Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raven Ridge With The Ryzen 5 2400G On Mesa 18.2 + Linux 4.17 Is Finally Stable

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by dwagner View Post
    You might want to have a look at the two patches I mentioned in https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103277 which seemed to make a difference.
    according to the last message in the bug report those two patches should already be part of 4.17rc5.

    Comment


    • #22
      That's good as I'll be upgrading my Kaveri laptop in the following months and I'm seriously looking into the pro-level ultrabooks that both HP and Lenovo announced.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by dungeon View Post


        Glorious openarena pbench just shows memory bwidth difference, here dual channel DDR3 vs DDR4 vs eDRAM
        Not so fast, cowboy. The chart seems wrong. If you look at the Total Frame Time chart, it shows that average frame time = 5.62, so: 1000/5.62 = 177 FPS.

        Ryzen 5 2400G is the only tested chip where the FPS chart and the Total Frame Time chart don't match. Weird.
        Last edited by marek; 05-19-2018, 04:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by marek View Post

          The chart seems wrong. If you look at the Total Frame Time chart, it shows that average frame time = 5.62, so: 1000/5.62 = 177 FPS.

          Ryzen 5 2400G is the only tested chip where the FPS chart and the Total Frame Time chart don't match. Weird.
          The frame-time data is based upon the last run of the program while the chart FPS data is based upon the average.
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Michael View Post

            The frame-time data is based upon the last run of the program while the chart FPS data is based upon the average.
            OK. It looks like there were some crazy stalls slowing everything down. I don't have an explanation for that, but I think the shader compiler performance is the first thing to investigate.

            Comment


            • #26
              Now that shader caches have become more common, is it worth revisiting the idea of throwing away the results of the first run in order to get a more representative performance number ?

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                Now that shader caches have become more common, is it worth revisiting the idea of throwing away the results of the first run in order to get a more representative performance number ?
                PTS already has that ability to always toss off the first run or an arbitrary run position, but I don't think the shader cache is causing any significant difference. Since right now after the third run it's dynamically increasing the run count if the standard deviation is about 3.5%, but I rarely see that happening... Only with some very CPU limited scenarios do I ever see it then go 4, 5, or 6 runs to lower that std dev below 3.5%.

                As far as the frame times go, the last run is used for matters of not wanting to get the shader caching or so from the first run, etc. And in that sense of frame-time likely doesn't make sense trying to average each frames time.
                Michael Larabel
                http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                Comment


                • #28
                  ... but since it does not support ECC I've sold the Ryzen 5 2400G APU and I'm waiting for the PRO version that according to the motherboard manufacturers will support ECC.

                  bridgman any idea on when the PRO version might appear?

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                    bridgman any idea on when the PRO version might appear?
                    I see Aug 29 mentioned a lot - but some sites are saying that is "retail availability" and others are saying "more information". I'll see if I can find out which one is correct - the first sounds more believable to me.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Duve View Post
                      Hey Micheal.... a request...
                      I know that just about everyone is killing for those Desktop APU, but would there be a different between them and laptop APU's? Would be be able to test any Ryzen laptops?
                      I am concerned if only because I am shopping around for a new laptop and Ryzen is sounding really good for a linux laptop right now. Unless the APU's have issues.
                      If you can find an APU laptop with dual-channel memory, I'm confident that would make for a decent buy. I'm not sure if current ones are Vega based, but they have good performance regardless. The tricky part is most of them are configured for single-channel memory. Considering how both Ryzen and Vega are starved for bandwidth, you should only consider dual-channel setups.


                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      ... but since it does not support ECC I've sold the Ryzen 5 2400G APU and I'm waiting for the PRO version that according to the motherboard manufacturers will support ECC.
                      Why exactly is ECC for an APU so important to you, to the point that you'd sell your 2400G? It's kind of the equivalent of putting premium gas in a cheap economy car.
                      Last edited by schmidtbag; 05-19-2018, 08:01 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X