Amd Ryzen Threadripper & X399 MegaThread! FAQ & Resources

[goldstone77]

AMD delays driver release supporting NVMe SSDs in RAID on Threadripper
By Paul Lilly a day ago
More testing is needed.

When AMD launched its Ryzen Threadripper 1900X processor at the end of August, the company said it would be introducing NVMe RAID support to X399 motherboards with a driver update planned for September 25, or somewhere thereabouts. The good news is AMD is still planning to implement support for multiple NVMe SSDs configured in RAID, but not just yet.

"I just wanted to do a quick follow up on NVME RAID status from AMD. I know that during our Threadripper 1900X presentation we had noted September 25th as possible availability timeframe. AMD is still very excited about bringing FREE NVMe RAID support to the Threadripper platform with no strings attached," AMD told HardOCP.

Why the delay? AMD said that support for NVMe RAID requires a new driver, BIOS, management console, and installer, and that it is currently working with board partners to get all those things in order. AMD also hinted that RAID support might be a bit buggy at the moment, noting that it is "committed to software quality."

"We have been testing its deployment and have decided to postpone the release by a few days to enhance the install experience," AMD added.

AMD's wording indicates a possible release by the end of this week, though it does not have an exact date in mind just yet.

Whether you would want to install multiple NVMe drives in RAID is another question. One possible scenario is a RAID 0 array, though NVMe SSDs typically boast really fast read and write speeds already. The added speed may not be worth the risk—if one drive goes down in a RAID 0 array, all data is lost.

Alternately, users could choose a version of RAID for redundancy. The downside there is cost, especially compared to bulky hard drives.

Regardless, NVMe RAID support is coming for those who are interested.

 

[jdwii]

Wow haven't been on this thread for a few days haha.

Anyways i figured i'd add a bit gamer and juan is correct single core performance matters the most for gaming and even when a game uses more than 8 cores it can still run faster on a higher IPC 6 core.

BUT Ryzen gaming performance is fine if you were fine with a 3.5ghz haswell quad core you will be just as fine with Ryzen 1600 or better at 3.8ghz.

FX sucked big time i owned the CPU's i trash talk about or praise haha Ryzen 1700 isn't perfect i wish it could OC to 4.4-4.6 at least with 15-20% higher IPC but it doesn't, but it sure smacks my 4790K across the face in handbrake.

Proof that games use more cores i posted links before ryzen release showing that a 6900K at stock was beating a 7700K at 5ghz in a decent amount of newer titles(like watch dogs 2, mafia 3). Intel is even saying big gains from their new 8700K.
2500K is aging worse compared to the 2600K. Games really are starting to use more than 4 cores and they are using them well. Also, Digital Foundry compared the 1600 at 3.8ghz to the I5 7600K at 4.8ghz guess what the 1600 won what more proof do some of you need?

 

[gamerk316]

Part of the reason the 2500k is faring so much worse then the 2600k is DX12. Having a multithreaded GPU driver means that the driver is using more CPU cores, causing a problem where the game you are running is constantly competing with the GPU driver for CPU time.

 

[-Fran-]

Part of the reason the 2500k is faring so much worse then the 2600k is DX12. Having a multithreaded GPU driver means that the driver is using more CPU cores, causing a problem where the game you are running is constantly competing with the GPU driver for CPU time.

And why is that a problem? It should have been like that from the start IMO.

Cheers!

 

[-Fran-]

Oh, interesting information!

http://techreport.com/review/32607/intel-core-i9-7980xe-and-core-i9-7960x-cpus-reviewed/9

AMD's claims and a lot of streamers impressions among the CPUs were absolutely on point. Intel just fixed that MP load issue (let's call it issue, since it creates stuttering) with Skylake X and the lower parts seem to be having problems with OBS running in the background.

I find it very interesting and I'd love for TR (or Toms or Anands) to dig into it with more detail if they can.

Cheers!

 

[gamerk316]

Part of the reason the 2500k is faring so much worse then the 2600k is DX12. Having a multithreaded GPU driver means that the driver is using more CPU cores, causing a problem where the game you are running is constantly competing with the GPU driver for CPU time.

And why is that a problem? It should have been like that from the start IMO.

Cheers!

Except with the GPU render thread using more then one CPU core, the i5 starts running into problems getting all the threads needed to run at the same time. This wasn't as much a problem with DX11, but is now exacerbated by the new render APIs.

Theres a downside to using more threads when it isn't necessary to use so. That means less CPU time for everyone else.

 

[jdwii]

Oh, interesting information!

http://techreport.com/review/32607/intel-core-i9-7980xe-and-core-i9-7960x-cpus-reviewed/9

AMD's claims and a lot of streamers impressions among the CPUs were absolutely on point. Intel just fixed that MP load issue (let's call it issue, since it creates stuttering) with Skylake X and the lower parts seem to be having problems with OBS running in the background.

I find it very interesting and I'd love for TR (or Toms or Anands) to dig into it with more detail if they can.

Cheers!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-intel-skylake-x-review-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-i7-7800x-i7-7740x

Turbo 3.0 issue most likely

 

[8350rocks]

Part of the reason the 2500k is faring so much worse then the 2600k is DX12. Having a multithreaded GPU driver means that the driver is using more CPU cores, causing a problem where the game you are running is constantly competing with the GPU driver for CPU time.

And why is that a problem? It should have been like that from the start IMO.

Cheers!

Except with the GPU render thread using more then one CPU core, the i5 starts running into problems getting all the threads needed to run at the same time. This wasn't as much a problem with DX11, but is now exacerbated by the new render APIs.

Theres a downside to using more threads when it isn't necessary to use so. That means less CPU time for everyone else.

I see more efficient multi-threading as a means to more effectively utilize more cores.

 

[juanrga]

Part of the reason the 2500k is faring so much worse then the 2600k is DX12. Having a multithreaded GPU driver means that the driver is using more CPU cores, causing a problem where the game you are running is constantly competing with the GPU driver for CPU time.

And why is that a problem? It should have been like that from the start IMO.

Cheers!

Except with the GPU render thread using more then one CPU core, the i5 starts running into problems getting all the threads needed to run at the same time. This wasn't as much a problem with DX11, but is now exacerbated by the new render APIs.

Theres a downside to using more threads when it isn't necessary to use so. That means less CPU time for everyone else.

I see more efficient multi-threading as a means to more effectively utilize more cores.

There are two aspects to threading: software and hardware. New render APIs only deal with the software aspects. The hardware overheads remain.

 

[modeonoff]

I read that AMD "promised" that the current motherboards will remain compatible with at least one more generation of Threadripper. Is this for sure? If I don't need more than 8 cores for the time being, is it better to get the 1800X and the best motherboard now and when the next generation of Threadripper comes out, replace the 1800X with a newer one. Any disadvantageous using this approach? Will there be higher performance motherboards when the next generation Threadripper comes out? Not sure if I should get the best motherboard now or just an above average one.

 

[goldstone77]

I read that AMD "promised" that the current motherboards will remain compatible with at least one more generation of Threadripper. Is this for sure? If I don't need more than 8 cores for the time being, is it better to get the 1800X and the best motherboard now and when the next generation of Threadripper comes out, replace the 1800X with a newer one. Any disadvantageous using this approach? Will there be higher performance motherboards when the next generation Threadripper comes out? Not sure if I should get the best motherboard now or just an above average one.

ThreadRipper refers to the 1900X,1920X, and 1950X(TR4 socket). The R7 line 1800X,1700X, and 1700 are on a different platform(AM4 socket), and you will not be able to install ThreadRipper onto a AM4 socket motherboard. Now the question gets off topic a bit, and should probably be asked in the CPU forum, but I will try to answer your question. Weather you use ThreadRipper, Ryzen 7, or Ryzen 5 will depend on how you are going to use your computer. If you just want to play games, and have great rendering, streaming, encoding performance R51600/1600X has the best price to performance. One step above that is the R7 1700. The 1700, 1700X, and 1800X are all basically the same processor with different clock speeds. 1700 8-Core 3.0 GHz (3.7 GHz Turbo). 1700X 8-Core 3.4 GHz (3.8 GHz Turbo). 8-Core 3.6 GHz (4.0 GHz Turbo). The 1700 can be overclocked, and perform close to the 1800X with the average overclock being around 3.8-9GHz this depends on how luck you get with the silicon lottery. Considering the 1700 can be purchased for ~$289 it is an amazing value compared to the 1800X, which might over 100-200MHz better frequency. If you are afraid of overclock the slightly more expensive 1700X cost $20 more, and hits 3.8GHZ.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/compare/3kPzK8,9Q98TW,7qyxFT/
There are numerous cheap motherboards to choose from.
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#sort=-rating&page=1
I personally would go with the ASRock X370 Taichi which is considered one of the best.
PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/KvpcVY
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/KvpcVY/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($289.79 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - X370 Taichi ATX AM4 Motherboard ($183.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $473.77
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-10-01 11:07 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/L9bCRG
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/L9bCRG/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD - Threadripper 1950X 3.4GHz 16-Core Processor ($999.98 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Corsair - H100i v2 70.7 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock - X399 Taichi ATX TR4 Motherboard ($333.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $1443.95
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-10-01 11:15 EDT-0400

Choosing between the processors depends greatly on your work load. If I was going to by a CPU the 1700 would probably be my choose for the average computer. If you need 64 PCI-E lanes for quad GPU's to render work loads, and 4 NVME's then ThreadRipper is a better choice. It all depends on workload.

 

[modeonoff]

Sorry I actually meant 1900X rather than 1800X in my post dated October 1, 2017 6:28:58 AM.

 

[goldstone77]

Sorry I actually meant 1900X rather than 1800X in my post dated October 1, 2017 6:28:58 AM.

The only reason for getting the 1900X over the 1800X would depend on workload. What are you using it for? And like I stated the 1700 or 1700X are much better value, and deliver similar performance. Here is a review that might help you make your decision.
AMD Threadripper 1900X CPU Hits Stores For $550; Outperforms Ryzen 7 In Productivity
Cores and threads for everybody.
Last updated by Michael Higham on September 1, 2017 at 1:16PM

 

[jdwii]

Sorry I actually meant 1900X rather than 1800X in my post dated October 1, 2017 6:28:58 AM.

The only reason for getting the 1900X over the 1800X would depend on workload. What are you using it for? And like I stated the 1700 or 1700X are much better value, and deliver similar performance. Here is a review that might help you make your decision.
AMD Threadripper 1900X CPU Hits Stores For $550; Outperforms Ryzen 7 In Productivity
Cores and threads for everybody.
Last updated by Michael Higham on September 1, 2017 at 1:16PM

True if he doesn't plan on later upgrading to a new CPU or if he doesn't need 64 PCI-E lanes then AM4 should be the socket he aims for save him a good amount of money. Heck on the top of my head OC 1700 get a 200$ decent AM4 board cheapest board on newegg for threadripper is 340$. Overall he would be saving 450$ enough for him to grab a fast M.2 drive and 1tb SSD or almost enough for a 1080.

 

[goldstone77]

Sorry I actually meant 1900X rather than 1800X in my post dated October 1, 2017 6:28:58 AM.

The only reason for getting the 1900X over the 1800X would depend on workload. What are you using it for? And like I stated the 1700 or 1700X are much better value, and deliver similar performance. Here is a review that might help you make your decision.
AMD Threadripper 1900X CPU Hits Stores For $550; Outperforms Ryzen 7 In Productivity
Cores and threads for everybody.
Last updated by Michael Higham on September 1, 2017 at 1:16PM

True if he doesn't plan on later upgrading to a new CPU or if he doesn't need 64 PCI-E lanes then AM4 should be the socket he aims for save him a good amount of money. Heck on the top of my head OC 1700 get a 200$ decent AM4 board cheapest board on newegg for threadripper is 340$. Overall he would be saving 450$ enough for him to grab a fast M.2 drive and 1tb SSD or almost enough for a 1080.

PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/hRqTQV
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/hRqTQV/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($289.79 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - X370 Taichi ATX AM4 Motherboard ($183.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($149.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: *Seagate - Constellation ES 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($55.99 @ Newegg Marketplace)
Video Card: Zotac - GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB AMP! Edition Video Card ($269.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design - Focus G (White) ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: *Corsair - TXM Gold 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1049.72
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-10-02 05:20 EDT-0400
Depending on your needs, I would consider this a good choice for around $1050. So, you could build a whole computer for ~$50 more than it would cost you to buy the 1900X and a motherboard. Unless you are using it for a professional workstation I would buy the 1700.

 

[gamerk316]

Part of the reason the 2500k is faring so much worse then the 2600k is DX12. Having a multithreaded GPU driver means that the driver is using more CPU cores, causing a problem where the game you are running is constantly competing with the GPU driver for CPU time.

And why is that a problem? It should have been like that from the start IMO.

Cheers!

Except with the GPU render thread using more then one CPU core, the i5 starts running into problems getting all the threads needed to run at the same time. This wasn't as much a problem with DX11, but is now exacerbated by the new render APIs.

Theres a downside to using more threads when it isn't necessary to use so. That means less CPU time for everyone else.

I see more efficient multi-threading as a means to more effectively utilize more cores.

Except in the case of quads, it's multithreading of the GPU driver that's killing performance. Before DX12, you could do 90% of the work on just two threads due to the GPU rendering thread being mostly single-threaded in nature. With DX12's changes to the driver, 90% of the work is done in about six or seven threads due to the ability to thread out the driver. Yeah, quads are going to have problems with that, even if each thread isn't doing that much work, due to the latency involved in thread switching.

But hey, you got "better" threading out of it.

 

[-Fran-]

Except in the case of quads, it's multithreading of the GPU driver that's killing performance. Before DX12, you could do 90% of the work on just two threads due to the GPU rendering thread being mostly single-threaded in nature. With DX12's changes to the driver, 90% of the work is done in about six or seven threads due to the ability to thread out the driver. Yeah, quads are going to have problems with that, even if each thread isn't doing that much work, due to the latency involved in thread switching.

But hey, you got "better" threading out of it.

You lost me a bit, gamerk. Are you against or in favor of going wide with software? Particularly drivers.

You make it sound like you're against by these sort of comments, but I have trouble understanding why would that be the case...

Cheers!

 

[goldstone77]

Except in the case of quads, it's multithreading of the GPU driver that's killing performance. Before DX12, you could do 90% of the work on just two threads due to the GPU rendering thread being mostly single-threaded in nature. With DX12's changes to the driver, 90% of the work is done in about six or seven threads due to the ability to thread out the driver. Yeah, quads are going to have problems with that, even if each thread isn't doing that much work, due to the latency involved in thread switching.

But hey, you got "better" threading out of it.

You lost me a bit, gamerk. Are you against or in favor of going wide with software? Particularly drivers.

You make it sound like you're against by these sort of comments, but I have trouble understanding why would that be the case...

Cheers!

He doesn't like it, because it hurts his single threaded metrics theories as predictors on future performance!
[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU2qV58zRZU&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=HardwareUnboxed"][/video]
Now that Intel has jumped on the MOAR cores bus you will see programs going wide.

 

[TechyInAZ]

That's amazing at how bad the core i5s were performing. Looks like Ryzen is now winning far more in gaming.

Too bad he didn't do threadripper, i'm curious if the game would run better on creator mode.

 

[-Fran-]

Anand's Workstation CPU recommendations:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11891/best-cpus-for-workstations-2017

Cheers!

 

[drajitsh]

Could you please post a review of threadripper review with multiple boards using water cooling. I think your sub -ambient cooler is still too exotic.
My ideal review will be a threadripper @ 100% load (probably synthetic) at elevated ambient. But at least IF I could know the delta in a variety of workloads, it would help in motherboard selection.
And yes I'm a wimp but please do NOT devote too much time with pure FPS. Gaming + streaming+ few background tasks(like an antivirus scan + ) are fine .

 

[goldstone77]

That's amazing at how bad the core i5s were performing. Looks like Ryzen is now winning far more in gaming.

Too bad he didn't do threadripper, i'm curious if the game would run better on creator mode.

Actually, the benchmarks that I've seen shows creator mode having higher FPS.

 

[TechyInAZ]

That's amazing at how bad the core i5s were performing. Looks like Ryzen is now winning far more in gaming.

Too bad he didn't do threadripper, i'm curious if the game would run better on creator mode.

Actually, the benchmarks that I've seen shows creator mode having higher FPS.

Doesn't surprise me. I think Civ 6 and AoTS work better in creator mode aswell.

 

[jdwii]

Could you please post a review of threadripper review with multiple boards using water cooling. I think your sub -ambient cooler is still too exotic.
My ideal review will be a threadripper @ 100% load (probably synthetic) at elevated ambient. But at least IF I could know the delta in a variety of workloads, it would help in motherboard selection.
And yes I'm a wimp but please do NOT devote too much time with pure FPS. Gaming + streaming+ few background tasks(like an antivirus scan + ) are fine .

Really to OC threadripper to 4.0ghz locked i would aim for custom loop 360 rad minimum or look for a 360 rad AIO
https://www.techspot.com/review/1465-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-1920x/page7.html

 

[goldstone77]

Now available: Free NVMe RAID upgrade for AMD X399 chipset!
Posted by rhallock Employee in Gaming on Oct 2, 2017 7:56:23 AM

Over the last few weeks, the AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ processor has cemented a place in the world as today’s ultimate solution for creators and enthusiasts. It’s easy to see why: scores of cores, piles of PCI Express® lanes, plus powerful quad-channel memory support. And, today, we’re making the best a little better with a beta release of free support for bootable NVMe RAID!

HERE’S HOW IT WORKS
NOTICE: Any user that has an existing SATA RAID config must back up the array’s data and break down the current array before proceeding with driver install and BIOS upgrade. Please see additional details in our knowledgebase article.

Download the latest AMD RAIDXpert2 package to obtain the NVMe RAID driver and management software.
Update the BIOS for your AMD X399-based motherboard to add BIOS support for NVMe RAID.
Install two or more NVMe SSDs to your system.
Create a new NVMe RAID array:
Method A: …Using your motherboard’s firmware. There will be a new menu in your BIOS, or a new menu accessible with a hotkey during POST. This will vary by model.
Method B: …using the AMD RAIDXpert2 software.
Make sure your disks do not contain important data!
Just enjoy! No hardware activation keys, license fees, or arbitrary SSD restrictions apply. It’s that simple.

AMD RAIDXpert2 is a Windows GUI to create and monitor NVMe RAID arrays like the 6-disk RAID0 array above. Arrays can also be created through new menus in your motherboard’s firmware.

WHAT’S THE PERFORMANCE LIKE?
In a word: wow. In our own performance testing, we’ve been seeing some blistering results from our test systems—a monstrous 21.2GB/s from six disks in RAID0! But RAID users know that scaling matters, too, and X399 NVMe RAID still looked great in our lab: 6.00X read scaling, and 5.38X write scaling, from one to six disks (see chart below).

Performance will naturally vary based on the model and quantity of SSDs you use, plus the test pattern of your benchmark, but it’s clear that our free NVMe RAID solution can scale and scale fast.

Testing conducted by AMD performance labs as of 9/18/2017. Test configuration: AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 1950X, 4x8GB DDR4-3200 (16-16-16-36), ASUS ROG Zenith Extreme X399, 1-6x Samsung 960 Pro NVMe SSD (512GB ea.), default BIOS settings, Windows® 10 x64 RS2, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (driver 385.41), RAID Writeback Cache ENABLED, RAID Read Cache DISABLED, Write Cache Buffer Flush DISABLED.