Intels, Zen presumably has comparable L1 latency, higher L2, lower local L3, and higher remote L3.

It's an entirely mixed bag.

>>59401043
all zen will work on the same mobo?

how will mobo manufacturers make profits?

>>59401123
i mean all future zen*

like zen+ or whatever in 2018

>>59400634
Dual GPU Vega will almost certainly reach 144fps 1440p.

>>59401114
ping times between logical cores:
intel - 80 ns
ryzen - 40 ns intra-CCX, 140 ns inter-CCX
source: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-and-Windows-10-Scheduler-No-Silver-Bullet

>>59401114
>Relative to newer Intels, Zen presumably has comparable L1 latency, higher L2, lower local L3, and higher remote L3.
It should also be noted it has double the L2 cache, this somewhat offsets it's slightly higher latency as it pushes back how often it needs to dive into L3 and beyond.

>>59389854
>reddit

>>59401189
in case you're not actually a trolling faggot, you should know that everyone here is laughing at that article.

the bald cuck-looking author wouldn't release sauce and came to some overly simplistic conclusions from the limited data he was able to collect.

>>59401148
I love AMD GPUs but let's be realistic.

>>59401123
They actually will make bigger margins on cheaper chipsets, since half south bridge moved to CPU already(probably will be even more with 7nm, probably completely later on) they'd have less licensing to do,less work etc.
Only smaller percent of upgrading people would want to buy new CPU, most people buy whole build. So they'd have enough to sell coming years.

>>59400637
>Old shitty games nobody but online babbies play anymore that will run at 200 fps on a potato being relevant.

>>59395196

>software works fine on Intel
>software sucks on AMD

>software's fault

What the fuck kind of logic is this?

>>59389212

>2017
>pins

File: 92DGnyK.jpg (158KB, 1401x749px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1401x749px

>>59401293
Linus benched CSGO

>you should test the games nobody plays!

File: firefox_2017-03-11_06-42-21.png (1MB, 1123x634px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1123x634px

>>59401254
I am being realistic. The 7990, 295, and radeon pro duo are still relevant GPUs today. AMD just has shitty marketing.

AMD dual GPU graphics cards have always out performed the Titan cards. Many of them continued to outperform Titan cards that came out 2 years later.
But for some reason people have this idea that the dual GPU Radeons suffer the same drawbacks as Crossfire, in that games must be optimized to use the second GPU, which is just not true.

Though I think it'd be worth waiting for Navi for a dual GPU card. That should be the first one to use infinity fabric for nearly true 2x performance scaling.

>>59401440
>people have this idea that the dual GPU Radeons suffer the same drawbacks as Crossfire
it is true, it just switches off second gpu if it's not supported

File: 1463608076497.jpg (59KB, 701x443px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 701x443px

>>59401440
reminds me of this

>>59401471
Do you have a source for that?
In what game is the 295x2, for example, the same performance as the 290? Because it was 2 290 GPUs on the same card. I can't find such an example.

I searched for 295x2 benchmarks since almost no one reviewed the Radeon Pro duo.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-295x2-review-benchmark-performance,3799-5.html

File: 1485059828140.jpg (25KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 680x383px

>>59401554
Is that pcper?

File: medish.jpg (133KB, 548x629px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 548x629px

>>59401561

>>59401384
>doesn't support SMT

File: QB_1920.jpg (125KB, 548x535px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 548x535px

>>59401561
>>59401600

AMD is such a fucking shitshow of a company

File: r_1920.jpg (135KB, 549x566px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 549x566px

>>59401561
>>59401600
>>59401615

>>59401615
>>59401600
Alright, thanks.

That sucks, but I have a feeling that the Navi one may work differently.

File: fapex.jpg (70KB, 500x574px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x574px

>>59401655
they will work the same as sli/xfire even if amd do that 2 gpu on a single interposer stuff. devs will have to utilize the explicit multi adapter feature of dx12 if they want to take advantage of the multiple gpu's to their fullest potential. there's no secret sauce to dual gpu. it will always require sli/xfire or multi adapter profiles.

>>59401696
Perhaps not if they can get to work like ryzen, with games seeing a single big gpu instead of two

>>59401696
Many features in Vega are working toward a future of multiple smaller dies that are networked together.

So the Navi "dual GPU" will likely be one socket, but multiple dies on the socket, and will likely be seen as software as a single GPU. So no, not really a dual GPU but.. still the "x2" or "duo" equivalent.

I am fairly certain of this.

>>59401781
>>59401787
like i said, there is no secret sauce to any of this. the developers will still have to code for the multiple gpu no matter how many of them there are. it will always require extra work from the dev and won't work like a single gpu unless the developers specifically utilize multi adapter or amd create xfire profiles.

cpu are different when it comes to this in many ways.

>>59401855
Not necessarily.
The secret sauce is to make it look like one GPU.

Which it technically would be. Currently you have the die that has many different components on it. There's no reason they can't be split those component up among various dies. You add some latency, but you increase scallability and decrease cost.

There's no reason they can put, say, 2 shader engines, 2 compute engines, and 4 billion transistors per die. Double that for mainstream, and double it again for the super high end ones.
The global data share, L2 cache, multimedia accelerators, PCIe bus interface, and Graphics Command Processor would probably be on its own die and linked to those.

To the graphics driver, it looks like one GPU with double the CUs, clock, throughput, and so on.

>>59389212
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQilK2dOJTg
>guy disables one ccx to run it as a 4 core / 8 thread processor
>sees big performance improvements in games.
AMD WHY U LIE ABOUT WINDOWS 10 SCHEDULER? IF NOT, WHY U NO GO INTO BIGGER DETAIL TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

>>59402143
They are correct in that Windows correctly identifies and uses SMT threads.

They are lying in that 'nothing is wrong' with the scheduler. The scheduler should try to keep an application's threads all on one CCX if they'll fit.

>>59402115
yes, we know that but the point being made is that even though you can attempt to trick the game into thinking the two gpu are actually one gpu, you will run into compatibility issues and game engine issues with resource allocation.

if it was as easy as you're trying to make it look this would have been done years ago. these patents have been around since just after the 360 got released iirc. there will always be extra work required when there are multiple gpu being used, even on a single interposer.

>>59402206
>you will run into compatibility issues and game engine issues with resource allocation.
No you won't.

>if it was as easy as you're trying to make it look this would have been done years ago.
It wasn't done years ago because there are challenges with it. It introduces latency, for one, which makes it less efficient for the given hardware.
But AMD's infinity fabric is much faster than PCIe 3.0 16x.

>>59402204
>The scheduler should try to keep an application's threads all on one CCX if they'll fit.
Is that really the scheduler's job? Can the CPUID be updated to mark this?

>>59400909
Assuming they only have one CCX, yes.

>>59402250
>Is that really the scheduler's job?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduling_%28computing%29#Short-term_scheduling

Hmmm.

>>59402244
>No you won't.
yes you will

>But AMD's infinity fabric is much faster than PCIe 3.0 16x.
and still slow enough to cause latency issues

>>59402250
>Is that really the scheduler's job
Yes, it really is.

A scheduler should be aware of the shared cache of cores and try to keep an application's threads using as much of each other's shared cache as possible as most applications rely on it.

Applications that DON'T rely on it do User Mode Scheduling anyway, and aren't a concern.

Most games don't do User Mode Scheduling. Their uneven thread loads are difficult to manage so they let the OS handle it. The OS is doing a shitty job of it with Ryzen.

I wonder if they'll rework the core complexes with Zen+ or Zen++. Maybe make them 6 cores per CCX rather than 4?

>>59402143
I figured they did this intentionally to market their r3 r5 chips as a superior gaming cpu bargain to intel

Why get a 7700k when you can get 90% of the performance for half the price? Why get a pentium when you can get double the cores?

r7 is superior bargain to 6900k
r5 is superior bargain to 7700k
r3 is superior bargain to pentium

>>59402362
>to intel
*vs intel

>>59402362
The main thing that separates AMD from Intel is that when AMD implements an instruction set extension they roll it out to all of their chips. With Intel lower end chips may not get newer instruction set extensions. Even Intel's higher end chips are not totally exempt from losing functionality though, their "unlocked", K series chips cannot use virtualization IIRC and I think they lack ECC memory support as well. AMD just provides everything on every chip the only difference between their chips is the configuration of the cores themselves, the type of GPU(if any), and maybe the caches.

>>59402362
The 6 core is going to have an even worse problem here.

This shit needs fixed pronto. It needs to be fixed in the Windows scheduler instead of relying on games to all patch.

>>59402546
You're right about ECC, but vt-d and vt-x were added to the k-skus with Haswell.

>>59402546
This was the same story with GPUs for a long time.

Even up to the Nvidia 900 series, Nvidia would heavily gimp some aspect of their mid-upper range cards so they would be bad for the games coming out in a year or two that they were currently working with developers on.
Even on their highest end cards, the #80 ones, they'd always have something gimped to keep them from performing too well as workstation cards.

The 1070 seems to be the first time they didn't arbitrarily gimp their midrange card in a way that wouldn't become apparently to most people for another year or two, but people still kept buying their shoveled shit up until that point.

Whereas with AMD cards, their midrange cards were always just slightly cut down versions of their top end cards. A card with half the power was always around half the performance in all areas equally, while a "half size" Nvidia card would be 75-85% cut down in one specific area.

>>59402612
nah the 6 core will be the even more budgety version of workstation cpu

the 4 core parts will be slower than kaby lake but half the cost of the competition or double the cores

amd has clearly positioned themselves as dominating the bang for the buck market

the comparison charts we've seen are nothing more than misinformation agents to prevent the masses from overreacting to the superior bargain buy

r7 isn't competing with 7700k that's only said to throw you off the trail r7 is a workstation cpu, there will be some high end r5's that act as cheaper r7's and a low end r5 that's a superior bargain to 7700k and lastly an r3 with double the cores/threads of pentium making it a more attractive all around budget cpu

>>59402757
>more cores/threads
*not more threads

>>59402757
Yeah it's looking like at $200 the 4c/8t will be at least 80% as good as the $350 i7-7700k based on benchmarks people have done so far of disabling one CCX. (plus $30 cheaper motherboard)
That's good. Its performance as 4c/8t for that money looks fantastic.


I'll just get that while I wait for AMD and MSFT to sort shit out. I'm not going to mention developers, because this really isn't their problem and thousands of games shouldn't need updating for optimal performance when a scheduler update would probably give a 15% improvement on average for over 95% of games.

I'd have liked to get a 6 or 8 core, but what the fuck ever. This is such a mess. I really could have used the more cores for compiling and shit, but not when it makes performance on many games worse.

>>59402856
basically all the 6 and 8 core parts r5/r7 parts are workstation cpus that obliterate intel's 6 and 8 core parts for the dollar and are the actual competition, not 7700k

the r5 1400x is the real competitor to 7700k which closes the performance gap in games by a few percent by sidestepping ccx latency issues, costing half the price and being overclockable

and then the pentium g4560 gets swept up by the cheaper r3 offerings that offer double the cores, similar game and superior productivity performancw

>>59402887
The 6900k and 6850k are fine in gaming, man. That's where this big disappointment lies.

Yeah the 1700 stomps the 6850k on most workstation tasks, but it's worse in gaming.

The power is there, but Windows keep derping and moving threads back and forth from one CCX to another and spreading threads out thinly across the CCX instead of keeping them together where they can use the same L3 cache.

And AMD is telling developers have to update their games, which in most cases don't handle scheduling at all and let the OS handle it, to do the job that MSFT is supposed to do.
Shit pisses me off.

>>59403103
the 6900k isn't a gaming cpu tho and nobody worth mentioning pays a premium on it for that which makes the 6 and 8 core ryzen parts a stupidly better buy. the fact 1700 also games decently is just a cherry on top.

for gayms the 1400x is the winner as it avoids the ccx latency issue while simultaneously costing half that of its true competitor, the 7700k

if you want workstation class performance and good gaming a 1700 is the best buy, by far, for the money anyway

>>59403153
>the 6900k isn't a gaming cpu tho
Yet it outperforms the 7700k in many newer games. But the 1800X does not, except in Mafia III.

If you don't have the proper facts, why bother arguing?

>>59395716
>no games

Any suggestion as to when prices for both AMD as well as intel CPUs drop a bit? They seem to hover a bit, waiting for how Ryzen will establish itself in the market, but I feel that a price push will come soon.

>>59403212
You're talking about a $1,000 cpu you cock gobbling mongoloid. It's absolutely in no way even remotely close to a good value next to Ryzen. Read the quote chaim properly next time or kys

The problem is not AMD. It's Microshaft having a domination on OS and games. If they actually gave a shit about having Windows work optimally on all hardware they would sort this shit out. But they have been Intel's bitch for so long they have lost sight of innovation. They like Intel have become bloated lazy fucks only interested in making money by selling you shit (adverts/botnet/pay to use).

poojeets get called out for error that skews their benchmarks.

>it's windows fault, windows 10 is terrible.

new poojeet gpu comes out

>look at how amazingly it performs in the greatest os windows 10. my direct x12 is so great.

>>59403720
was literally going to say this

good post