Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post all other topics which do not belong to any other category.
aober93
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:07 pm
Contact:

Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by aober93 » Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:49 pm

So Ryzen is finally out.

Anyone post some benchmarks? Like vs another CPU. With different OC and memory settings of course.

I wanna know if OCing its memory is worthwhile for Factorio.

orzelek
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 3575
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:20 am
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by orzelek » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:02 pm

Would be nice to see actual benchmark in Factorio.

General benchmarks seem to show that it's pretty good for some uses but not gaming - i7-7700K seems to beat it quite often with exception of Ashes of Singularity which is heavily threaded.

Koub
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 4788
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 8:54 am
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by Koub » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:12 pm

Ryzen has poor, or at least inconsistent memory handling from what I've read. Iirc, Factorio is more memory bandwidth limited. So shouldn't do too good.
Koub - Please consider English is not my native language.

ChoMar
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by ChoMar » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:51 am

But it has a big internal cache, afaik. Also, "poor" compared to Highend rigs. It doesnt handle above 2300 so well (depending on your configuration).
Is memory bandwidth still a limitation in the High-End area? Because most gaming benchmarks just show a 2% or so difference between 1333 and 3200 Memory or something like that. And due to the large Cache it seems to matter even less with ryzen, at least from what initial tests ive seen.
So, a Factorio test might be interresting.
Mytronix Entertainment

Keeper
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by Keeper » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:51 pm

My first thought upon seeing ryzen was that as I currently have an 8350. My mega factory is running at 20 25 ups. The one core is locked at 4.2ghz the rest are chillin. We'll probably see the same in this, when they say how much "better" the cpu is they're on about multi core tasks typically rendering or runnin multiple cpu intensive tasks. My question is how much better are the individual cores? Look at what they compare it to, I'm still thinking to lug it out with this old cpu, it's never done 8 cores work since I found facto rio. a decent motherboard and faster ram is required it seems

aober93
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by aober93 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:39 pm

Lol damn waiting for Ryzen to boost my megafactory, and then the only discipline its weak at is memory bandwith. (or latency whatever)

ratchetfreak
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by ratchetfreak » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:54 pm

ChoMar wrote:But it has a big internal cache, afaik. Also, "poor" compared to Highend rigs. It doesnt handle above 2300 so well (depending on your configuration).
Is memory bandwidth still a limitation in the High-End area? Because most gaming benchmarks just show a 2% or so difference between 1333 and 3200 Memory or something like that. And due to the large Cache it seems to matter even less with ryzen, at least from what initial tests ive seen.
So, a Factorio test might be interresting.
If you have a footprint that is just a little bit too large and the eviction strategy is LRU then the cache doesn't really help.

Koub
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 4788
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 8:54 am
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by Koub » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:14 pm

Hi,

I have read a very interesting and complete review of the Ryzen. Unfortunately (for most of you) it's in French, and I don't know how good Google would be in translating this. For the FRench speakers among you, here's the link:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-22/ ... moire.html
Actually, it's the page analyzing the memory latency issues

As a TL;DR :
- The Ryzen CPU can be considered as a dual 4 core CPU, each core having its own 3 lvl cache. Each 4-core unit is called a CCX (CPU CompleX).
- When the data fetched by a core is on the cache of its own CCX, everything is fine, Ryzen behaves as a 2017 CPU should in terms of latency
- When data is fetched and not found on its own CCX by a core, the latency explodes, even if it's on the other CCX' L3, because there is no direct high speed link between both CCXes, at least not fast enough, and the latencies are orders of magnitude too high (they can get close to RAM latency).
- 2 CPU with 8 MB L3 cache do not behave like a single 8 core CPU with 18 MB cache. That's where the oddity of Ryzen's latency comes from.
Koub - Please consider English is not my native language.

bergi9
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:54 am
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by bergi9 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:24 pm

Tomorrow i get the AMD 1800X with liquid cooling and 64GB Ram @3200Mhz (can be higher due overclocking). Send me a save where you have tested with Intel CPUs.

User avatar
impetus maximus
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by impetus maximus » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:31 pm

bergi9 wrote:Tomorrow i get the AMD 1800X with liquid cooling and 64GB Ram @3200Mhz (can be higher due overclocking). Send me a save where you have tested with Intel CPUs.
from what i read, even if the RAM is capable of 3200mhz, the chipset isn't.

bergi9
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:54 am
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by bergi9 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:41 pm

impetus maximus wrote:from what i read, even if the RAM is capable of 3200mhz, the chipset isn't.
then explain me why my mainboard will support 3200mhz RAMs. (GigaByte GA-AB350-GAMING 3)
My current Intel i7-960 only supports 1066mhz RAMs but my current Asus Rampage III Gene supports 1600mhz which my RAMs currently running at 1600mhz.
Koub wrote:- 2 CPU with 8 MB L3 cache do not behave like a single 8 core CPU with 18 MB cache. That's where the oddity of Ryzen's latency comes from.
I think this can be solved by managing the processor affinity. If i dont find a tool in the web which can manage the processor affinity for all processes to prevent the latency, i will create one.

User avatar
impetus maximus
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by impetus maximus » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:02 pm

bergi9 wrote:
impetus maximus wrote:from what i read, even if the RAM is capable of 3200mhz, the chipset isn't.
then explain me why my mainboard will support 3200mhz RAMs. (GigaByte GA-AB350-GAMING 3)
My current Intel i7-960 only supports 1066mhz RAMs but my current Asus Rampage III Gene supports 1600mhz which my RAMs currently running at 1600mhz.
Koub wrote:- 2 CPU with 8 MB L3 cache do not behave like a single 8 core CPU with 18 MB cache. That's where the oddity of Ryzen's latency comes from.
I think this can be solved by managing the processor affinity. If i dont find a tool in the web which can manage the processor affinity for all processes to prevent the latency, i will create one.
3200 is overclock speeds. just because you can set it to that, doesn't mean it will post/be stable.

you can set affinity in windows. ctrl+alt+del then "show processes for all users". then right click process, set affinity.

bergi9
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:54 am
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by bergi9 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:12 pm

impetus maximus wrote:3200 is overclock speeds. just because you can set it to that, doesn't mean it will post/be stable.
Yep... i hope ;)
impetus maximus wrote:you can set affinity in windows. ctrl+alt+del then "show processes for all users". then right click process, set affinity.
i know that, i mean automatically set the affinity if specific process get started (not by modify shortcuts).

EDIT: http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/am ... ew,13.html so i have good hope :)

User avatar
impetus maximus
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by impetus maximus » Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:46 pm

ok looks like some are hitting 2933 & 3200
G.Skill has new sticks aimed for Ryzen.
good luck with your OC! ;)

i might get a Ryzen for use as a work station. gonna wait it out for a while until bios/hardware gets settled.

User avatar
MeduSalem
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1339
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by MeduSalem » Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:22 am

Somehow it seems like a curse for AMD to release processors that are pretty well designed, but just not for the market sector they are targeting. (I really wonder who does their market research and decides in which configurations CPUs are sold)

From all the benchmarks I have seen the 8 core is pretty much designed for single-socket server/workstation purposes (even if they are marketing/selling it as Highend Desktop CPUs)... not for gaming, so I don't recommend people to get one right now except if they need the multicore performance for specialized applications (which I'm sure the average gamer or desktop user doesn't use). If you really need the multicore performance for some reason... then the CPUs are truly awesome for the price... way better than what Intel has to offer in that sector.

On top of that Koub is right about the memory... Ryzen's memory controller is picky about which modules it works with and at which frequencies and in some configurations it refuses to boot or only boots at lower frequencies than what the module might be capable of... so you really have to get into the details or you might buy the wrong modules.


Also I fear that AMD once again expects the software industry to optimize for their CPUs even if they are in no position to demand/dictate something like that. So they should have been prepared to overcome that optimization gap with even more raw power.


One can really hope that once they bring the Ryzen Quadcores that they ramp up the clock frequencies (well past 4 GHz), otherwise Ryzen will become a non-seller for gamers... except for enthusiasts/AMD fanboys who can't be bothered by all the benchmarks reviewers did and will get the CPU anyways even if the price-performance ratio is obviously off for the sector and Intel is currently better suited for that with their 7700/7700K.

nr2117
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by nr2117 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:21 pm

Just waiting for AMD to release an i5 equivalent with 4 cores. I'm not paying £350 for a processor, plus £200 for a motherboard.

User avatar
impetus maximus
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by impetus maximus » Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:06 pm

list of Ryzen reviews

they are a great value if you need lots of multi-threading, and can also game with them.
have to wait and see how the 4, and 6 core processors clock/overclock for gaming build.
the power numbers are impressive for what the processors are capable of.
would look really good for someone who has to budget the electricity for 200 work stations using all threads. ;)

rezden 1700 would be great for a workstation i'm planning. i need as many core/threads as po$$ible.
just waiting for unofficial support for win7 to get better. not for the Processor itself, but for for USB, NIC drivers etc.
also more stable bios as i said earlier. memory... i would get the G.Skill X-Flares since they are made for the chipset/processor.

so glad to see AMD bringing something to the table to push both companies. Intels 'tick tock' has gone on for way too long.

ChoMar
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by ChoMar » Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:17 am

From all the benchmarks I have seen the 8 core is pretty much designed for single-socket server/workstation purposes (even if they are marketing/selling it as Highend Desktop CPUs)... not for gaming, so I don't recommend people to get one right now except if they need the multicore performance for specialized applications (which I'm sure the average gamer or desktop user doesn't use). If you really need the multicore performance for some reason... then the CPUs are truly awesome for the price... way better than what Intel has to offer in that sector.
There is one thing to add.
Now, im talking about AAA title and so on, not factorio:
Except in some rare use scenarios CPU rarely matters in gaming.
The CPU only limits you in very high Framerate scenarios. Like >100 fps. Now, E-Sports needs this framerates. The rest of us is better of with looking at beautiful games in high resolutions. In high resolutions, even a Titan X or stuff like that will limit your performance long before the CPU does.
Conclusion: Unless you are a professional FPS-Player, the Ryzen will have no downside and you can use those massive cores for a lot of stuff. That said, if you DONT need those cores for other stuff, there ARE good and cheap Intel CPUs out there that will, due to the same logic, allow a good gaming experience for less money.
Factorio? Im still wondering how Factorio will perform on Ryzen.
Im ALSO wondering if the DEVs compile Factorio for Ryzen. Seeing how much optimization went into the game so far, im pretty sure they already tested if CPU Optimization has any impact and if yes, they already compile for Intel.
Mytronix Entertainment

User avatar
MeduSalem
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1339
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by MeduSalem » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:40 am

ChoMar wrote:Now, im talking about AAA title and so on, not factorio:
Except in some rare use scenarios CPU rarely matters in gaming.
The CPU only limits you in very high Framerate scenarios. Like >100 fps. Now, E-Sports needs this framerates. The rest of us is better of with looking at beautiful games in high resolutions. In high resolutions, even a Titan X or stuff like that will limit your performance long before the CPU does.
Conclusion: Unless you are a professional FPS-Player, the Ryzen will have no downside and you can use those massive cores for a lot of stuff. That said, if you DONT need those cores for other stuff, there ARE good and cheap Intel CPUs out there that will, due to the same logic, allow a good gaming experience for less money.
To a certain point I agree with the notion that with certain games the CPU really doesn't matter because the game might not be that demanding and you get >100 FPS (which only professional E-Sports players may need) ... OR they are memory-bound (like the Factorio-devs stated they are for example) ... OR because the game is a true graphics monster (like Crysis used to be back in the days) where the GPU is going to be the limiting factor long before the CPU becomes the bottleneck.

But that said CPUs do matter in various categories of games... mostly older games that aren't well optimized to take advantage of multi-core CPUs because there were no multi-core CPUs around when they were developed, or even in newer games where the developers just don't have the time, money, know-how or just not the will to optimize for multi-core CPUs or because the stuff they are doing can't really be parallelized that well for some reason.

What those games will do is push 1, maybe 2 cores to 100% while the others are idle and bored to death. If I take a good look around on the games I'm playing mostly then that's what still happens more often than not, even with newer games (though it got better the recent years, especially at the AAA sector or cutting-edge indie games that are really trying to impress).

So when a good portion of the games you are playing fall into that category then that's when you find out that an expensive 8 core (350 bucks is expensive in my opinion) is essentially a waste of money... which is a downside. Because that money could have been spent on a faster quadcore CPU or a better GPU for example... especially if most of the time you don't take advantage of what 8 CPU cores are capable of.

Also the 8 core CPUs often don't perform that well on those kind of ill-optimized games/applications for the reason that the 8 cores face a problem with their TDP. They reach their TDP limits much earlier due to the excessive amount of cores/cache and other features that still draw some idle power and therefore can't be clocked any faster (even with advanced Power states and Turbo and whatnot) without exceeding the TDP. So they often tend to suck at single/dual-core performance due to generally/usually lower default clock rates. Basically they sacrificed single-core performance to have that many cores. Which is another downside.

On-top of that after a certain amount of cores the latency between cores/cache/IO/memory controller becomes more noticeable anyways due to the way there are limits on how they are all interconnected to maintain the symmetric multiprocessing aspect. Which also seems to be more noticeable especially on the Ryzen 8 cores due to the way they are designed with 2 x 4-Core modules as Koub already pointed out earlier in the thread.

So knowing that I've always been picking a quadcore CPU the recent years... because with the same TDP (for example 95W) they usually should have much higher default frequencies and turbo clock rates to increase single/dual-core performance, while still being able to use 4 cores for the few games that actually take advantage of more cores. It's the best of two worlds in my opinion.

Which is why I initially wrote that I wonder who is in charge of AMD's market research department because if they really wanted to target gamers then they should know by now that if they want to score on that sector that single/dual-core performance is still quite important and that can also be achieved with high clock rates (Increasing Instructions per Cycle is fine and it's awesome how much they improved on it in comparison to Bulldozer, but there's still an obvious micro-architecture-based limit to how much you may gain that way).

So what they probably should have done first is to release a really fast 95W TDP quadcore with high clock rates and large Turbo margins for the gaming/performance desktop to target Intel's 7700K (which is probably also one of the most sold CPUs and also sets bar on that sector) and delay the release of the 8 core for workstation/server/enthusiast sector a few months until the yield is satisfying and they know how Intel reacted to the quadcores and then adjust from there where necessary.
ChoMar wrote:Factorio? Im still wondering how Factorio will perform on Ryzen.
Probably equally or worse than on a comparable Intel CPU, or that's at least what I expect since the game is memory bound as the Devs often stated... so you'd waste money with an 8 core anywars, even if a Ryzen R7 1700 is available for 350 bucks.
ChoMar wrote:Im ALSO wondering if the DEVs compile Factorio for Ryzen. Seeing how much optimization went into the game so far, im pretty sure they already tested if CPU Optimization has any impact and if yes, they already compile for Intel.
If I would have to take a wild guess then they don't have a computer with a Ryzen CPU in their office yet... and they will only get one once/if people start reporting/complaining about weird behavior of Factorio on such a CPU... that or when they really need another workstation.

Knowing AMD it will probably also take a while for them to release the development kit that actually helps profiling/optimizing software for Ryzen CPUs, so I wouldn't wait for that miracle to happen... and if AMD really wanted developers to optimize for their CPUs then they should have thought of that optimization gap beforehand (since I'm sure they pretty much knew of the gap already months ago due to lab tests) and co-developed such tools during the development of Ryzen so that at least major game development studios have a patch ready when Ryzen hits the shores (which they didn't)... instead now they are rather whining that all recently popular games used in all the benchmarks are too optimized for Intel CPUs... as if that wasn't an obvious logical consequence of their long absence from the competitive market.

Also in the end both Intel and AMD are going to push out a new generation of CPUs with new micro-architecures/improvements/manufacturing processes anyways next year so optimizing for a particular CPU is not really that profitable for smaller companies that don't have the manpower... so I bet even if there were development kits for optimization to squeeze out the last few percent of performance... a lot of software companies will still not take advantage of it.

Which is why I wrote... if AMD wanted to perform on the gaming sector then they should have done it through raw brute-force performance because that's the only way they may be able to get back into the competitive business.

ChoMar
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Anyone Ryzen Benchmarks?

Post by ChoMar » Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:29 am

As i Said:
That said, if you DONT need those cores for other stuff, there ARE good and cheap Intel CPUs out there that will, due to the same logic, allow a good gaming experience for less money.
But thats cost-optimization. You dont really loose relevant performance going for AMD. Depending on your scenario, you might find a cheaper solution for you rig. But that always the case.
If you just want to play Crysis, buying anything other than a used, 5-Year old Rig is overkill.
Regarding the slower Memory, thats something that exists, in theory. We are a littler early to tell the overall Impact, because 2666 still is fast Memory.
Thats why im REALLY curious to know what kind of an Impact it has in Factorio. And I would really love to see Factorio benchmarked on a 1800X, i7-7700 and i7-6900. Thats some expensive Hardware...

Regarding the Dev Kits, the complaints ive heard so far is that they were a little late, and thats why optimized Software wasnt available at launch. But they should be available widely now.
Plus, I think GCC supports native Ryzen, dont know about the Rest or what factorio works with.
and they will only get one once/if people start reporting/complaining about weird behavior of Factorio on such a CPU
That might not happen since probably it just falls back on generic Am64. That would probably run fine, just a bit slower than it could.
Mytronix Entertainment

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]