Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7980X & 7970X Linux Performance Benchmarks

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Except your correction was about my theories for performance issues.
    "Theories" is too strong a word. You made some random statements that weren't rooted in data. Instead of speaking off the top of your head and then freaking out when someone calls you on it, try sanity-checking yourself. If you can't be bothered to do at least that much, then maybe it's better if you don't post it.

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    ​The whole point of me pointing out that product was to exemplify where I got my "random nonsense" from. Again, I didn't say any of them are the problem; it's possible none of them are. The thing is, history is not immune to repetition. This next-gen Threadripper is much more intelligently designed but it still has a lot of the same differences, which can basically be summarized as sharing a physical socket with a server platform but everything is cut down.
    Name-dropping another product is not supporting your argument. You need to actually make the case, on the basis of what issues it had and why you believe those same issues are present in the new platform & processors. Again, if you can't be bothered to do that much, then maybe you're not helping?

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    ​​At this point I'm curious how many times you're going to say something along the lines of "I don't have time for this" and yet respond anyway. You think you're winning here but you're going against your own word.
    There's no winning. I know every minute I spend reading or replying to you is lost.

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    It's genuinely strange to me how you can honestly dismiss all of my ideas as unsupportable,
    I didn't say they're all unsupportable, but they are unsupported. That's because for all your willingness to type pages of text at me, you can't be bothered to look at the data and make a clear, logical, and data-driven argument for any of them. Without that, they're worthless.

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    ​That dual-socket Epyc has triple the core count of a 7980X; that's a lot of additional bandwidth needed for the disk. The SN850 is no slouch of a SSD.
    Which data are you citing? I'm not aware of a test involving the EPYC 9654 which used the SN850. ServeTheHome didn't say what storage they used, but you can bet it wasn't a SN850. In his latest round of EPYC vs. Xeon tests Michael didn't use it, either.

    I explained why I think the SN850 might've become a bottleneck which doesn't involve it being a "slouch" for its intended client workloads. For now, it's still conjecture. Needs more data.

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Anyone genuinely interested in solving this problem and not suffering from a superiority complex would acknowledge that some (not all) of the things I and Alpha64 mentioned are plausible.
    No, because even the data we have doesn't support some of them. You seem like someone who makes a lot of excuses. Without supporting data, that's all they are. Excuses are not actionable. Unless the actual cause is found, it cannot be addressed.

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    ​ I don't really care if I'm wrong;
    That much is clear.

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    ​​I acknowledged there are other possibilities and I didn't try to create an exhaustive list. What I care about is how you're judging me because your autistic brain can't handle more than one possible problem at a time, or, perhaps your ego can't accept there are other possibilities that you didn't come up with.
    You apparently can't handle any problems at a time. Compared to that, focusing on one at a time is an infinite improvement.

    And no, not a single one of your excuses is news to me. You probably don't have a clue when & where at least half of those effects would come into play, much less how to quantify them. What good is that, then? Before appealing to what you can't characterize or measure, why not first focus on the things you can?

    Oh, right. Because you don't care if you're wrong. So, tell me: what value is there is posting wrong answers?

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    You kinda did with the whole I/O thing...
    I presented an argument as an appeal for more data, which is incumbent on Michael taking additional action. If I couldn't make a case for it, then why would he even bother?

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    I'm not obligated to devote time to help some stranger satisfy his/her curiosity. I pitched in my two cents because that's how much I care to give. It's not nothing,
    Nobody is asking you to help. Posting wrong answers is worse than nothing at all. If you're going to try and answer a question, then you should at least do a basic level of sanity-checking to avoid leading someone down the wrong path. There's enough half-assed shit in the world, as is.

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    ​what are you going to do if compiling benchmarks are still too slow after a better drive is swapped in?
    I already said.

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    That whole sentence is hypocritical.
    Not sure you know what that means, but whatever.

    I'm here because I care about the mission of Linux benchmarking. If there's indeed a systemic problem with Michael's test methodology, maybe it's something we can address.

    Comment

    Working...
    X