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

[R-T-B]

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.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[dj-electric]

Indie Media: "There's some workload distribution issues"
Microsoft: "We are working on the issue"
AMD: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[LightningJR]

PCPer 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.

 

[oxidized]

Where are all those fanboy nerds, shouting there's a problem with everything, windows has a problem, all mobo have a problem, chipset has a problem, ram have a problem? There's really nothing wrong, we might see a +5% performance over time, for a general improvement of the whole platform, and maybe when game devs will equalize their AMD development level to intel's.

 

[mroofie]

Where are all those fanboy nerds, shouting there's a problem with everything, windows has a problem, all mobo have a problem, chipset has a problem, ram have a problem? There's really nothing wrong, we might see a +5% performance over time, for a general improvement of the whole platform, and maybe when game devs will equalize their AMD development level to intel's.

Lmao you must be trolling right?

 

[oxidized]

Lmao you must be trolling right?

Meaning what?

 

[mroofie]

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

There's still a issue since windows 7 performs better than 10

 

[mroofie]

Meaning what?

You living under a rock?

There are issues...

you sound like a fanboy tbh

Indie Media: "There's some workload distribution issues"
Microsoft: "We are working on the issue"
AMD: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So you're the one ignoring what the article says, but the one trolling it's me.



You definitely are trolling

I'm out you win

 

[oxidized]

There's still a issue since windows 7 performs better than 10

So you're the one ignoring what the article says, but the one trolling it's me.

You living under a rock?

There are issues...

you sound like a fanboy tbh

You definitely are trolling

 

[phanbuey]

I am not seeing huge issues with windows tbh... the system is really fast.

Another 5-10% wouldnt hurt.

 

[cadaveca]

I am not seeing huge issues with windows tbh... the system is really fast.

Another 5-10% wouldnt hurt.

You'd only see it comparing Win7 performance vs Win10 performance.

I actually find Ryzen to load windows faster than my Intel rigs, and it seems to have a bit less latency in doing certain things. The only thing that is a bit disappointing with Ryzen is its relatively low clockspeed. There are ZERO other problems, really, at this point, that I can find.

 

[oxidized]

You'd only see it comparing Win7 performance vs Win10 performance.

I actually find Ryzen to load windows faster than my Intel rigs, and it seems to have a bit less latency in doing certain things. The only thing that is a bit disappointing with Ryzen is its relatively low clockspeed. There are ZERO other problems, really, at this point, that I can find.

Go tell people that use this as an excuses for a "lower than expected" performance. Apparently i'm the one trolling.

 

[cadaveca]

Go tell people that use this as an excuses for a "lower than expected" performance. Apparently i'm the one trolling.

If someone does not own Ryzen, I tend to ignore their opinion of it. What I see is a whole tonne of guerilla marketing having people feel doubts about what Ryzen is.

Most are relating problems form launch-day reviews, but there have been BIOS releases since those reviews have posted that have had some impact that everyone else seems to ignore.

 

[oxidized]

If someone does not own Ryzen, I tend to ignore their opinion of it.

Yeah indeed, ryzen is pretty much at it's max, and it's doing quite well, extremely well for the cost, i'm just waiting on r5 6/12 gaming performance, and then i'll pick mine.

 

[R-T-B]

Go tell people that use this as an excuses for a "lower than expected" performance. Apparently i'm the one trolling.

This is the problem with hype trains. Even if it delivered 5.0Ghz on all cores, people will be complaining that it didn't make them breakfast in bed (on a silver platter. Don't forget the silver).

Editorial on hypetrains has been long in the works, coming soon.

 

[Captain_Tom]

That's odd. I saw several articles and videos detailing games getting higher framerates on the same games running Windows 7.

Something is up...

 

[Camm]

So the tl;dr from what I can see

Physical\Logical core assigning is fine (being honest, this is to be expected considering its productivity benchmarks).

Games that do their own core scheduling will suck somewhat until patched. Not that I think it'll matter that much going forward unless you're CPU limited (and by then, you probably already have decent fps).

Still no response on fabric thrashing going across core complexes with cache misses and whether this can be fixed by scheduler updates.

 

[cadaveca]

Still no response on fabric thrashing with cache misses and whether this can be fixed by scheduler updates.

I do not think it can, based on how a CCX is organized.

 

[papupepo]

An 8-core processor that has two L3 caches shared by 4cores causes almost unsolvable scheduling problems

 

[Captain_Tom]

You'd only see it comparing Win7 performance vs Win10 performance.

I actually find Ryzen to load windows faster than my Intel rigs, and it seems to have a bit less latency in doing certain things. The only thing that is a bit disappointing with Ryzen is its relatively low clockspeed. There are ZERO other problems, really, at this point, that I can find.

There's a lot of reports of Zen feeling "Smoother" while gaming, even at lower average FPS than Intel. Now you are saying that AMD loads faster, which isn't at all crazy to believe.


AMD really needs to quantify and market its advantages ASAP. They do indeed have a product that is better than the competition's in every way - it's their game to lose.

 

[Camm]

An 8-core processor that has two L3 caches shared by 4cores causes almost unsolvable scheduling problems

It was going to happen at some point, maintaining cache coherency requires alot of die space, that in turn means higher prices (less dies per wafer), and more power usage. You want more cores, something has to give.

Its a big reason why Intel's 8 Core is a 150w part whilst AMD's is all the way down at a 65w part for the 1700 (there are exceptions to this, like Intel's Xeon-D and Atom SoC range, but they do this by restricting each cache to a coherent pair {which is technically even worse than Ryzens here if your using the monolithic argument}. Realistically, that means there is a cap on the amount of CPU cores that can be used in a monolithic design before your TDP and die size budgets start going crazy.

One would expect NUMA addressing to be used for this. Shrug.

 

[cadaveca]

They do indeed have a product that is better than the competition's in every way - it's their game to lose.

No, it is not better than the competition in every way. Please stop saying so, because it isn't true, and only misleads people. Ryzen is a good chip, and it doesn't have any real competition other than some created by enthusiasts, because they might buy Intel instead. But it doesn't directly compete with Intel's mainstream offerings... because Intel offers iGP, but Ryzen does not. They are completely different products, in a different segment.

People said AMD supporting 64-bit on their PCUs was too early and unneeded and the same applies to the number of cores Ryzen has... it's early to the game. Intel can release a chip with more cores into its mainstream platform if it wanted to, but in the time it takes them to do so, AMD may be able to release a new Zen chip that scales up the frequency, and then Intel and AMD might be on-par with each other for performance for enthusiasts.

 

[Captain_Tom]

No, it is not better than the competition in every way. Please stop saying so, because it isn't true, and only misleads people. Ryzen is a good chip, and it doesn't have any real competition other than some created by enthusiasts, because they might buy Intel instead. But it doesn't directly compete with Intel's mainstream offerings... because Intel offers iGP, but Ryzen does not.

Buddy, AMD's Zen APU's and mainstream offerings aren't out yet.

 

[cadaveca]

Buddy, AMD's Zen APU's and mainstream offerings aren't out yet.

based 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.

 

[Captain_Tom]

based 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.

lol ok sure. Just like the Titan was "Not Mainstream" but the 290X was - and the 290X was stronger.

You can obsess about labels all you want, but AMD's "Mainstream" chips are beating Intel's "Premium".