So, Decent Analysis from AMD's Reddit on the gaming latency issues

The windows scheduler must have a way of dealing with this, or dual socket systems would perform like ass as well. It must just be a matter of patching the windows scheduler to tell it to treat a Ryzen chip as if it were two quadcore CPU's in different sockets, and only to move processes between them when it absolutely needs to. This can't be a particularly involved fix.


That is interesting way of patching it!

Dual CPU systems though don't work well with critical path software lol, They actually crash and burn lol. So although that is an interesting way of looking at it.....

The main thing is, things in games that would cause such a situation where CCX's need to be flushed or prioritized for certain operations, windows scheduler won't be what breaks them, nor will it have control over that, cause if those operations don't happen, their maybe visual artifacts or worse yet.
 
Last edited:
FX users still wait for their fixes. Any day now.

Some low-lifes feed off other peoples challenges and only see darkness. Those scum will always inhabit the depths of misery as they do not know how to have joy from that which is positive. In my life I have dealt with some very negative times that I faced. Sometimes I despaired , but what kept me going is that I have a strong inner core and an ultimate faith in humanity's ability to pull together collectively to uproot adversity and move forward as one. Perhaps that is too deep for a clown like you to understand.
 
[link]

Causes of poor gaming relative to CPU performance of Ryzen:

1. Windows is load-balancing across CCXes. This means that a thread is being moved around on the CPU - which is normal - so that a single core isn't used more than others. On Ryzen, that needs to happen ONLY within a CCX, otherwise you will incur a massive penalty when that thread no longer finds its data in the caches of the CCX.

2. SMT hurts single threaded performance due to shared structure. Ryzen statically partitions three structures to support SMT: Micro-op queue (dispatcher), Retirement queue, Store queue. This means that, with SMT enabled, these resources are cut, potentially, in HALF (mind you, these are just queues that impact throughput of a single thread).

3. Memory latency quirks still not worked out. Gaming can be quite sensitive to memory latency and bandwidth. These issues will be, most likely, remedied with BIOS updates.

Combined you can see, clearly, what is happening and most of the reviews make sense.

A Windows driver update to treat each CCX almost as if it were its own CPU will help immensely. The SMT problem is likely PERMANENT... unless AMD can adjust the partitioning with microcode, which I doubt.

What this all means is simple: once the Windows update has landed, BIOSes are patched up, and SMT is disabled, an 8-core Ryzen will likely be competitive with a quad i7 in gaming while blowing past it in multi-threaded. If all you do is game, then the 1700 may well become a very valid option that will work increasingly better in future games.
#1 can easily be tested with anyone having a Ryzen rig. Less talk and more data would be great.
How to:
  • Start game with a canned benchmark, like Rise Of The Tomb Raider, do benchmark
  • Cntl-Alt-Del - Open Task Manager
  • Inside of Task Manager open up the Details Tab
  • Find game, in this case it was ROTTR.exe, right click
  • In drop down menu select - Set affinity
  • Set CPU 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 on for the first CCX only (assuming here 0,1 is the first core, 2,3 second core etc.)
  • Close or leave task manager open
  • Click on game window or if minimize the game on the taskbar
  • Cntl Alt to go back to full screen
  • Benchmark again and compare results
I did this with I7 rig, no crashes or anything abnormal, changed ROTTR.exe to use only one core - logical and virtual. Benchmark again in window mode Core 0 and virtual core 1 peg at 100% while the rest of the cores were less than 5%. So that command does work in Win 10. Going to fullscreen I benchmarked again at 4K - in this case the Nano was still the limiting factor.

#2 dealing with SMT:
  • With that you could also test with just the logical cores, assuming again 0, 2, 4, 6 for a CCX and none of the virtual cores in the CCX etc.
  • And just the logical cores and no virtual cores for both CCX's, 0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14
Setting the priority higher for the game in combination of the above test could also may show something or not.

Note: Put as much load on the cpu as possible: Setting to a lower resolution, but with more cpu demanding settings such as LOD maxed out, textures maxed (requires more memory transfers), FOV higher or highest, max shaders etc.
 
Last edited:
I'm, not 100% sure, but I believe it is all on one die. I think Zen is made up of quad core modules, much like Bulldozer was made up of dualcore Bulldozer modules. That doesnt mean they are on separate dies. It's just a design consideration, so that when they scale up they can copy and paste the quad core module as many times as they need to in order to get their desired core count.

It will be interesting to see how they handle hexacore chips. Will it be two quadcore modules, each with one core disabled?

As per SnowDog it is a single die.

It's two separate dies, check out the de-lidding videos.
Which means they really aimed to make quads, which means they are probably going to hold off on the quads until the Compiler/SMT bs is fixed or they'll be sitting ducks.



And I agree, Intel is ultimately derived from development steps from Pentium Pro which the P3 was influenced by. They then used that on the P4 Mobiles which were fucking kick ass IPC but quite a few people didn't know about them or how well they OCd. They were a totally different design to the P4 DTR and desktop chips and you could say were the forefather of the core and core2 architecture.

P.s. Lisa Su has already addressed this gaming issue directly yesterday;


It is known and being resolved.

Comment thread here ww.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def4wcj/
god damn [H] auto link media bullshit is hard to turn off for these links.

When I bitch about how broken Gsync is in windowed mode and has been forever and what a steaming pile of crap a 1070 is for the $900 premium it added there's nothing but excuses made for it non stop. Rather than anyone flat out admitting nvidias drivers are completely trash and their interface is horrid, not to mention waiting 30 seconds after applying a change.

I hate my i5 since I bought it(dislike my i7 but that's because it's mobile and intel is balls without clock speed) there's nothing but excuses made there as well:
I should have paid a fortune more for 4 virtual cores if I was doing any productivity task? Yet it was a highly recommended cpu by all reviewers
It's my fault for not OC'ing the i5....Let me go tell my mechanic & autobody career dad to just Overclock his rig

yada yada



All camps do it non stop

Crickets to your post, how predictable.

All platforms have issues. Fuck my U2711 sometimes freezes during reboots. My HDMI>VGA converter goes out of range sometimes with power cycling too. My 7970 used to have driver reboot issues for a month until they sorted that shit out or I rolled them back. 8800gt BGA failures. Shitty NVidia drivers not supporting unusual resolutions in past. Nvidia completely dropping ball with w10 drivers and some other recent 'game ready' drivers. Shitty AMD drivers. Omega drivers! Intel HT issues on launch, recalling stuff and the Sata killing drives issue, along with sandybridge rev1 also having SATA port degradation issues amongst many plus the recent embedded BS. Shitty everyone but it seems many can't admit that and only bash AMD because they're the only ones that can do wrong, because they're blind fanboys or paid to do it.
edit: Oh yeah and fuck seagate and WD while we're at it.


So in summary; Ryzen seems to have the same compiler/SMT issues as every other past recent platforms AMD has released, I've experienced it at least twice already. Why? Because it's new and because fixing them prior to launch = leaks and Intel loves leaks. So trolls: stop concern trolling the thread posting the same fucking question every few posts.

Same with the 'AMD sucks they always promise future performance' meanwhile bagging on AMD for '640p performance sucks because it shows future overheads with future gpus'. Fucking can't make this stuff up, people. Circular logic shilling falling on its' own sword.
 
Last edited:
I was pretty obvious this wasn't related to the scheduler within windows, as that would of affected applications and their performance too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
It's two separate dies, check out the de-lidding videos.
Which means they really aimed to make quads, which means they are probably going to hold off on the quads until the Compiler/SMT bs is fixed or they'll be sitting ducks.

No, it's one die. I was fooled when I saw a Delid picture as well, but in Ryzen the Lid is soldered on, with two solder pads, and that is the line that shows up in the delid photo.

If you look at the die images out there, it is clearly one die.

But it is essentially like two separate 4 core CPUs on that die. There are two independent L3 caches, one in each Module.

So it does make sense that threads probably shouldn't jump between those modules.

Don't the AMD tools have the ability to just disable cores, so you could disable one complete module and see what that does to performance in some games (SMT on/off)
 
do you mean the one where he specifically states thats its one core with two solder pads on top(hence the split)?
Well it's a dual package on the same die, I'm unsure if the other CCX can share internal cache with the other cluster.
 
No, it's one die. I was fooled when I saw a Delid picture as well, but in Ryzen the Lid is soldered on, with two solder pads, and that is the line that shows up in the delid photo.

If you look at the die images out there, it is clearly one die.

But it is essentially like two separate 4 core CPUs on that die. There are two independent L3 caches, one in each Module.

So it does make sense that threads probably shouldn't jump between those modules.

Stand corrected, thank you. That die photo [H] posted also threw me off when seeing the de-lid... I was then left floored wondering what fucking magic SMT sauce AMD had put in the dual quad design.. but yeah I would be wondering what limitation if any there is with such design. It's like two quads in one die really...
Laughing at myself for being an idiot is fun.
 
To me gaming performance looks great :D and exceeds what I need to max out as much settings as possible. In other words I will not be cpu limited.

I like to see more data and less talk, more data, than talk. This actually takes a lot of time which was not afforded to the reviewers so everything is just a first take or impression. More will continue to come out which will allow us enthusiasts to get the most out of Ryzen.

As for the noise from those who are butthurt that a new cpu performing better per $ by a large margin? Some of their comments are rather funny and humorous and so off key they don't even realize how dumb it makes them look.

Then there are good reasons to stick with Intel as well:
  • Stable platform or mature
  • You do know what you are getting
  • For the K series you do have some OCing headroom to tinker with
  • Platform is rich with options
Which can come with a cost which I am happy to see Intel lowering some of their cpu prices, hopefully more.

As for RyZen:
  • Out of the blue it matches mostly Intel 8 core chips and beats it a number of times :LOL:
  • Price is half if not more than half the cost if the 1700x will do anything that the 1800x will do - AMAZING!
  • Its new, has quirks, issues making it uber fun to play around with (enthusiast side of me)
  • Hell! CPU, motherboard and ram I paid for is hundreds of dollars less than just the Intel cpu alone :), I would feel absolutely retarded buying an intel 8 core unless I need the pcie lanes ( I may) and the increase in memory bandwidth of the X99 platform
Really for testing game limitations: I think only HardOCP could do this right:
  • Nvidia 1080Ti and 1080Ti SLI testing
  • 1440p 144mhz
  • 3440x1440p 100mhz
  • 4K
  • Always VR tests if only a few
  • No 1080p BS or less
  • Frame times would be needed as well and not just FPS
  • Also using that I7 2600 was brilliant and hope that is continued to be used - because that one cpu is the gold standard for doing a new generation right
 
Last edited:
Looks like it sits in one socket to me with one IMC . Unless you're discussing the behaviour of the chip; then I sort of see your point, but I really like this approach regardless.
I see why they are using it, but it just fucks up topology of cache access so hard, it can backfire even in most of server applications.
 
I see why they are using it, but it just fucks up topology of cache access so hard, it can backfire even in most of server applications.
I didn't read enough about the uarch of Zen, but hopefully the bottleneck isn't the interconnect between the two clusters. I don't think AMD had much of a choice though, it's more expensive to develop a single cluster this big from scratch.
 
I didn't read enough about the uarch of Zen, but hopefully the bottleneck isn't the interconnect between the two clusters. I don't think AMD had much of a choice though, it's more expensive to develop a single cluster this big from scratch.
Interconnect runs at single channel DDR DRAM speed or somewhere around it.
And yes, they intended the design to be a building block for server, but if they fucked up interconnect on a single die this bad, i can only wonder how will they screw up MCM communication.
 
I see why they are using it, but it just fucks up topology of cache access so hard, it can backfire even in most of server applications.

You can only think on how much Naples 32 core performance is a joke. With 2 CCX on a die, 4 dies on a socket with 2 GMI links each and then the intercommunication meltdown. Hence why Zen is stillborn in servers. Construction cores was better compared if you look at the time frames.
 
I wouldn't discount Naples yet, especially at the performance per watt everyone is seeing below 3.3ghz.

CCX might be the bottleneck for now, but that also means it should scale with faster Ram and future Zen revisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Strong statement considering you have not seen it.

That's where you are wrong ;)

I wouldn't discount Naples yet, especially at the performance per watt everyone is seeing below 3.3ghz.

CCX might be the bottleneck for now, but that also means it should scale with faster Ram and future Zen revisions.

Its losing BIG time in perf/watt. And in servers you cant sell 125-140W CPUs as 95 either.
 
Its losing BIG time in perf/watt. And in servers you cant sell 125-140W CPUs as 95 either.

Might want to read through this...
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/

9oVGc83.png


850 points in Cinebench 15 at 30W is quite telling. Or not telling, but absolutely massive. Zeppelin can reach absolutely monstrous and unseen levels of efficiency, as long as it operates within its ideal frequency range
 
At work - cant read the whole tread till I get home tonight.

I remember Windows needed to be updated to get full advantage of my 8350.

Better thread management and all that.

Do not the better games out there check the identity of the CPU and use specific code? Back in the day I remember issues with 3D Now not being used, SSE, not being used adn the like.

Could the games not be properly identifying the CPU and not be properly optimized for it's specific hardware?

If generic, fallback code is being used instead of optimized code on specific instructions would this now cause a performance hit?

Would a Windows/Linux CPU driver get this fixed (if this is what is in fact happening) or would a patch be needed for each game?
Careful what category you put this in.
Its not a feature that needs support, its an unsolved performance problem.
 
I am having a hard time understanding people who spend this much money.....on 1080P gaming.

Or its just useless bitching.............
Lets see if this stops you making posts like that.

I game at 1080p to get a fluid experience the whole time.
I also use VR which is very demanding.

My Rig is a clocked 6700K and clocked 980ti.
I bought the 6700K to get rid of occasional stutters as CPU use maxed.
I'm upgrading to a 1080ti to max quality settings on everything because I cant currently.
The CPU is great. I wouldnt want to downgrade it.
 
"but there are some games that are using code optimized for our competitor..."

Lawl

My hopes for anything good from Vega are disappearing rapidly after seeing this crap they are still pulling with their processors. Probably going to end up with a 1080Ti and losing Freesync.
 
In other words get Kaby Lake and don't waste time hoping Microsoft, AMD or someone else fix things. You need high performing CPU, now.
 
Don't think hes saying ignore high-end, but the low-end needs to be catered to, or game devs will lose the potential profit.
Thats exactly what I meant, but sadly, reading comprehension is seriously lacking this day and age.

The only thing that matters is trying as [H]ard as possible to humiliate or try to prove others wrong, just for personal satisfaction.
 
I don't post often but in this discussion even I would like my say :)
We are all doing these real life benchmarks, not canned tests but fragments of real gameplay, real movie conversions, file copying exercises. We are doing them to see how would these components perform in real life, not in some imagined set use case. What will testing game performance at 720p tell me about playing the game at 1440p or higher (not much)? So why test the irrelevant scenario, one we won't use in real life, to get some mostly useless number? The only scenario that matters is playing e-sports, where players like to have 400fps and intentionally lower graphic quality to get that. From various tests, we know that Ryzen offers in, for example, CS:GO about 20-25% lower framerate, on order of 350 instead of 450fps.
In most cases we are GPU bound and it is probably not going to change in foreseeable future, granted 1080p is somewhat "overpowered" by gtx1080, but then framerate is high enough that it does not matter much - all that compared to price difference. For strict gamers Ryzen 8 core will never win anyway especially with limited overclocking potential.
I would love a test of playing typical games with graphical details set to reach 144 fps as that is our most used monitor frequency (I guess), while twitch is streaming in background or even nvidia is saving my gameplay to disk, while 20 web pages are open in Chrome, ftp server is working, teamviewer is running, skype is there, I'm talking on Discord, steam and few other platforms are loaded in background and maybe my disk is encrypted too.
This is what is relevant for me and while I know not even one website will ever test a scenario like that, this is what really matters, how will cpu perform with plethora of tasks.
We know (if we believe AMD) that Ryzen works well with gaming while background tasks are running but I would really like to know how well, between 6900 and 1700 for example.
Personally I set my IQ such that I can have at least 100fps as I can frankly tell if it is less than that, and it is for me more important to have a smooth gameplay then perfectly beautiful picture. Unfortunately except Hardocp I have never found any site that does test games that way, and even they set their target framerate much lower.
I know that probably means that Ryzen would perform worse for me then 6900 but how much is a question and is it worth it to pay more for the pleasure :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
intentionally lower graphic quality to get that. From various tests, we know that Ryzen offers in, for example, CS:GO about 20-25% lower framerate, on order of 350 instead of 450fps.

Yeah, this is completely irrelevant. Any framerate above ~90fps is more or less irrelevant. Even the biggest CSGO bro won't be able to tell the difference, regardless of how much they tell you they do.

What will testing game performance at 720p tell me about playing the game at 1440p or higher (not much)?

Actually, it tellls you just about as much as you need to know.

CPU and GPU loads are mostly decoupled from each other. Increasing resolution and graphics settings does almost NOTHING to CPU load. So testing at the minimum possible GPU settings will tell you the theoretical max a CPU can handle in a title, without a GPU bottleneck. That's really all you need to know about CPU performance in a game.

If you have good performance at low settings and turn settings up, and it results in worse performance, with 99.999% certainly its due to GPU bottlenecking, not the CPU.

So, essentially, doing a CPU review with games at any setting above the minimum setting the game allows is useless. It tells you nothing.

Now, testing at minimum setting may show irrelevant differences, like your above 350fps vs 450fps CSGO example, when what most people need is just 60+ or 90+ if they have a fancy high refresh rate screen and care about that sort of thing.

At some point you just have to assume that the reader has half a brain, and knows at least a little bit about computer game performance if they are reading reviews on HardOCP.

Benchmarking a CPU based on GPU limited results is absolutely moronic and not worth Kyle's or anyone else's time.
 
Yeah, this is completely irrelevant. Any framerate above ~90fps is more or less irrelevant. Even the biggest CSGO bro won't be able to tell the difference, regardless of how much they tell you they do.



Actually, it tellls you just about as much as you need to know.

CPU and GPU loads are mostly decoupled from each other. Increasing resolution and graphics settings does almost NOTHING to CPU load. So testing at the minimum possible GPU settings will tell you the theoretical max a CPU can handle in a title, without a GPU bottleneck. That's really all you need to know about CPU performance in a game.

If you have good performance at low settings and turn settings up, and it results in worse performance, with 99.999% certainly its due to GPU bottlenecking, not the CPU.

So, essentially, doing a CPU review with games at any setting above the minimum setting the game allows is useless. It tells you nothing.

Now, testing at minimum setting may show irrelevant differences, like your above 350fps vs 450fps CSGO example, when what most people need is just 60+ or 90+ if they have a fancy high refresh rate screen and care about that sort of thing.

At some point you just have to assume that the reader has half a brain, and knows at least a little bit about computer game performance if they are reading reviews on HardOCP.

Benchmarking a CPU based on GPU limited results is absolutely moronic and not worth Kyle's or anyone else's time.

A classic example by now may be Fallout 4. If you bench the game in the start you can get 60 FPS etc on a toaster. But later in the game in the more CPU intensive areas you need a 6700K/7700K with fast memory to do so. Everything else falls flat.

Reviewers would have to scramble through games, avoid inbuild benchmarks and so on else to show who is faster. An 800Mhz Haswell for example could do 77FPS in the ingame bench too. 22 FPS ingame.
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/amd-a6-5200-2-0ghz-kabini-review.2336486/#post-35371206
 
Go back to work for Intel.

Shit wait! They hired you to work here. My bad. Keep going!

Not my fault Ryzen didn't live up to your hyped expectations. Guess whats next to fail the hype. That's right, Vega.

So stop being emotional invested in a company and move on instead of attacking and blaming other people for your own errors.
 
Back
Top