Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › The Tale of Ryzen and Firestrike: Problems Ahead?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Tale of Ryzen and Firestrike: Problems Ahead? - Page 2

post #11 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

Have you got a couple of of W7 Firestrike benchmark runs that I could take a look at please?

I know that windows 10 has changed a number of things under the hood compared to windows 7 and there are extras like GameDVR that need to be turned off as they are enabled by default in w10. Now there is also game mode that does things that is not fully understood. It could be almost anything that has been added to windows that is strangling performance. Unfortunately, in spite of win 7 being a great OS, DX12 will keep making inroads and Win 7 will become obsolete. Other than acknowledging that Win 7 offers better immediate performance gratification, it is better as a whole not expending energy trying to go backwards but to identify what is happening in win 10.

Unfortunately CodeXL only works with an AMD GPU installed. Not much help for owners of Nvidia Cards.

GPUView that comes with the windows performance toolkit may, on the other hand be something to try. It may be very informative to run a trace on both a win 7 and a win 10 machine

AFAIK CodeXL will work with both GPU manus. Can certainly download 2.2 and verify later.
W7 tests, unfortunately, will have to hold until done with review benchmarks. Again, might want to try pinging Keith though and see if he's willing/able since his review is done.
post #12 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by garwynn View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

Have you got a couple of of W7 Firestrike benchmark runs that I could take a look at please?

I know that windows 10 has changed a number of things under the hood compared to windows 7 and there are extras like GameDVR that need to be turned off as they are enabled by default in w10. Now there is also game mode that does things that is not fully understood. It could be almost anything that has been added to windows that is strangling performance. Unfortunately, in spite of win 7 being a great OS, DX12 will keep making inroads and Win 7 will become obsolete. Other than acknowledging that Win 7 offers better immediate performance gratification, it is better as a whole not expending energy trying to go backwards but to identify what is happening in win 10.

Unfortunately CodeXL only works with an AMD GPU installed. Not much help for owners of Nvidia Cards.

GPUView that comes with the windows performance toolkit may, on the other hand be something to try. It may be very informative to run a trace on both a win 7 and a win 10 machine

AFAIK CodeXL will work with both GPU manus. Can certainly download 2.2 and verify later.
W7 tests, unfortunately, will have to hold until done with review benchmarks. Again, might want to try pinging Keith though and see if he's willing/able since his review is done.

 

I installed 2.2 on my laptop to have a look and it says "cannot find AMD CPU". Maybe 2.3 has been opened up?

post #13 of 14

I have noticed is a trend in the Ryzen review benchmark lists. That is the FPS results for 1600x and any of the r7 chips in a given game all cut off at pretty much the same score. That trend includes the Firestrike combined results where the vast majority of runs are cut off at about 6500. Of course there are also outliers that are above that average as well but this conversation started because of the tendency for mid 6000 level scores that don't seem to make sense given the Graphics and Physics scores that go with it.  

 

Better support for faster dual bank single row memory has improved since release with better bios revisions up to 3200Mhz although latency is still lagging a bit behind what can be seen with an Intel board. Dual Rank memory kits have still been limited to 2400 or at best 2667Mhz for the most part. The general consensus is that the Data Fabric gets more bandwidth from the extra clock cycles and I believe that it certainly does, however, in spite of the improvements to date, it is still under performing the equivalent Intel platforms memory performance and not giving us the results that we completely expected. 

 

I did find these results on the computerbase.de webside where they reviewed different memory speeds with ryzen and saw that the "hard stop" trend also continues

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

 

 

We have also observed that windows 7 and in other Linux bench marks that can be compared to windows like Geekbench also perform better than the same/similar software on Windows 10. 

 

The major difference that I can see between windows 7 and windows 10 is that Win10 has adopted the WDDM 2.0 graphics driver model. What WDDM 2.0 is doing is implementing a thing called GPUMMU as the way memory in the system is addressed and presented for use.  Instead of the driver allocating physical memory address space to the system as it did in win 7,  it creates a virtualized range of addresses to allow the system to make best use of the memory addresses available for communications between the GPU and the rest of the system. I am not certain about GPUMMU, however, I do know that other virtualization systems really prefer the lowest latency memory as by its nature, It has to add some overhead on top that increases the base latency as well. In the other virtualized environments, there is a tipping point where the base latency times start to impact the performance of the virtualized system on top of it. That point may well be between the Intel Platform and the Ryzen platform.

 

Looking through the firestrike and time spy results, I noticed another trend that I didn't expect to see.  I noticed that many of the fastest Ryzen firestrike runs that scored into the 8000s on the combined scores were running mostly 2x16GB 32GB Ram at 2400 or 2667Mhz Ram and not 16GB at 3200+Mhz.

 

The problem from the beginning is that the Framerate limits are being hampered by a limitation of throughput between the CPU and the GPU. What I am about to say needs validation that I cannot do myself, but it is starting to look to me that Ryzen is making up for the higher latencies impact on the GPUMMU with the extra interleaving that is available from running dual rank memory or, to a lesser extent, 4 x single rank sticks even if it is at a lower clock rate.

 

Has anyone got some way of comparing a 16GB Single rank system with a 32gb Dual Rank memory system?

post #14 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtbtk View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I have noticed is a trend in the Ryzen review benchmark lists. That is the FPS results for 1600x and any of the r7 chips in a given game all cut off at pretty much the same score. That trend includes the Firestrike combined results where the vast majority of runs are cut off at about 6500. Of course there are also outliers that are above that average as well but this conversation started because of the tendency for mid 6000 level scores that don't seem to make sense given the Graphics and Physics scores that go with it.  

Better support for faster dual bank single row memory has improved since release with better bios revisions up to 3200Mhz although latency is still lagging a bit behind what can be seen with an Intel board. Dual Rank memory kits have still been limited to 2400 or at best 2667Mhz for the most part. The general consensus is that the Data Fabric gets more bandwidth from the extra clock cycles and I believe that it certainly does, however, in spite of the improvements to date, it is still under performing the equivalent Intel platforms memory performance and not giving us the results that we completely expected. 

I did find these results on the computerbase.de webside where they reviewed different memory speeds with ryzen and saw that the "hard stop" trend also continues

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



We have also observed that windows 7 and in other Linux bench marks that can be compared to windows like Geekbench also perform better than the same/similar software on Windows 10. 

The major difference that I can see between windows 7 and windows 10 is that Win10 has adopted the WDDM 2.0 graphics driver model. What WDDM 2.0 is doing is implementing a thing called GPUMMU as the way memory in the system is addressed and presented for use.  Instead of the driver allocating physical memory address space to the system as it did in win 7,  it creates a virtualized range of addresses to allow the system to make best use of the memory addresses available for communications between the GPU and the rest of the system. I am not certain about GPUMMU, however, I do know that other virtualization systems really prefer the lowest latency memory as by its nature, It has to add some overhead on top that increases the base latency as well. In the other virtualized environments, there is a tipping point where the base latency times start to impact the performance of the virtualized system on top of it. That point may well be between the Intel Platform and the Ryzen platform.

Looking through the firestrike and time spy results, I noticed another trend that I didn't expect to see.  I noticed that many of the fastest Ryzen firestrike runs that scored into the 8000s on the combined scores were running mostly 2x16GB 32GB Ram at 2400 or 2667Mhz Ram and not 16GB at 3200+Mhz.

The problem from the beginning is that the Framerate limits are being hampered by a limitation of throughput between the CPU and the GPU. What I am about to say needs validation that I cannot do myself, but it is starting to look to me that Ryzen is making up for the higher latencies impact on the GPUMMU with the extra interleaving that is available from running dual rank memory or, to a lesser extent, 4 x single rank sticks even if it is at a lower clock rate.

Has anyone got some way of comparing a 16GB Single rank system with a 32gb Dual Rank memory system?

I'll try and find someone with the Gigabyte G5 and some dual rank memory in the R7 owners thread and give them a pm. Very interesting hypothesis! +
Steins Gate
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1700 Gigabyte AX370-G5 EVGA GTX 1070 FTW2 2x8GB Trident Z @ 3200 C14 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
850 Pro 128GB OCZ 460A 240GB WD Blue 1TB Thermalright True Spirit 140 Direct 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ XL2730Z Corsair K70 w/Browns EVGA 750w G2 Fractal Define S 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
G900 Corsair MM600 Onboard Logitech Z906 
Audio
HD518 
  hide details  
Reply
Steins Gate
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1700 Gigabyte AX370-G5 EVGA GTX 1070 FTW2 2x8GB Trident Z @ 3200 C14 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
850 Pro 128GB OCZ 460A 240GB WD Blue 1TB Thermalright True Spirit 140 Direct 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ XL2730Z Corsair K70 w/Browns EVGA 750w G2 Fractal Define S 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
G900 Corsair MM600 Onboard Logitech Z906 
Audio
HD518 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › The Tale of Ryzen and Firestrike: Problems Ahead?