• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

2990wx request

T

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
2FA
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,754
I was wondering if some one that owns a 2990wx would be willing to benchmark any game of choice but do so in the two fashions:

1. Just benchmark normally. Record fps.

2. Manage the affinity so that the game uses only 8 cores from one of the CCXs that are direct connected to ram. NOT allowing access to the CCX that shares ram between the infinity fab.

I have a strong suspicion these chips can game just as good as a 2950x if we manage the affinity. No need to go into stupid gaming mode or any of that crap.

I did this with massive success on my old 1950x using process Lasso.
 
Last edited:
I suspect the latency to be the same as a 2950X in creator mode with the ccx cores accessing non-local memory. Both cases would require communicating to the memory controller on another package.

I agree that game mode would heavily nerf the utility of a 32-core processor if you have to chop it back to 8 cores. Not good!

Not sure a gamer would be all that nuts about having that many cores unless he is building epeen points.
 
cyberguyz said:
I suspect the latency to be the same as a 2950X in creator mode with the ccx cores accessing non-local memory. Both cases would require communicating to the memory controller on another package.

I agree that game mode would heavily nerf the utility of a 32-core processor if you have to chop it back to 8 cores. Not good!

Not sure a gamer would be all that nuts about having that many cores unless he is building epeen points.
Click to expand...

There this weird philosophy on this website that there are ONLY gamers and then ONLY production people? It makes no sense and is frankly humorous at best.

I am a gamer as much as a productivity person.

It's not about electronic cock size.

It's about assessing if a product can meet the needs of two things that a great many of people want.

To be able to game as well as pound out some productivity.

I do not believe the reviewers had the time to address locking software down to a dedicated ccx while leaving all 32 cores active. Instead with time constraints they left the software suffer due to win10 scheduler.

I did this as an example on my old 1950x. I dont own it anymore.

 
Last edited:
My work machines span four: 2 12 c / 24 t and 1 16 c / 32 t workstations and 1 4 c / 8 t laptop (basically a cloud rendering coordinator and part-time rendering machine). These are all amortized and are all used for making paid products (typically between 10K and 250K USD per work unit but some outliers span up to 1M USD). None of these machines are used for gaming though two of them could.

My home machines span three: 1 1 c / 2 t Debian Linux server, 1 4 c / 8 t gaming machine, and 1 4 c / 8 t laptop (this doesn't count machines in various states of dis-assembly, and doesn't count my wife's equipment).

Could I use one machine (specifically a new 32 c / 64 t TR) to do all of the stuff my seven machines do? Probably, but not at the same time and not as efficiently. It's also not worth calculating the percentage of use my 'dream machine' would spend performing work units or be used for gaming, something you need to do for tax purposes if you don't intend on getting audited for stupid reasons.

So I am both a gamer and a producer but I don't use one machine to do it all...
 
Algrim said:
My work machines span four: 2 12 c / 24 t and 1 16 c / 32 t workstations and 1 4 c / 8 t laptop (basically a cloud rendering coordinator and part-time rendering machine). These are all amortized and are all used for making paid products (typically between 10K and 250K USD per work unit but some outliers span up to 1M USD). None of these machines are used for gaming though two of them could.

My home machines span three: 1 1 c / 2 t Debian Linux server, 1 4 c / 8 t gaming machine, and 1 4 c / 8 t laptop (this doesn't count machines in various states of dis-assembly, and doesn't count my wife's equipment).

Could I use one machine (specifically a new 32 c / 64 t TR) to do all of the stuff my seven machines do? Probably, but not at the same time and not as efficiently. It's also not worth calculating the percentage of use my 'dream machine' would spend performing work units or be used for gaming, something you need to do for tax purposes if you don't intend on getting audited for stupid reasons.

So I am both a gamer and a producer but I don't use one machine to do it all...
Click to expand...

Your use case is very specific.... and damn man do you really make that much money with your machines as an Individual? Good lawdy.
 
I assume a lot of people that do work at home, its not work computers. It's home computers that they like to do work on. So there can be balance between a computer that they can game on, but also if they bring their project home for the weekend or to work on it on their own time they can.
 
I'm actually messing around with ways of doing this for the same reason. I'm out of town for my day job, so I can't do anything with it right now. The main issue is that you can't clock the 2990WX as high as some other chips. The most I could sustain on one is 4GHz and that had massive power draw and generated a fuck ton of heat. Even if you can get the affinity set right, you are looking at an issue of the clocks still being slower than those of a 2950X. However, we should be able to avoid the reboots to put it in "game" mode.
 
Dan_D said:
I'm actually messing around with ways of doing this for the same reason. I'm out of town for my day job, so I can't do anything with it right now. The main issue is that you can't clock the 2990WX as high as some other chips. The most I could sustain on one is 4GHz and that had massive power draw and generated a fuck ton of heat. Even if you can get the affinity set right, you are looking at an issue of the clocks still being slower than those of a 2950X. However, we should be able to avoid the reboots to put it in "game" mode.
Click to expand...

Well wont single core or a few cores clock above 4ghz pending you dont load up the whole slab of cores? Forgive my ignorance with this particular chip.
 
tangoseal said:
Well wont single core or a few cores clock above 4ghz pending you dont load up the whole slab of cores? Forgive my ignorance with this particular chip.
Click to expand...

In theory, but I haven't messed with that yet either. That doesn't mean we will see 4.2GHz or better on those cores. Although, that's the idea.
 
tangoseal said:
There this weird philosophy on this website that there are ONLY gamers and then ONLY production people? It makes no sense and is frankly humorous at best.

I am a gamer as much as a productivity person.

It's not about electronic cock size.

It's about assessing if a product can meet the needs of two things that a great many of people want.

To be able to game as well as pound out some productivity.

I do not believe the reviewers had the time to address locking software down to a dedicated ccx while leaving all 32 cores active. Instead with time constraints they left the software suffer due to win10 scheduler.

I did this as an example on my old 1950x. I dont own it anymore.

Click to expand...


Touchy aren't we ;). I game on mine too, but I don't need to benchmark them. My games run fine - at least those that don't need a physical connection to local memory - I have at least one of those and it is only the GameGuard bits that freak out. Those who buy a system that has this much multi-tasking power are not doing it expecting the cpu to be a top end gaming processor. I certainly didn't with mine. And I don't believe for a second you are naive enough to believe that either.

When I do need to do something that needs multiple cores, well, they are there. When I need to game, I can at full quality settings without any problems at all.

alxlwson said:
I just want 8 cores and quad channel RAM !
Click to expand...

I have this lovely TR 1900X *8 core quad channel ram) I can consider selling :D
 
Last edited:
cyberguyz said:
Touchy aren't we ;). I game on mine too, but I don't need to benchmark them. My games run fine - at least those that don't need a physical connection to local memory - I have at least one of those and it is only the GameGuard bits that freak out. Those who buy a system that has this much multi-tasking power are not doing it expecting the cpu to be a top end gaming processor. I certainly didn't with mine. And I don't believe for a second you are naive enough to believe that either.

When I do need to do something that needs multiple cores, well, they are there. When I need to game, I can at full quality settings without any problems at all.



I have this lovely TR 1900X *8 core quad channel ram) I can consider selling :D
Click to expand...

Not touchy just tired of the very argument you gave in this very reply as an example.

It's not about a little or just good enough or just fast enough or maybe 2/3rds as good as yesterdays 5.

It's a question asking if there is an improvement in a game of any choosing when you let windows decide or you decide how to manage threads assigned and from what ccx.

Touchy is not my problem but comprehension seems to be several others.
 
cyberguyz said:
Touchy aren't we ;). I game on mine too, but I don't need to benchmark them. My games run fine - at least those that don't need a physical connection to local memory - I have at least one of those and it is only the GameGuard bits that freak out. Those who buy a system that has this much multi-tasking power are not doing it expecting the cpu to be a top end gaming processor. I certainly didn't with mine. And I don't believe for a second you are naive enough to believe that either.

When I do need to do something that needs multiple cores, well, they are there. When I need to game, I can at full quality settings without any problems at all.



I have this lovely TR 1900X *8 core quad channel ram) I can consider selling :D
Click to expand...


Don't have time to go searching around right now...but does the 8c TR's have all core memory access?
 
alxlwson said:
Don't have time to go searching around right now...but does the 8c TR's have all core memory access?
Click to expand...

I believe only the 2990WX and the 24 core variant are the ones without all core memory access. 2950x and below should be fine
 
alxlwson said:
Don't have time to go searching around right now...but does the 8c TR's have all core memory access?
Click to expand...
No.

The two packages for the 1900x has only one live 4-core CCX each. The other is a dud. Each package has access to 2 channels of memory. Game mode will give you 4 cores with Dual channel memory.

Rockenrooster said:
I believe only the 2990WX and the 24 core variant are the ones without all core memory access. 2950x and below should be fine
Click to expand...

He is asking about the 19xx series. The 29xx series doesn't have an 8-core version.

--- Edit -- combine double posts.

tangoseal said:
Not touchy just tired of the very argument you gave in this very reply as an example.

It's not about a little or just good enough or just fast enough or maybe 2/3rds as good as yesterdays 5.

It's a question asking if there is an improvement in a game of any choosing when you let windows decide or you decide how to manage threads assigned and from what ccx.

Touchy is not my problem but comprehension seems to be several others.
Click to expand...
Yes, touchy....

Look, you aren't everyone. You are obviously interested to see what needs to be done with that chip to make it game friendly. I get it. I have also seen your opinions when it comes to the Windows task scheduler. Cool. To each their own.
But you don't represent the majority of people that would consider using one of these chips as a predominantly game benchmark buster. Most people buying these are using it for productivity. Some will be using it as their go-to machine for everything - including gaming. It is my own opinion that most would not buy a workstation cpu and one that AMD even says up front is meant more for the creation activities, for a predominantly gaming system. There is no reason it won't play games. And I am sure 99% of them would work fine on it. It is simply not tailored to that kind of workload.

I would not expect to see Microsoft or even AMD doing anything as esoteric as pinning process to specific CPU cores simply to support the few hardcore gamers that might buy one of these. You can try and manage that on a task-by-task basis with something like project lasso, but Microsoft and AMD? Nope.

Take that how you will.
 
Last edited:
cyberguyz said:
No.

The two packages for the 1900x has only one live 4-core CCX each. The other is a dud. Each package has access to 2 channels of memory. Game mode will give you 4 cores with Dual channel memory.



He is asking about the 19xx series. The 29xx series doesn't have an 8-core version.

--- Edit -- combine double posts.


Yes, touchy....

Look, you aren't everyone. You are obviously interested to see what needs to be done with that chip to make it game friendly. I get it. I have also seen your opinions when it comes to the Windows task scheduler. Cool. To each their own.
But you don't represent the majority of people that would consider using one of these chips as a predominantly game benchmark buster. Most people buying these are using it for productivity. Some will be using it as their go-to machine for everything - including gaming. It is my own opinion that most would not buy a workstation cpu and one that AMD even says up front is meant more for the creation activities, for a predominantly gaming system. There is no reason it won't play games. And I am sure 99% of them would work fine on it. It is simply not tailored to that kind of workload.

I would not expect to see Microsoft or even AMD doing anything as esoteric as pinning process to specific CPU cores simply to support the few hardcore gamers that might buy one of these. You can try and manage that on a task-by-task basis with something like project lasso, but Microsoft and AMD? Nope.

Take that how you will.
Click to expand...

Its not about hardcore gaming which you consistently refer too over and over.

It's about one metric to measure control of the processor and if you can manually boost performance where lacking by affinity management to ccx with direct ram access bypassing sharing of ram via the inf fab....
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
Its not about hardcore gaming which you consistently refer too over and over.

It's about one metric to measure control of the processor and if you can manually boost performance where lacking by affinity management to ccx with direct ram access bypassing sharing of ram via the inf fab....
Click to expand...

And... in my first response to you I had pointed out that the two packages that have no direct access to local memory would operate with the same latency as a program running on a package that is accessing memory on the remote package.

In both situations the cores must use the off-package infinity fabric. The scenarios are the same and it has been measured. It is already well known that this scenario would suck monkey turds with latency-sensitive applications --- like gaming. It is also known that one of these (and the older 19xx) processors work a lot faster and with far less latency in TR's Game Mode. What was true with the 1950X is true with the 2950X and the 2990WX. The only real difference is that int the 29xxWX there will be half of its cores that have no direct access to memory at all and have to use the inf fabric. I'm sure pinning processes to cores that have access to local memory, and making sure all memory allocations within that process is coming from the same pool is something that you are really only able to do with specialized tools like process lasso -- or Ryzen Master's mode switching (along with its required reboot).

Trying to fudge the process handling by hand-pinning processes to cores and somehow making them see only that package's 2 channels of memory will always be sub par and leave most of the processor's resources unused. Windows task switcher initializes with the number of cores that EFI is telling it to use. It can't shift gears on the fly without re-initializing its task queues based on the number of available cores. I highly doubt that Linux's task switching, configurable as it is, can do that either.

It is the Threadripper curse. Love it or hate it. Personally I am perfectly fine with it. AMD wanted to drop lots of cores on the world, and this is the way they do it. Intel does it differently and id many ways ends up being inferior in non-cpu resources that Threadripper has an almost overabundance of.
 
cyberguyz said:
I suspect the latency to be the same as a 2950X in creator mode with the ccx cores accessing non-local memory. Both cases would require communicating to the memory controller on another package.

I agree that game mode would heavily nerf the utility of a 32-core processor if you have to chop it back to 8 cores. Not good!

Not sure a gamer would be all that nuts about having that many cores unless he is building epeen points.
Click to expand...

tangoseal said:
There this weird philosophy on this website that there are ONLY gamers and then ONLY production people? It makes no sense and is frankly humorous at best.

I am a gamer as much as a productivity person.

It's not about electronic cock size.

It's about assessing if a product can meet the needs of two things that a great many of people want.

To be able to game as well as pound out some productivity.

I do not believe the reviewers had the time to address locking software down to a dedicated ccx while leaving all 32 cores active. Instead with time constraints they left the software suffer due to win10 scheduler.

I did this as an example on my old 1950x. I dont own it anymore.

Click to expand...

I agree with Tangoseal on this since there are quite a few who not only game, game/productivity, but also contribute to DC projects. It's not really productivity per se but still important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top