Monday, March 13th 2017

AMD Says The Windows Thread Scheduler is "operating properly" for Ryzen.

In a blog post that is sure to stun many users expecting a "thread scheduler patch" in modern Windows versions for AMD Zen-based CPUs, AMD has apparently investigated the reports of thread scheduling issues and found that "the Windows 10 thread scheduler is operating properly for "Zen," and we do not presently believe there is an issue with the scheduler adversely utilizing the logical and physical configurations of the architecture."

So, if you were expecting a Windows 10 or maybe even 7 patch to address some performance concerns, don't hold your breath. The company notes that they tested both Windows 10 and Windows 7 and they "do not believe there is an issue with scheduling differences between the two versions of Windows." In other words, 7 is already ok as far as scheduling, no patch required.
The company does still recommend users utilize the "High Performance" plan in their Windows setup for best performance, claiming the software management of CPU speed interferes with Ryzen's native management. There may be an update forthcoming for the Windows "Balanced" plan to fix how it operates with Ryzen, but there will not be a scheduler update planned as of now.
Source: AMD
Add your own comment

60 Comments on AMD Says The Windows Thread Scheduler is "operating properly" for Ryzen.

#26
Dippyskoodlez
cadavecaNot really. The HEDT version of Summit Ridge has 16 cores and 32 threads, and is called Naples. The current available Ryzen chips are enthusiast mainstream processors.

you can find info about Naples from AMD directly here:

www.amd.com/en/events/naples-tech-day
The problem is that the 1800x is priced like a 6800k without the chipset featureset to compete with X99.
Posted on Reply
#27
cadaveca
My name is Dave
DippyskoodlezThe problem is that the 1800x is priced like a 6800k without the chipset featureset to compete with X99.
PC Enthusiasts have lots of money to spend, don'tcha know? JPR says so. :p
The western appetite for PC gaming systems costing thousands of dollars is strong.
jonpeddie.com/publications/pc_gaming_hardware_market_report
Posted on Reply
#29
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Yeah, they gotta do something to make people pay. :P
Posted on Reply
#30
mastrdrver
It should be pointed out that Nehalem was not as faster as Yorktown because of lack of optimization and also that Hyperthreading performance also suffered a performance hit as well in games.
Posted on Reply
#31
Dippyskoodlez
mastrdrverIt should be pointed out that Nehalem was not as faster as Yorktown because of lack of optimization and also that Hyperthreading performance also suffered a performance hit as well in games.
That doesn't help consumers today, or tomorrow even. The market will judge a product both today, and in a month from now.

Given AMD's track record of "oh, it'll get better later", I'm still leaning towards the intel side right now. All that "DX12" future proofing because the games are right around the corner?

Well, we're still waiting a year and a half later, as people are considering another upgrade cycle. Good thing everyone futureproofed!
Posted on Reply
#32
RejZoR
LightningJRPCPer did some interesting testing as well that reflects AMD's findings.



Watch the whole video, they talk about something that might be an issue though.
Is it really an issue though? Yes, AMD has a latency thing in between that goes beyond 100ns, but it also has just 40ns response compared to 80ns response on Intel when it comes to things in the realm of "normal" operation. So it does 90% of things 50% faster than Intel and those 10% is what, 30% slower than Intel? It's an architectual difference which will then solely depend on the workload. I don't think it's really an issue to be honest.
Posted on Reply
#33
Imsochobo
RejZoRIs it really an issue though? Yes, AMD has a latency thing in between that goes beyond 100ns, but it also has just 40ns response compared to 80ns response on Intel when it comes to things in the realm of "normal" operation. So it does 90% of things 50% faster than Intel and those 10% is what, 30% slower than Intel? It's an architectual difference which will then solely depend on the workload. I don't think it's really an issue to be honest.
In some games\apps it affects performance severely, CCX issues, I found up to 30% with average of 5-15 % in those affected.
DO NOTE: This is not all games, let's say it's 10% performance for 10% of the games\applications - Which is still much for the big picture but in no way will Ryzen (version 1) be faster than Intel's offering.
But I have no issues gaming on a R7 1700 stock, and neither will 95% of you guys.

Fix needed:
Treat CCX as different cpu sockets until load is above 4 core load. then treat as one cpu unless otherwise specified by application or game.
Posted on Reply
#34
RejZoR
You got a valid point there though. Sticking to 1 CCX for =<4 threads (or 8 with HT) would help instead of going outside of the CCX complex through slower interconnection. Not sure if Windows can have any awareness over CCX complexes though. I think it only understands physical and logical cores, but can't differentiate between CCX units within same CPU.
Posted on Reply
#35
Imsochobo
RejZoRYou got a valid point there though. Sticking to 1 CCX for =<4 threads (or 8 with HT) would help instead of going outside of the CCX complex through slower interconnection. Not sure if Windows can have any awareness over CCX complexes though. I think it only understands physical and logical cores, but can't differentiate between CCX units within same CPU.
Windows are already aware of it.......
Windows scheduler doesn't seem to be aware, or something else.
Posted on Reply
#37
RejZoR
ImsochoboWindows are already aware of it.......
Windows scheduler doesn't seem to be aware, or something else.
Are you sure Windows is aware of CCX units? I'm talking actual CCX clusters, not individual physical cores and their corresponding logical units which Windows is in fact aware of already. As far as I know Windows is able to differentiate sockets, physical and logical units. CCX is a cluster of 4 physical and 4 logical units within one socket. And you can have more CCX units. I really don't think Windows is aware of individual CCX units specifically.
Posted on Reply
#38
Rahmat Sofyan
cadavecabased on connectivity and pricing, current Ryzen chips are "mainstream". I do not have any HEDT-qualifying boards, only mainstream ones.

It's AMD that dictates that, BTW. They say Ryzen is a mainstream product, so that's what it is.

the Raven Ridge APUs are for mobility and AIO uses, not mainstream. There will be some models that make it into the AM4 desktop platform for sure, but APUs are not a "mainstream" platform on their own.
So RyZen 9 will coming for Highend or Enthusiast users?

Ryzen 9 1900X and 1900 series?
Posted on Reply
#39
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Rahmat SofyanSo RyZen 9 will coming for Highend or Enthusiast users?

Ryzen 9 1900X and 1900 series?
Nope. Naples is an 8-channel (per CPU), dual-socket monster with 32 threads. Not sure what its retail name will be.
Posted on Reply
#40
Imsochobo
RejZoRAre you sure Windows is aware of CCX units? I'm talking actual CCX clusters, not individual physical cores and their corresponding logical units which Windows is in fact aware of already. As far as I know Windows is able to differentiate sockets, physical and logical units. CCX is a cluster of 4 physical and 4 logical units within one socket. And you can have more CCX units. I really don't think Windows is aware of individual CCX units specifically.
¨

It is aware of where L3 cache is linked and to which cores, keep threads on same L3 cache is enough to hinder the issue until queue\Core count is larger than X number
Thus keeping core walking and assignment of cores in one CCX.

Anyways, it's easy to figure it out, creating the ruleset perfectly just takes time but all the tools is present in Windows now and I think a c programmer would need 3 hours to create benefits in specific scenarios.
The big question is if it destroys performance elsewhere, and if it does the AMD statement might be to kill expectations of any quick fix as Q&A takes time.
Posted on Reply
#41
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
cadavecaThe HEDT version of Summit Ridge has 16 cores and 32 threads, and is called Naples.
Naples is the server variant. I consider HEDT a product gears towards to the top of the consumer market but, I wouldn't call Naples a HEDT platform just as you wouldn't call C32 or G34 HEDT either. AMD has a segment for entry/low-power and another for mainstream and high-end. Intel has one for entry and mainstream but, a separate one for high-end. At the end of the day, they're all labels but, I think referring to Naples as something intended for the consumer HEDT market is really stretching it.
DippyskoodlezThe problem is that the 1800x is priced like a 6800k without the chipset featureset to compete with X99.
Since when did the 6800k gain ECC support?
Posted on Reply
#43
GhostRyder
The only real issue I was seeing was the gaming performance (Specifically at 1080p). I don't think the windows scheduler was the main problem, its probably the way the games are using Ryzen which will take time to fix.
Posted on Reply
#44
dorsetknob
"YOUR RMA REQUEST IS CON-REFUSED"
cadavecaNaples is an 8-channel (per CPU), dual-socket monster with 32 threads. Not sure what its retail name will be.
Redzilla :)
Posted on Reply
#45
geon2k2
LightningJRPCPer did some interesting testing as well that reflects AMD's findings.



Watch the whole video, they talk about something that might be an issue though.
Very good video. Thanks for sharing. We asumed before that the comunication between the CCXes is the issue, but now it is clear and this means 4 core 8 thread Ryzen will rock :)
The current 16 core Ryzen, is a server part, which they push to consumer, the same they did with Buldozer and it doesn't work. You cannot have one design to win them all.
Posted on Reply
#46
cadaveca
My name is Dave
geon2k2You cannot have one design to win them all.
Not unless it's crafted in the fiery pits of Mordor. But you make an excellent observation... because that's kind of exactly what AMD says they are trying to do.
AMD delivers to PC gamers, prosumers and enthusiasts
What's more funny to me is that a prosumer and an enthusiast are the same thing. What they mean by that term "prosumer" should be more scrutinized.

What is even funnier is What else she said, about making Ryzen available to millions (rather than billions). There is quite a bit of honesty portrayed in those words that I think most of our tech enthusiast media missed out on. These are words given in business lingo, which is very much like "legalese", and it seems to me that when they put Lisa Su in charge, they made the right choice. :peace: I hope I'm not the only one that understand why. :P
Posted on Reply
#47
Xzibit
cadavecaWhat's more funny to me is that a prosumer and an enthusiast are the same thing. What they mean by that term "prosumer" should be more scrutinized.
I disagree

They should be more clear on what "Enthusiast" is.

Prosumer is active in use and more likely to purchase
Enthusiast may never use or buy a product of which he shows interest in.

Some use Enthusiast to mean High-End.
Posted on Reply
#48
Joss
cadavecaWhat is even funnier is What else she said, about making Ryzen available to millions (rather than billions). There is quite a bit of honesty portrayed in those words that I think most of our tech enthusiast media missed out on
Interesting.
Posted on Reply
#49
mastrdrver
DippyskoodlezThat doesn't help consumers today, or tomorrow even. The market will judge a product both today, and in a month from now.

Given AMD's track record of "oh, it'll get better later", I'm still leaning towards the intel side right now. All that "DX12" future proofing because the games are right around the corner?

Well, we're still waiting a year and a half later, as people are considering another upgrade cycle. Good thing everyone futureproofed!
People said the same thing for Nehalem when it came out. Bad for gaming, good for server.

The bad at gaming at launch didn't hurt it's reputation, I'm sure Ryzen will not be hurt by it's "poor" gaming performance given a few years.
Posted on Reply
#50
Dippyskoodlez
mastrdrverPeople said the same thing for Nehalem when it came out. Bad for gaming, good for server.

The bad at gaming at launch didn't hurt it's reputation, I'm sure Ryzen will not be hurt by it's "poor" gaming performance given a few years.
Until then, it's still quite sub par for it's price compared to the featureset intel is offering. Ill believe the future when it matters, because amds bets lately have been jack all useful.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 23rd, 2024 01:30 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts