trx40 mobo & windows 7 x64

Possible, anythings possible. Why would you though? Windows versions below Windows 10 1903 do not have the updated scheduler to take advantage of threadrippers.
 
Win 10 works slower for me than win 7. Especially Blender, works 10% slower. I prefer to check reality than read the articles.
 
I can only confirm on x399. As for trx40 i don't own it, that is why i am asking question regarding system compatibility. If someone confirms that it is compatible i will test it out for sure.
 
In need for 3000$ or € to test this. :LOL:
Frankly I'm happy with Zen+ + 64GB + Vega 64 for now, on Windows 7 Ultimate and Pro. Works great because using the GPU for rendering (Indigo over 3dsmax 2013). But a couple of Titan RTX on TCC mode + 1 graphics card for viewing over an X399 or a TRX 40 plateform with 128GB would be nicer, and still on Windows 7.
The thing will be to try using the 64 threads on a 3970X.
Maybe interested in that kind of upgrade later this year.
 
Last edited:
spacedrone808 said:
I can only confirm on x399. As for trx40 i don't own it, that is why i am asking question regarding system compatibility. If someone confirms that it is compatible i will test it out for sure.
Click to expand...
On any software apart those taking profit of DirectX 12, or Direct Compute, or DXR (raytracing), it's been tested all along and Windows 7 was faster than Windows 10 and some times with no explanation Windows 10 was way slower.
thesmokingman said:
Possible, anythings possible. Why would you though? Windows versions below Windows 10 1903 do not have the updated scheduler to take advantage of threadrippers.
Click to expand...
This is true about Windows 10 who has a different scheduler rules than Windows 7 who has a much more neutral schedular. It would be nice to have this tested on Threadripper with more than 16 cores, but people with older Intel server chips with more than 16 cores all together (multiple chips) say they do not experience the 16 core limit bug of Windows 10, on Windows 7. This is why it needs to be tested because one can be very optimistic there is no limitation on Windows 7 for Threadrippers with more than 16 cores.
But on the hardware limitation side, Threadripper X399 platform needs to be limited at PCIE 2.0 on BIOS. The limitation has no effect on compute though. However Nvidia already doesn't make non pure gaming drivers for geforce RTX cards which means the drivers are not that stable and optimised as those made for professionnal use that are only made as an alternative on Windows 10. Furthermore no Raytrace means even on compute the RT enhancements are not present. However this is still possible with professionnal drivers on professionnal Quadro and Titan cards. Now it is not sure Nvidia will provide drivers for Windows 7 for Geforce Ampere cards nor that Amd will provide drivers for RDNA2 cards. Though, for Vista the support is still there on Titan and Quadro RTX cards. But you may use some kind of Titan or Quadro card on Threadripper as this is the professional setup that fits.
 
Last edited:
I’m so confused. It might be 10% slower on x399 but you’re literally talking about a different platform with a newer generation processor and higher clocks and more cores.

How are those two things even comparable?

why would you even want them to be? If you can go from 16 to 32 cores and your work is multi threaded, you’ll get a bigger speed increase to offset any performance loss due to nebulous OS concerns. If it’s single threaded why bother with TR3?

ive seen companies running old systems with windows 2000 on them literally as late as a few months ago (“we don’t want to pay to upgrade that business critical system that our whole company depends on”). Windows 7 is going to be like that, isn’t it? Some people just can’t let go.

When vendors are outright saying they don’t support it anymore, it’s pretty clear that it’s end of life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
deruberhanyok said:
I’m so confused. It might be 10% slower on x399 but you’re literally talking about a different platform with a newer generation processor and higher clocks and more cores.

How are those two things even comparable?

why would you even want them to be? If you can go from 16 to 32 cores and your work is multi threaded, you’ll get a bigger speed increase to offset any performance loss due to nebulous OS concerns. If it’s single threaded why bother with TR3?

ive seen companies running old systems with windows 2000 on them literally as late as a few months ago (“we don’t want to pay to upgrade that business critical system that our whole company depends on”). Windows 7 is going to be like that, isn’t it? Some people just can’t let go.

When vendors are outright saying they don’t support it anymore, it’s pretty clear that it’s end of life.
Click to expand...
All this is hilarious bullshit completely in line with political correct behaviour. You're just the guy doing what you've been told to and replicate what you hear. Just think about everything you've written about. It just doesn't make sense.

TRW40 is no different plateform. They changed some pins, were going X399 with retro-compatibility at the beginning some months before launch. It's because it's technically more optimised this way and easier to break compatibility than to manage it.
I'm rather sure TRX40 is probably piece of cake to make compatible with Windows 7 with exiting drivers. This is also true about Zen 2. Same tweaks as for X570/Ryzen 3000.
Probably Limiting to PCIe 2.0 also needed. The real thing would be to know if Windows 7 manages well the 32 cores of the Threadripper 3970X and eventually the 64 of the 3990X. Some very good software incompatible with Windows 10 may take advantage of this.

Why are you talking about single threaded ? The problem and the interest in Windows 7 is on multithreading.
The interest in using Windows 7 is not only speed but compatibility with older and expensive software that is now most of the time rented not sold anymore, and even then would need permanent updates to stay compatible with continuously upgraded Windows 10.
Windows 7 and older software that is still as good as the new one much more expensive and annoying on Windows 10. There is no alternative to this.
So the question is : how good would W7 run on TRX 40 with a 3970X or 3990X running. And no other annoying argument permitted against it !
Can it be made compatible and how well are the 64 threads or more managed ? If the answer to any of those questions is not good, the best bet stays X570/3950X or X399/1950X or 2950X. Eventually it may be nice for those able to run the 2950X to test a 2990X.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. So to be clear, you’re basically “hey I want to save some money by creating a support nightmare for myself. Is that a good idea?”

and when someone says “why would you want to do that?” You start rambling about... political correctness?

what do you think “end of life” means in software? Just curious.
 
deruberhanyok said:
Hmm. So to be clear, you’re basically “hey I want to save some money by creating a support nightmare for myself. Is that a good idea?”

and when someone says “why would you want to do that?” You start rambling about... political correctness?

what do you think “end of life” means in software? Just curious.
Click to expand...
The amounts of money I would save is about 5000$ on each computer per year and with huge stability (no forced updates and things like that on not only the OS but the now rented software instead of sold). Not saying that this new software rented will force me to also update hardware very often. The support nightmare is on the contrary on Windows 10 side. And they just force you to pay for nothing more.
Furthermore IBM proved the Windows 10 UI being unproductive. Nothing's good in Windows 10. It's only new and continuously renewed trouble.
This is not "some" but "much" money and fuss I save. I would be somehow okay if everything would have been like before : bought and not rented and no forced updates on Windows.
Microsoft even fucked their LTSB offer, now called LTSC, since they launched the offer before upgrading the kernel without the bug preventing good use of more than 16 core CPU, that hasn't been proved to exist on Windows 7. People with more than 16 core CPUs will have to wait for 2022 LTSC to have the kernel updated. This is so embarrassing that I believe Microsoft made it on purpose, including the scheduler bug in Windows 10 kernel.
Microsoft and other software manufacturers are just pulling the money on the clients that may depend on them because of already working on existing software with files created by their software.
People, like me, are resisting, for now, but may move to other solutions (I already have some in mind and it's based on Linux and costs half for owning of the yearly renting) and even will get their revenge on those companies by avoiding them and making them bad publicity forever. But the salesman at the head of those companies just don't care. The shareholders of those companies should be aware this is not a long term strategy and will lose their clients in the long run to other more friendly companies, even if not yet on their level to compete. The clients' anger will make it happen.
 
Last edited:
Well, to disappoint you, that bug existing in Win7. I did testing today.
First is 1900X (rest of the system is not changed)in Win7:

1900x_Win7_2666mem.jpg


and in Mint 19.1:

1900X_Mint19.1_2666mem.png

results are very close, but after 2970WX swap:
Win7

2970WX3.55_Win7_2666mem.jpg


and Mint:

2970WX_MINT19.1_2666mem.png


:(
 

Attachments

  • 325273_1900x_Win7_2666mem.jpg
    325273_1900x_Win7_2666mem.jpg
    11.7 KB · Views: 0
  • 325274_1900X_Mint19.1_2666mem.png
    325274_1900X_Mint19.1_2666mem.png
    57.2 KB · Views: 0
  • 325275_2970WX3.55_Win7_2666mem.jpg
    325275_2970WX3.55_Win7_2666mem.jpg
    11.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 325276_2970WX_MINT19.1_2666mem.png
    325276_2970WX_MINT19.1_2666mem.png
    55 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top