I think I screwed the pooch by buying an R7 1700.

[Gene Starwind]

I got sucked in and trapped by the hype train, and now I realize I have seriously screwed the pooch.  After AMD's recent announcement, I finally woke up.  It's clear to me now that I bought a server hand-me-down that doesn't actually fit my needs.  The only way amd would make that statement is if they knew it was not feasible to fix the problems associated with zen's ccx.

 

I cannot even return this thing to newegg.  I am stuck with it.

 

I don't even have a board.  I have a taichi backordered, but idk when it will come.

 

What's worse is I am basically locked into thing thing for the next decade... And they will probably never be able to fix the scheduler to work around the ccx.

 

 

[Imakuni]

1 minute ago, Gene Starwind said:

I got sucked in and trapped by the hype train, and now I realize I have seriously screwed the pooch.  After AMD's recent announcement, I finally woke up.  It's clear to me now that I bought a server hand-me-down that doesn't actually fit my needs.  The only way amd would make that statement is if they knew it was not feasible to fix the problems associated with zen's ccx.

 

I cannot even return this thing to newegg.  I am stuck with it.

 

I don't even have a board.  I have a taichi backordered, but idk when it will come.

 

What's worse is I am basically locked into thing thing for the next decade... And they will probably never be able to fix the scheduler to work around the ccx.

What was it that you said you were using this PC for?

[The Sloth]

what?

[DarkBlade2117]

Man, you're fine. Don't sweat it. It isn't that big of a deal, and Zen+ is confirmed to be on AM4. Plus, maybe you'll find a hobby you like that will utilize the 1700. 

If you think you messed up that bad, I bought a $140 750Ti and paid $180 for my old case. 

Also.. I'd get a different mobo. The Taichi is nice but you can save yourself the time by getting a Killer SLI/ac board. I plan on buying this once I sell my Extreme4 and 6700k

[SpaceGhostC2C]

If you bought it for a purely gaming PC, you probably could do better/cheaper with Intel. However, in that case you don't need to stay locked to it: you can always sell it back. I'd offer to buy it myself, but I'm afraid shipping/customs would make it pointless (the 1700 seems to be out of stock around here, and I'm not paying for a 1700x that OCs the same).

[Guest]

I've read somewhere that scheduler isn't the problem. And you are an early adopter. You took the risk, and you are complaining that "it's not fixed" in the first 2 weeks. While most people will tell you there will most likely be fixes in the upcoming months. And finaly, you said you didn't even have a AM4 motherboard for this CPU. So you even haven't experianced the "problems"! Don't bash, just accept you aren't that smart.

[Speaker1264]

Look into Process Lasso, you can designate cores individually based on the game.  So on a game that only utilizes 4 cores, you won't have CCX cross-talk, giving much better performance.  It should put in about on the same level as the 4-core Intel CPUs, and in games that use more than 4 cores you should be ahead.  So there's really nothing to worry about.  Those extra cores are handy for background processes like chrome, voice chat, etc.

[Gene Starwind]

16 minutes ago, Imakuni said:

What was it that you said you were using this PC for?

gaming and some cad work

[Tieox]

Could be worse buddy, you could wake up in an alternative universe which is ruled by a race that worship Justin Beiber, have banned beer, and made pizza a killable offence to consume. 

 

 

[AlexCo]

21 minutes ago, Gene Starwind said:

worse is I am basically locked into thing thing for the next decade... And they will probably never be able to fix the scheduler to work around the ccx.

If you use it and hate it... (which I doubt... it's not a bad platform...) why wait 10 years to switch setups?

 

It's not too hard to sell things online and buy something else.

 

Seems pretty dramatic. Calm down. = |

[The Sloth]

8 minutes ago, Gene Starwind said:

gaming and some cad work

whats the problem? you don't even have a mobo? 

[mealto]

Have not kept up with the latest news. What so bad about this chip?

[jasonc_01]

You sure burn it protest while chanting "were not gonna take the intel tax anymore"..... whoops never mind 

[Speaker1264]

27 minutes ago, mealto said:

Have not kept up with the latest news. What so bad about this chip?

Basically AMD confirmed that the Windows Scheduler was not a problem, and that optimizations for Ryzen needed to be made by the game developers.  Besides that though, the major problem is that AMD uses two 4 core/8 thread CCXs, but many games see it as a single 8 core/16 thread CPU, and some see it as a 16 core CPU, causing lower performance, because if the game is using some cores on one CCX and some on the other, then there is an added latency penalty, causing lower framerate.

 

If the games are programmed and optimized to know that Ryzen uses 2 CCXs and try to reduce cross-talk between the two CCXs then there will be a lot better performance overall.  And in some games that only utilize 4 cores, you can even use a program called Process Lasso to make sure that the game is only using the 4 cores from the same CCX, eliminating the latency problems altogether.  It's not ideal, but it works. 

 

Hopefully game developers work with AMD and optimize their games properly for Ryzen, but we shall see.  Even still though, the difference really isn't as big as some people are making it out to be.

[AlexCo]

47 minutes ago, Speaker1264 said:

you can even use a program called Process Lasso to make sure that the game is only using the 4 cores from the same CCX, eliminating the latency problems altogether.  It's not ideal, but it works. 

Remember that windows sees available cache on the CPU as Uniform memory and CPU affinity (core assignments) will not remove the extra cache that exists on the 2nd CCX. Windows can in fact assign data to the Cache for the entire 16MB instead of just the 8MB on four specific cores.

 

In this case, even though you have removed the 2nd set of four cores you have not removed the performance bottleneck which is the communication to the neighboring cache.

[Gene Starwind]

1 hour ago, nerdslayer1 said:

whats the problem? you don't even have a mobo? 

Actually, my taichi order is being filled right now.  It will likely be here by this weekend.

[Gene Starwind]

1 hour ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Man, you're fine. Don't sweat it. It isn't that big of a deal, and Zen+ is confirmed to be on AM4. Plus, maybe you'll find a hobby you like that will utilize the 1700. 

If you think you messed up that bad, I bought a $140 750Ti and paid $180 for my old case. 

Also.. I'd get a different mobo. The Taichi is nice but you can save yourself the time by getting a Killer SLI/ac board. I plan on buying this once I sell my Extreme4 and 6700k

I thought about youtube and streaming, but I don't really know anything about either.

[Speaker1264]

5 minutes ago, AlexCo said:

Remember that windows sees available cache on the CPU as Uniform memory and CPU affinity (core assignments) will not remove the extra cache that exists on the 2nd CCX. Windows can in fact assign data to the Cache for the entire 16MB instead of just the 8MB on four specific cores.

 

In this case, even though you have removed the 2nd set of four cores you have not removed the performance bottleneck which is the communication to the neighboring cache.

Hmm, well there are some benchmarks showing an improvement when using Process Lasso to keep games on the same CCX.

[AlexCo]

Just now, Speaker1264 said:

Hmm, well there are some benchmarks showing an improvement when using Process Lasso to keep games on the same CCX.

These apps likely aren't exceeding the 8MB closest to the cores; or likely it may be reducing the likelyhood that cache will be written cross-CCX.

 

It is unlikely that the cache remains locked down to the pinned CPU cores. Most applications have no management of this themselves and rely on the OS to do so.

[Speaker1264]

Just now, AlexCo said:

These apps likely aren't exceeding the 8MB closest to the cores; or likely it may be reducing the likelyhood that cache will be written cross-CCX.

 

It is unlikely that the cache remains locked down to the pinned CPU cores. Most applications have no management of this themselves and rely on the OS to do so.

Yeah, I just thought of that.

[mealto]

1 hour ago, Speaker1264 said:

Basically AMD confirmed that the Windows Scheduler was not a problem, and that optimizations for Ryzen needed to be made by the game developers.  Besides that though, the major problem is that AMD uses two 4 core/8 thread CCXs, but many games see it as a single 8 core/16 thread CPU, and some see it as a 16 core CPU, causing lower performance, because if the game is using some cores on one CCX and some on the other, then there is an added latency penalty, causing lower framerate.

 

If the games are programmed and optimized to know that Ryzen uses 2 CCXs and try to reduce cross-talk between the two CCXs then there will be a lot better performance overall.  And in some games that only utilize 4 cores, you can even use a program called Process Lasso to make sure that the game is only using the 4 cores from the same CCX, eliminating the latency problems altogether.  It's not ideal, but it works. 

 

Hopefully game developers work with AMD and optimize their games properly for Ryzen, but we shall see.  Even still though, the difference really isn't as big as some people are making it out to be.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I am a little surprised that AMD could not somehow patch this problem before launch. But I tend to think this may not be a huge problem for most consumers. But at this stage, the Ryzen that is out is meant for enthusiasts so that may be compounding the problem.

[Gene Starwind]

1 hour ago, Speaker1264 said:

Basically AMD confirmed that the Windows Scheduler was not a problem, and that optimizations for Ryzen needed to be made by the game developers.  Besides that though, the major problem is that AMD uses two 4 core/8 thread CCXs, but many games see it as a single 8 core/16 thread CPU, and some see it as a 16 core CPU, causing lower performance, because if the game is using some cores on one CCX and some on the other, then there is an added latency penalty, causing lower framerate.

 

If the games are programmed and optimized to know that Ryzen uses 2 CCXs and try to reduce cross-talk between the two CCXs then there will be a lot better performance overall.  And in some games that only utilize 4 cores, you can even use a program called Process Lasso to make sure that the game is only using the 4 cores from the same CCX, eliminating the latency problems altogether.  It's not ideal, but it works. 

 

Hopefully game developers work with AMD and optimize their games properly for Ryzen, but we shall see.  Even still though, the difference really isn't as big as some people are making it out to be.

Working, and being optimized aren't the same thing.

 

A car with a flat tire technically works, but it's not running optimally.

[Lazorsnipes]

Does this "issue" affect video editing software or only games? If it is only games, how much you want for it? I need a new build for video and photo editing and I don't play AAA games. 

[Speaker1264]

14 minutes ago, Gene Starwind said:

Working, and being optimized aren't the same thing.

 

A car with a flat tire technically works, but it's not running optimally.

Okay, but if you bought the CPU based on the benchmarks that reviewers posted, then that is still the performance that you can expect to get, if not better once developers optimize for Ryzen.  If you bought it before seeing any benchmarks or expected there to be a quick silver-bullet fix then that sucks, but you should have waited.

 

4 minutes ago, Lazorsnipes said:

Does this "issue" affect video editing software or only games? If it is only games, how much you want for it? I need a new build for video and photo editing and I don't play AAA games. 

No it's just an issue affecting games.  Ryzen outperforms Intel's $1000 CPU, the 6900k, in pretty much every other category.

[Lazorsnipes]

1 minute ago, Speaker1264 said:

Okay, but if you bought the CPU based on the benchmarks that reviewers posted, then that is still the performance that you can expect to get, if not better once developers optimize for Ryzen.  If you bought it before seeing any benchmarks or expected there to be a quick silver-bullet fix then that sucks, but you should have waited.

 

No it's just an issue affecting games.  Ryzen outperforms even Intel's $1000 CPU, the 6900k, in pretty much every other category.

With that, I don't think it will be an issue if you want to sell it. I am debating to buy one, I am sure I am not the only person out there that would consider taking it off your hands!!