If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. Intel Core i7 7700K Linux Gaming Performance
That screenshot doesn't show the display resolution and graphics settings of the benchmarks. In benchmarks with 4K resolution, 1440p resolution, or even some of the benchmarks with 1080p resolution but the graphics settings on the highest levels, the difference between Ryzen and the recent Core i7s is tiny or even zero.
But that's because the GPU is doing all of the work. To compare the processors, the benchmarks should be 1920x1080 with low graphics settings or even lower resolutions. And in those, from what I've seen disabling SMT gives a 3-5% performance boost to Ryzen but not enough to catch Intel.
I'm an AMD fanboy. I plan to get an R7 1700 or R5 later this year. But it looks like the Core i7-7700 is still a better buy for gaming enthusiasts. No matter how much I wish differently, that won't change the reality.
As I mentioned in this very article, the BIOS of this motherboard doesn't give me the option to disable SMT.
Sorry, Michael I read it, but.
Sad. You didn't get a newer BIOS in the meantime...
Couldn't we do something with Linux 'self tools'?
Limit core number?
thread groups/siblings
Sorry, Michael I read it, but.
Sad. You didn't get a newer BIOS in the meantime...
Couldn't we do something with Linux 'self tools'?
Limit core number?
thread groups/siblings
The "isolcpus" kernel boot parameter? List or don't list the logical cores corresponding to SMT. Or maybe taskset is sufficient.
I was hoping zen would overclock a little better. But maybe the 6 and 4 core will go higher. More wait and see. I didn't want to beta test the new chips anyway.
That's a great point about the thread splitting. But it would be bizarre for AMD not to have addressed this right out of the gate, if it's a common issue. "We're going to spend billions of dollars designing Bulldozer and later Ryzen, but not spend a few million getting the necessary patches into the Linux kernel and Windows kernel for the multi-threading to work efficiently." ??
I believe it's possible that in some rare cases if a single application is splitting threads across a single core it might be better than splitting across multiple cores. If there is frequent intra-thread communication, the shared L2 cache could allow that communication to run much faster. But that's my wild speculation.
AMD never addressed this with the bulldozer based systems which have been out for several years now. For example if you use OpenMP with a bulldozer based system with 4 modules, and eight threads and you set the number of threads to 4 you will find that the 4 threads run on only two modules and if you're doing floating point work that means only two FPUs are being used when you could have used four. This can depend on the OS and distro. You really have to check the thread topology of your system, they ultimately have control on the default toplogy. I just know what I have seen on every system I have checked. I would also not be surprised if AMD uses the same CPUID tags for SMT and cluster multi-threading mapping.
Comment