32 replies to this topic

[Bill Lumbar]

Tarl Cabot, on 05 August 2017 - 02:05 AM, said:

AMD actually recommends High Performance when the Ryzen came out. Though they said they would provide updates to better utilize the OS balanced plan, I can not say how that is doing.

https://community.am...md-ryzen-system

As far as I can tell, I updated it when AMD and Microsoft provided it, its been weeks ago, not sure when. Seems to be working just fine. I haven't switched back to the High performance plan yet.

AMD's Ryzen power management plan that aims to improve gaming performance for AMD's new processors is now available as part of a chipset driver update. AMD released chipset driver 17.10 WHQL on Wednesday. The new drivers include the AMD Balanced Power Plan, which first became available in early April as a separate download. The new drivers are only available to 64-bit Windows 10, according to AMD.

The new power profile included in the update hands greater power management responsibilities to Ryzen instead of relying on Windows. Ryzen has a built-in feature called SenseMI that dynamically manages voltage and frequency to improve performance. But to take advantage of SenseMI, the processor needs greater control of power management than the operating system—hence the update.



IDG[color=#666666]
AMD's new Balanced Power Plan appears in the Control Panel.[/color]

The Ryzen Balanced Power Plan also keeps all of the processor's physical cores awake instead of parking some of them allowing for better response times, especially in gaming, AMD says.

[ Further reading: These 20 absorbing PC games will eat days of your life ]
The impact on you at home: Just like standard Windows power plans, the Ryzen Balanced Power Plan will show up in the Control Panel as pictured here. The downside is that Ryzen's new power profile will mean an uptick in power consumption compared to the standard Balanced power plan. Prior to releasing Ryzen Balanced, AMD recommended that Ryzen owners run their computers using Windows' built-in high performance power profile.


With Ryzen Balanced Power, AMD said it saw a 21.6 percent improvement in performance for Crysis 3 and a 16.5 percent bump in Gears of War 4. Overall, however, most games that AMD tested saw about a 3 to 8 percent bump in performance. We haven't tested Ryzen with the new 17.10 drivers, but our previous Ryzen gaming tests did use Windows' high performance power profile.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 05 August 2017 - 02:50 AM.

[Bill Lumbar]

This is my fire strike score for my system, not to shabby, really haven't tried to push anything to the limits yet. My temps on the 1070 sit at around 30C under my new water loop, and the Ryzen stays extremely cool also. I have room to play with this system for sure.

I m not really to big on bench marks, but my system is ranking up to almost the top 90%, and I still have room to play with it. It is also pitted up against my old Intel CPU, most likely over clocked out the a$$, I had my 4790K up to 4.8ghz, and the Intel system that got just around 2000 higher score is running 980's in SLI.

All in all, I am happy with my new Ryzen build, I have no regrets and I don't feel like I got short changed with Ryzen.


Fire Strike 1.1







Valid result

Score 15 169 with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070(1x) and AMD Ryzen 7 1700



Graphics Score 17 391

Physics Score 20 883

Combined Score 6 405

Add to compare



Show Result Details
<p class="column1 maincontent">


Run details



How does this Fire Strike score compare?




Better than 87% of all results
50001000015000200002500030000350004000045000Score

Percentage of results per score.

<p class="result-context-row clearfix" style="opacity: 1;">

4K gaming PC

• Intel Core i7-4790K
  
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (2x SLI)
  
• ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. SABERTOOTH Z97 MARK 1

17805




This score

• AMD Ryzen 7 1700
  
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070
  
• ASRock X370 Professional Gaming
  
• 64-bit Windows 10 (10.0.15063)

15169





Gaming laptop

10850


Gaming PC (HTC Vive/Oculus Rift min spec)

9271


Gaming laptop (2013)

3364


Notebook

1479


Office PC (2013)

520
<p class="dataBox result-context clearfix">



Better than 87% of all results
50001000015000200002500030000350004000045000Score

Percentage of results per score.


4K gaming PC

• Intel Core i7-4790K
  
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (2x SLI)
  
• ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. SABERTOOTH Z97 MARK 1

17805



This score

15169


Gaming laptop

10850


Gaming PC (HTC Vive/Oculus Rift min spec)

9271


Gaming laptop (2013)

3364


Notebook

1479


Office PC (2013)

520





NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Vendor Micro-Star International Co ., Ltd. # of cards 1 SLI / CrossFire Off Memory 8,192 MB Core clock 1,962 MHz Memory bus clock 2,003 MHz Driver version 22.21.13.8494


AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Reported stock core clock 4,000 MHz Maximum turbo core clock 4,000 MHz Physical / logical processors 1 / 16 # of cores 8 Package AM4 Manufacturing process 14 nm TDP 65 W

General
Operating system 64-bit Windows 10 (10.0.15063) Motherboard ASRock X370 Professional Gaming Memory 16,384 MB Module 1 8,192 MB G.Skill DDR4 @ 3,198 MHz Module 2 8,192 MB G.Skill DDR4 @ 3,198 MHz Hard drive model 500 GB Samsung SSD 840 EVO 500GB

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 05 August 2017 - 03:40 AM.

[NARC BAIT]

I *was* using the high performance plan, the way I had read some performance reviews of the chipset driver stuff implied that the 'rzyen balanced' mode might yield some performance increases in some games, but that you would get the primary benefit as long as it was listed as being available, wether you were using high performance mode or not ... I always have a customised power plan, because I refuse to wait for hard drives to spin up mostly, and hadn't really gotten around to messing with the balanced power plan ... but it does seem to yield a slight increase ... very slight, but still, more is more right ?

in relation to senseMi ... I turned it off, I blamed it for sending the processor into 'unstable' while trying to find the bare minimum vcore .... and each time ive been back to revisit it, ive come to the same conclusion, that with it on, I need slightly more voltage into the cpu to keep it stable and happy ... in some ways I question the way the motherboard interprets it as being unstable, but anyway, that's theory for another day ....

I push around 12,000 for firestrike, and you can see its the GPU bottlenecking, especially during the combined test ... where the CPU doesn't get to full utilization ... but I'm generally very happy with my ryzen setup, I'd be happier if some of the artificial limits were removed ( like I know I have at least 7 cores that work ) and if I could get the ram to run at its rated speed of 4000mhz, but I'm certainly not unhappy enough to complain ... I'm certainly using less juice out of the wall, so that might even yield a monetary saving long term ...

[NARC BAIT]

I've pretty much finished tuning my DDR4 ... for now ... until agesa moves along again anyway, and higher potential multipliers become more available ... I do have a few tighter timings @ 3600mhz, but, they are not what I would really consider 'stable', they train very happily, pass memory tests fine, crash in MWO, almost always at the very start or the very end of a game, ... I could probably work on making them more stable, but they really don't yield that much more of an impressive result ... like 1%-2%, whereas the difference between 2400 MHz and 3200 MHz *could* be 50% on throughput, and 3600 MHz is more than 10% on top ... getting the latency down makes a noticeable difference, to me anyway, maybe not everyone, by the time those 5ns differences get near userland its more like 3-10 ms in response time ...

the chart in the middle could have done with some better labelling along the x-axis ... bit of an oversight I guess, but its the same order as the timings chart above it, there are two timings at 3200mhz, and six at 3600mhz ....

the ram I have has Samsung chips, but its not the b-die that everyone raves about ... its the red kit, that makes it go faster, right ?!?

[xWiredx]

so... how is 2800 faster and less latent than 3600? That seems... illogical and probably really unstable...

Apparently there's a low-latency 3600 kit that G.Skill makes in its RGB series. I'm strongly considering it for my next build (which will likely be Coffee Lake with a 1080Ti). Seems like it's nicely balanced and outperformed a lot of other kits.

I think if your kit using 2800 XMP is faster than other speeds, might as well stick with it that way rather than try to make your platform do things it doesn't want to do. That is, until it's fixed by a BIOS update or something.

[NARC BAIT]

xWiredx, on 01 September 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

so... how is 2800 faster and less latent than 3600? That seems... illogical and probably really unstable...

yeah I missed a layer of labelling there, that's running the XMP profile for 2800 at 3600 .... the lower latency makes the higher throughput ... intel lent all the manufacturers their engineers to make sure that XMP profiles were perfectly suited to the memory controller I don't have ... so it wouldn't really make sense that they would line up for ryzens ... the chip that I brought was new-old-stock ... circa 2014-15 ... I guess it was that expensive that no one bothered to buy them for a few years ... I wish I had brought the 4266 kit ... which would have been the same, but I probably would have got closer to 4000 ....

I see no value in RGB ... its the first thing to be turned off ... my pc isn't a showpiece, its more like a tortured warhorse which has been demoted into a workhorse ...

Edited by NARC BAIT, 03 September 2017 - 08:06 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Just got the Samsung 960 1tb M.2 drive in today guys.... clean installing Windoz 10 and seeing what this thing can do

[ninjitsu]

I can't get my RAM to run stable past 2667. Windows can boot at 2800 but I can't get through a game.

[juggtron]

Has anyone got some links for the single beasly FPU per CCX? I read both of the deep dives that I read on Anand and Toms and dont remember anything mentioned about that.

Happy with my 1600X so far.

[NARC BAIT]

Bill Lumbar, on 12 September 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

Just got the Samsung 960 1tb M.2 drive in today guys.... clean installing Windoz 10 and seeing what this thing can do

yeah, I've got the 256 gb version, there can be a few tricks to watch out for ... for instance its possible that the default configuration doesn't give the highest ( rated ) speeds, which can leave you scratching your head ... I'm not 100% sure about your board, but on mine, the faster that ram, the better the throughputs ... probably relating to how long it takes to move data through the pcie lane ....

ninjitsu, on 12 September 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

I can't get my RAM to run stable past 2667. Windows can boot at 2800 but I can't get through a game.

if its rated for more than that, I'd keep trying ... but then again, I've spent stupid hours fine tuning my ram ... I found that some of my earlier predictions on 'stable' timings should have been more appropriately labelled 'trainable' timings .... because a lot of them turned out to be, less than perfectly stable ... don't get me wrong, they trained, booted windows and survived benchmarks, but after extended use, most would turn out to be flaky ... and it would just take a long time for the instabilities to come front and centre, and mostly related to certain memory operations, that don't tend to get done all that often, but when it happens, if the result is not whats expected, your out of the game, and pretty likely to be dead by the time you get back in .... what to do, really depends on which chip you paired with your board .... it seems to me, that the limit for the IMC is somewhere between 3500-3600 MHz, Ive had faster than that, and have done benchmarks at 3780mhz, but it would crash within 4 hours max, and that's not overly acceptable mid game, in a game that punishes you for 'leaving' early ...

juggtron, on 13 September 2017 - 12:23 AM, said:

Has anyone got some links for the single beasly FPU per CCX? I read both of the deep dives that I read on Anand and Toms and dont remember anything mentioned about that.

very deep buried in one of the tech documents there are some references to the FPU ... and it gets weird, quickly ....

each CCX gets its own FPU, and each core gets its own pipeline to the FPU, this is important, in regards to the arrangement on their previous generation CPU's, where each module (2 cores) shared one FPU, and if one core was using it, the other had to wait for that execution to finish before it could get access ... the FPU for ryzens is actually over spec for the job, and capable of achieving 5 tasks ... I'm honestly not exactly sure how this is achieved, wether the FPU is just clocked harder or actually more capable than the CCX's, but at the end of the day it doesn't seem to matter much, floating point performance tends to be faster than int ... and that's ... well ... different ... but, most of the benchmark software your going to see wont break the numbers down very well, assuming they even test int vs fp performance ... I've stolen some data from UBM results (averaged over thousands), these are 'scores' given by that benchmark, and don't relate to an actual number, but the theme of floating point operations being faster than int shows through ... oh and even though one core has been disabled per CCX (on a 1600), the FPU remains intact, but, the other cores are not able to 'address' bonus data to it .... but if you were to enable a cpu configuration like 4+0 then you could see that it all lines up, and is fully functional ...

SC = single core / QC = quad core / MC = multi core (all)

SC Int   100	QC Int   369	MC Int   843
SC Float 107	QC Float 390	MC Float 859
SC Mixed 103	QC Mixed 379	MC Mixed 858

I cant say I've been unhappy with my 1600x, frustrated here and there, sure, but unhappy ? nah ...

Edited by NARC BAIT, 18 September 2017 - 04:04 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

@Narc,

"yeah, I've got the 256 gb version, there can be a few tricks to watch out for ... for instance its possible that the default configuration doesn't give the highest ( rated ) speeds, which can leave you scratching your head ... I'm not 100% sure about your board, but on mine, the faster that ram, the better the throughputs ... probably relating to how long it takes to move data through the pcie lane ..."

My mother Board is a Asrock Professional X370 and I believe it defaults to the correct setting for the M.2 drive, 3x4 or whatever. My speeds are great right out the gate after doing a clean install of windows 10 my system is now not buggy at all....and extremely fast. When I say buggy, I simply mean that letting windows figure out the hard ware didn't mess anything up to bad, but when I would first boot my computer, the screen would freeze after loading windows and signing in for a few seconds, almost like the Nvidia drivers for my 1070 was loading after the fact. This could be due to old drivers for my 7970 XFX card still in the OS, but I thought I deleted and uninstalled them. Now its all good, everything is acting as it should.

Windows installed in like less than 10 minutes and my speeds on the new M.2 drive are showing up around 3100 read, 2200 write. Very happy with the new drive and I normally always do a clean install on something like this, but waited because I knew I was gonna get the M.2 drive. So far I am loving it!

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 19 September 2017 - 02:50 AM.

[NARC BAIT]

yeah the M2 stuff is nice as, good to see your up to good speeds without much drama ... my old SSD was getting near EOL, so it makes great cold storage, 128gb was too tight for over provisioning, but I did it on the new M2, and everyone probably should, if you want it to last a good time anyway ... yeah I noticed along the way that the actual benchmark numbers are influenced by the ram speed ....

I've mostly settled for now ... asus have dropped the ball with the bios updates lately ... well, the guy who takes care of it went on vacation, ok, fair enough I guess ... saying that the newer updated to agesa don't help much ... probably mostly related to their QVL ... an arrangement that reminds me of political preferencing ... and my kit will never make the list, because its pretty much EOL everywhere .... everyone except me wants RGB ... typical ... anyway ...

ive seen two behaviours from the memory controller at high ratios, on early bios's @ 3600mhz the read speed was reduced to half the throughput, whereas on the current one, its just flaky ... maybe it will look good for half a day ... somewhere after 3520 MHz ... it kind of annoys me at the moment, I can see more performance, an inch away ... but I cant get it to act right ...

[NARC BAIT]

in true form, I quit this, closed that, randomly loaded the asus page ... and there was a 'newer' bios . something in between maybe ... but after a bit of tweaking it lets me sit the ram at 3600 without losing stability .... but still doesn't have any 'actual' updates in it ... like someone fixed a tiny mistake that only affected a very small amount of people who are over the 3200 MHz qvl ...