To put that into perspective, that's what my ageing dual Westmere-EP system scores under Indigo bench!
In the videos there is mention that the CorePrio utility may also be beneficial to Intel CPU's as well.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To put that into perspective, that's what my ageing dual Westmere-EP system scores under Indigo bench!
In the videos there is mention that the CorePrio utility may also be beneficial to Intel CPU's as well.
Uploading a quick test video, hopefully it snot too crap. Sorry for background noise, housemates playing COD and geek squad tech support lol.
I have found a second issue, if you dont restart indigo between start/stop on coreprio your results will not be consistent. Took me a few videos to figure out what was going on and you can see it in this video as I restart indigo once to get it to work properly.
EDIT - For what its worth I wouldnt put it past the issue being a BIOS issue with the MSI motherboard i'm using (X399 Gaming Pro Carbon AC) as I cant disable SMT. Doing so results in no POST.
Crap video
View attachment 132934
Uploading a quick test video, hopefully it snot too crap. Sorry for background noise, housemates playing COD and geek squad tech support lol.
I have found a second issue, if you dont restart indigo between start/stop on coreprio your results will not be consistent. Took me a few videos to figure out what was going on and you can see it in this video as I restart indigo once to get it to work properly.
EDIT - For what its worth I wouldnt put it past the issue being a BIOS issue with the MSI motherboard i'm using (X399 Gaming Pro Carbon AC) as I cant disable SMT. Doing so results in no POST.
Crap video
View attachment 132934
I'm not in a place I can watch your video, but I have the same Mobo/cpu. Very interested.
Probably should have mentioned, I'm not running Windows.
Is it at all possible for you to install Ubuntu and run the same benchmark?
At the moment cant do it unfortunately, but if I manage some time i might be able to do it.
I used the handbrake CLI and transcoded big_buck_bunny.mov from the blender website to the amazon 2160p HVEC preset in ~15 mins on epyc (8 channels) to get a baseline. It was an appaling ~8.6ish frames per second.
It'd prove beyond all doubt as to whether your issue is the exact same issue or not. I don't think the benchmark is IO intensive so HDD speed shouldn't even matter...
[EDIT] I love your IRC client, I haven't seen that in years!
Had mint kicking around on a USB thumb drive, is that good enough? Scored 1.9x vs 1.0/1.7x in windows. Pretty sure that windows just has a problem
Could you indicate the exact preset you used? Using one of the few 2160p60 HEVC 4K Surround presets on my ancient workstation (12c/24t) on the same movie places me in 15 minute territory as well.
Can you set SMT to off and still POST?
I'll check when I can. What BIOS version are you using? One came out in like...November or so.
Please disregard what the Phoronix benchmark originally intended to highlight, that is inconsequential to the argument here. The performance delta between the still-somewhat-but-less-NUMA 7980XE and the very-much-so-NUMA 2990WX is the interesting part here.That's not a 50% performance drop, that test was highlighting the difference in kernels considering Spectre/Meltdown.
Please disregard what the Phoronix benchmark originally intended to highlight, that is inconsequential to the argument here. The performance delta between the still-somewhat-but-less-NUMA 7980XE and the very-much-so-NUMA 2990WX is the interesting part here.
Um, who told you to disregard the benchmark?I'm not going to disregard the Phronix benchmarks at all
That was probably the result of a fast read of your comment. It's ok.Um, who told you to disregard the benchmark?
The benchmark result is what is interesting. It shows a weakness of Threadripper that cannot be addressed by switching to Linux.
The question that Phoronix originally tried to answer with the benchmark is not interesting.
The other thing I question regarding the video is where the presenter states that we're specifically talking about single socket systems? Yes, it looks like one socket, but as far as I'm aware that's literally two AMD CPU's 'joined at the hip', you can even see this by looking at the bottom of the CPU as a package. So, technically speaking, while the distances between data paths is naturally substantially shorter between the two processors considering NUMA, there is still two processor packages present and therefore two individual sockets that simply look like one large socket?
Would you agree that Threadripper and Epyc are essentially individual dies in the one package with dual sockets placed exceptionally close together to, in effect, appear as one socket?
So what OS have you made? You really think windows could have been made by idiots? Roflmao.And this is one of many reasons I believe that Microsoft is going to make a Windows that runs Linux kernel, a Windows X. Besides the whole Embrace Extend and Extinguish, it'll probably be cheaper for them to use code that actually works and that isn't written by idiots.
Um, who told you to disregard the benchmark?
The benchmark result is what is interesting. It shows a weakness of Threadripper that cannot be addressed by switching to Linux.
The question that Phoronix originally tried to answer with the benchmark is not interesting.
So, Epyc, and Threadripper have 4 dies, not 2. (Only 2 active in 12/16 core Threadripper, though) The fact that the pins on the bottom of the processor package have bilateral symmetry has nothing to do with it, that's just how they designed the socket.
It really doesn't look that way, that looks like two sockets joined at the hip to me to appear as one socket. I'll see if I can find some information relating to the exact pinouts.
Well my point was that AMD could not force MS to address it. Certainty AMD can help if MS is working on it But this is great news.. Might be upgrading to 2990WX soon.
I think they meant as long as microsoft doesn't acknowledge the problem and begin working on a fix, nothing can be done by AMD to improve the situation on Windows. Apparently, msft finally opened up and decided to play nice.
Maybe I missed it in a glossing over in this discussion, but I wonder how it plays out in virtualization. I mean, if you've got 32 cores you could run 3 8-core VMs and keep 8 for the host. Yes, I know you lose some in the overhead and you can't put the power all towards a single task. But which would be faster - Having 32 cores work all on A-B-C-D or having 8 on A, 8 on B, 8 on C, and 8 on D, assuming you've got parallel tasks like many jobs to run that don't have to be done in a specific order of completion.
Or without virtualization simply running the application 4 different times on the same computer and locking specific cores to specific application instances?