• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Admits "Stars" in Ryzen Master Don't Correspond to CPPC2 Preferred Cores

Solaris17

Dainty Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
21,024 (4.02/day)
Location
Florida
System Name Venslar
Processor I9 7980XE
Motherboard MSI x299 Tomahawk Arctic
Cooling EK Custom
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR4 3000mhz
Video Card(s) Nvidia Titan RTX
Storage 2x 2TB Micron SSDs | 1x ADATA 128SSD | 1x Drevo 256SSD | 1x 1TB 850 EVO | 1x 250GB 960 EVO
Display(s) 3x AOC Q2577PWQ (2k IPS)
Case Inwin 303 White (Thermaltake Ring 120mm Purple accent)
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC 1220 on Audio-Technica ATH-AG1
Power Supply Seasonic 1050W Snow
Mouse Roccat Kone Aimo White
Keyboard Ducky Shine 6 Snow White
Software Windows 10 x64 Pro
huh? I dont get alot of this thread. Microsoft is not responsible for writing the scheduler around a particular manufacturer. If a host device wants something a certain way you need to include that in the driver.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,785 (4.09/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
huh? I dont get alot of this thread. Microsoft is not responsible for writing the scheduler around a particular manufacturer. If a host device wants something a certain way you need to include that in the driver.
That's just common sense. It does not apply when one party is the darling of the internet ;)
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
147 (0.04/day)
Location
Denmark
System Name Bongfjaes
Processor AMD 3700x
Motherboard Assus Crosshair VII Hero
Cooling Dark Rock Pro 4
Memory 2x8GB G.Skill FlareX 3200MT/s CL14
Video Card(s) GTX 970
Storage Adata SX8200 Pro 1TB + Lots of spinning rust
Display(s) Viewsonic VX2268wm
Case Fractal Design R6
Audio Device(s) Creative SoundBlaster AE-5
Power Supply Seasonic TTR-1000
Mouse Pro Intellimouse
Keyboard SteelKeys 6G
I never said that I want to feel, the way you feel.
Also I never said that I would like to describe myself, the way you described yourself.
Well, i did get bamboozled by buying it /:

Life goes on, if you have no sense of humor its already over! :)
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
179 (0.06/day)
"admits"? Really? @btarunr you're trying to make it sound like AMD has tried to fool people or has done something to hide the reality or some other such, why?
They've told exactly what the "Stars" etc mean and show, and that hasn't changed (until the update that changes them to show what Windows sees as preferred cores) - they show the highest clocking core of the CPU, and 2 best clocking cores of each CCX based on their properties.
 

1usmus

AMD Memory Guru
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
55 (0.11/day)
Location
Ukraine
"admits"? Really? @btarunr you're trying to make it sound like AMD has tried to fool people or has done something to hide the reality or some other such, why?
They've told exactly what the "Stars" etc mean and show, and that hasn't changed (until the update that changes them to show what Windows sees as preferred cores) - they show the highest clocking core of the CPU, and 2 best clocking cores of each CCX based on their properties.
this is not always the case, unfortunately
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
846 (0.26/day)
Looking at the way it's programmed to switch in between cores, these CPU's are fragile. It's just not all about thermal management, but pretty much degradation. Look at 2x00 series. Many reviewers just boot a 1.4V into a CPU and hit a OC on that. The 1.4V is seen to degrade the CPU in just months (!).
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
5,634 (1.09/day)
Location
USA
System Name Small ATX Desktop
Processor Intel i5 8600K @ 4.6 GHz Core & 4.3 GHz Uncore @ 1.168V
Motherboard Asrock Z370 Taichi
Cooling Phanteks PH-TC14PE, MonoPlus, Fans: 2xThermalright TY143 / 2xCorsair SP-120L / 2xYate Loon D14BH-12
Memory G-Skill TridentZ 2X8GB DDR4 3200 CL14 F4-3200C14D-16GTZ @ 3200 14-14-14-34 2T @ 1.35V
Video Card(s) Zotac 1060 6GB Mini ZT-P10600A-10L with Arctic MonoPlus and Yate Loon D14BH-12 Fan
Storage OS Samsung 970 Pro 512GB NVMe, Games Phison E12 NVMe 1TB, Data WD10EZEX HDD 1TB
Display(s) 2x Asus PB258Q 2560x1440 25" IPS
Case Lian Li PC A05NB (Inverted Mobo)
Audio Device(s) Audiotechnica ATH M50X, Antlion Mod Mic 4, SYBA SD-CM-UAUD, Acoustic Research 2Ch Speakers
Power Supply Seasonic SS-660XP2 660 Watt Platinum
Mouse Zowie EC2A Mouse, Razer Naga Chroma '14, Corsair MM600, Inateck 900x300 XL pad, Tiger Gaming Skates.
Keyboard Filco Majestouch II Ninja TKL, Goldtouch GTC 0033 Ten Key, PS3 Controller
Software Win7 Pro 64 (Installed on Coffee Lake using AsRock's handy PS/2 Simulator in Bios)
"admits"? Really? @btarunr you're trying to make it sound like AMD has tried to fool people or has done something to hide the reality or some other such, why?
They've told exactly what the "Stars" etc mean and show, and that hasn't changed (until the update that changes them to show what Windows sees as preferred cores) - they show the highest clocking core of the CPU, and 2 best clocking cores of each CCX based on their properties.
Its typical btarunr writing, it is sensational, there's melodrama to it, with a hero and a villain, though the reality is often quite dry and undramatic.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
4,447 (0.92/day)
Location
Hong Kong
Processor Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Motherboard X399 Fatal1ty Professional Gaming
Cooling Custom loop water, 3x 420 Rad
Memory Team T-FORCE XCALIBUR RGB 4000 @3400 CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 2080 Ti
Storage Samsung 960 Evo 512GB 3-way Raid 0
Display(s) Samsung C27HG70
Case Thermaltake Level 20 XT
Audio Device(s) EVGA Nu Audio
Power Supply FSP Aurum PT 1200W
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Lmao, with every passing day i feel more and more scammed for buying a 3700x and Crosshair VII x470 board

You dumb asshole, Axaion.
That if they cant even get their own software right, then what hope is there?
AMD software maybe right but what matters just as much is microsofts software and how it works AMD software into windows. If AMD and m$ dont work together on the integration of their software with each others software, than when issue rise, it comes down to finger pointing. Its no secret that m$ doesnt appear to like AMD as AMD loves to pass around a headache or two.
huh? I dont get alot of this thread. Microsoft is not responsible for writing the scheduler around a particular manufacturer. If a host device wants something a certain way you need to include that in the driver.
https://www.techpowerup.com/261094/microsoft-releases-windows-10-november-2019-update-1909
Only as recently that M$ finally optimized for Turbo Boost Max 3, which was launched with the X299 platform from 2017.
I think people are assuming too much here, M$ is just incompetent at fixing their Windows Scheduler.

It also took years after Intel Hyperthreading was introduced before M$ make Windows aware of HT.
IDK why it takes so long for this to become "breaking news". Windows 10 contains a lot of legacy code, some goes all the way to Win Vista.
 
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
815 (1.47/day)
Location
Cusp Of Mania, FL
System Name humble reentry to pc-building after too many years
Processor Ryzen 9 3900X
Motherboard Asus ROG Strix X370-F
Cooling Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x8GB TridentZ RGB [3600Mhz CL16]
Video Card(s) Asus ROG Strix RTX 2060 OC
Storage 970 EVO 500GB nvme, 860 EVO 250GB SATA, Seagate Barracuda 1TB + 4TB HDDs
Display(s) 32" Samsung F395 [1080/60]
Case NZXT H710
Audio Device(s) Schiit Modi 2 Uber, Sys, Vali 2, Scarlett 2i2 gen2 - LSR 305's, DT-990 Pro's, HD600's
Power Supply Corsair RM650x v2
Mouse iunno whatever cheap crap logitech *clutches Xbox 360 controller security blanket*
Keyboard HyperX Alloy Pro
Software Windows 10 Pro
Looking at the way it's programmed to switch in between cores, these CPU's are fragile. It's just not all about thermal management, but pretty much degradation. Look at 2x00 series. Many reviewers just boot a 1.4V into a CPU and hit a OC on that. The 1.4V is seen to degrade the CPU in just months (!).
Is that really the case though? All I've seen are a handful of people saying things like "it's been proven." But I see many more people running them around or even a little beyond 1.4... with very few, if any definitive reports of degradation. I'd think if they were really so fragile we'd have more concrete reports of chips dying off. But if they're out there, I can't find em! Only a few sporadic accounts from people who think that's what happened to them. Which, maybe it did! But it reminds me of the RTX memory failure issue. Something that people say is a thing that's happening a lot, when the real number was probably still pretty low, and it was just one big, freak occurrence.

I could also go after the claim of switching cores being a sign of known fragility. It could just as easily be thermal and there's no logical reason to go one way or the other, because the longer a core is loaded down, the hotter it gets. It's one of those nebulous things. If you want it to be for degradation, there's a rationale. If you want it to be temperatures, there's also a rationale. Nobody but AMD really knows.

Reviewers pumping 1.4v in for their OC testing and calling it a day... yeah, not a fan of that myself. Probably encouraging a good chunk of less experienced builders to run way higher voltage than they need. 1.4 is too much, and there's a good chance, at least with the 12nm and 14nm, that you will see eventual degradation. That's undeniable. AMD itself has recommended not going over 1.35 for a continuous-use all-core, IIRC.

Whether that makes them weak or unreliable, I'm not sure. How many modern CPU's are really expected to run at 1.4v continuously? I'd think that most people with some experience from either side of the fence would say that's pretty high.

That aside, the way Ryzen 3000 currently jumps from core to core, as far as anybody can tell right now, isn't quiiite the intended behavior. I'd say the reason for what they're doing with this boost stuff it is to squeeze the max performance out for the least power. I'm not talking theory, here. It's just my conclusion looking at what's going down and what the outcome is. I mean, I have played with a couple handfuls of these Ryzen chips, now. All generations. I'm not an expert and don't know nearly as much as many of the regulars here, but from what I've seen a MAX (as in, approaching or fully hitting unsafe voltage) all-core OC is pretty much always just a *little* inferior in performance to an X model attaining max boost will pull off, for less power. For instance, I have a 2600 that will do an all-core of 4.2 steady.. at around 1.3v. I can even push it past that if I'm willing to go to ~1.4v... BUT, even doing that, it never benched as high as its X-model sibling and the thermals were just impossible. That seems to be how it goes, and is a big part of the prevailing wisdom that it's best to let it boost naturally. And that's still the consensus, because it just performs better.

So I see what you're saying - you can easily cook a Ryzen running the voltage too high, but I'm much more willing to believe it's for max performance and thermals primarily, as they actually do run better when you run them the way AMD wants them.


I don't get why people get up in arms about this stuff. It's annoying, sure, but at this point it's to be expected. AMD's boost system is both very advanced and very young. It's going to be a while before they get it right. In the meantime, the Ryzen 3000 line still has some of the best-performing CPU's on the market. It's not like they're completely broken by these little quirks. It's nothing like the whole bulldozer situation where people completely didn't get what they thought they were getting and the performance wasn't what it should've been. You're still getting a good, working CPU for a good price - it just boosts funny lol.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
846 (0.26/day)

It happens. It's the reason why i am not even touching a manual overclock on my 2700x at all. The degradation usually occurs when going around or beyond 1.4V. Some say it cant even hold any boost anymore without crashing. AMD said before that as long as the current usage of a core is low, the voltage can go up on light weight threads. Once you have a heavy workload the voltage and core clocks go down, indicating that current is a factor and can kill these CPU's on long term base. If you consider on how windows switches in between one and two cores inside a unit, AMD states because of thermals but i personally think these chips are fragile to degradation in a fast way.

24/7 safe voltages should never be exceeded on these chips. This aint the Bulldozer FX that could eat 1.65V all day from 1.32V or so.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
1,007 (0.21/day)
System Name [Primary Workstation]
Processor Intel Core i7-920 Bloomfield @ 3.8GHz/4.55GHz [24-7/Bench]
Motherboard EVGA X58 E758-A1 [Tweaked right!]
Cooling Cooler Master V8 [stock fan + two 133CFM ULTRA KAZE fans]
Memory 12GB [Kingston HyperX]
Video Card(s) constantly upgrading/downgrading [prefer nVidia]
Storage constantly upgrading/downgrading [prefer Hitachi/Samsung]
Display(s) Triple LCD [40 inch primary + 32 & 28 inch auxiliary displays]
Case Cooler Master Cosmos 1000 [Mesh Mod, CFM Overload]
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar D1 + onboard Realtek ALC889A [Logitech Z-5300 Spk., Niko 650-HP 5.1 Hp., X-Bass Hp.]
Power Supply Corsair TX950W [aka Reactor]
Software This and that... [All software 100% legit and paid for, 0% pirated]
Benchmark Scores Ridiculously good scores!!!
1.4375V on a Ryzen 1600X since August 2017. Holding clocks just fine. In fact with some BIOS updates I was able to hit new SuperPi and 3DMark 01/03 records just this past summer. That said, it is water cooled with a externally mounted 360mm radiator and 6x120mm fans, so nice thermals might play a part.

That said, I feel your pain Axain. Zen platform has issues galore. Every itteration of it so far. Performance wise, it has been over-hyped beyond belief (thanks Youtube "tech journalists"! How are those paid-for Taiwan vacations factory tours working out?! *cough*GamersNexus*cough*) In single threaded loads, you are really on par with Nehalem in some benchmarks, and anything using the x87 instruction set (like legacy gaming, benchmarks, and similar) and you might be more than a few % behind Nehalem even! Also, no way around it, even in 2019 Mhz’s do matter and AMD is wayyyy beyond in that race!

Anyway, all that aside, I like it. It is a very very very nice value CPU. (I still own a CPU from every AMD platform, from K5 to this Ryzen and same goes for Intel as well as a few Socket 370 Via Samuel's) For last-year gaming/benchmarking though, it managed to bottleneck my decade old GTX 580, a single one, in certain benchmarks. (I own three) Much less a single RX 580 (I own four), if we are going to go by 580-anything. Just not a good gaming platform outside modern gaming titles that can actually take advantage of all the cores.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,628 (0.84/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MXVI
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory 32GB Viper Steel 3600 DDR4 @ 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Audio Device(s) Corsair Virtuoso SE
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
Thanks for a much more sensible explanation compared to what Anandtech posted, as I couldn't make head or tails of what they were trying to say in their explanation.
That said, no need for the sensationalist headline.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
824 (0.22/day)
System Name Desktop | Laptop
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600X| Intel Core i7 7700HQ
Motherboard X570 Phantom Gaming 4 | Neptune KLS HM175
Cooling GAMMAXX 400 Push-Pull | Twin fan, fin stack & heat pipes
Memory 32GB DDR4 3600MHz @ 16-16-16-36-1T | 16GB DDR4 2400MHz 17-17-17-39-2T
Video Card(s) Galax GTX 1070 Ti EX | GTX 1050 Ti 4GB
Storage ADATA SX8200 Pro 512GB + Samsung 860 EVO 1TB + Seagate 2TB HDD | 970 Evo 500GB
Display(s) 28" Asus PB287Q 3840x2160p | 17" IPS 1920x1080P
Case Thermaltake Urban S41 | Aspire V Nitro BE
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum 750W | 150W
Mouse Razer DeathAdder Chroma | Logitech MX Anywhere 2
Keyboard Logitech G110
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Make sense. The Windows scheduler is either too stupid and/or too focused on the Intel design philosophy to optimally load and manage threads within AMD's CCX architecture, so using a bunch of metrics such as, individual core performance, CCX performance, cache location, etc, they have the firmware/drivers fool Windows in an attempt to have the scheduler use the most suitable core.

The stars and dots are a ranking for the physical quality and performance of a core, whereas the CPPC2 'preferred cores' is a ranking based on the aforementioned metrics and are used to 'trick' the scheduler.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
1,230 (0.23/day)
Location
66 feet from the ground
System Name 2nd AMD puppy
Processor FX-8350 vishera
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper TX2
Memory 16 Gb DDR3:8GB Kingston HyperX Beast + 8Gb G.Skill Sniper(by courtesy of tabascosauz &TPU)
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 580 Nitro+;1450/2000 Mhz
Storage SSD :840 pro 128 Gb;Iridium pro 240Gb ; HDD 2xWD-1Tb
Display(s) Benq XL2730Z 144 Hz freesync
Case NZXT 820 PHANTOM
Audio Device(s) Audigy SE with Logitech Z-5500
Power Supply Cooleer Master RP M520
Mouse Razer copperhead / Gamdias zeus (by courtesy of sneekypeet & TPU)
Keyboard MS Sidewinder x4
Software win10 64bit ltsc
Benchmark Scores irrelevant for me
windows scheduler may not be good but is taking the info from cpu; i agree with solaris that driver should give instructions to the scheduler and not vice-versa...
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
4,981 (5.84/day)
Location
Poland
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
Explains not admits.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
178 (0.05/day)
Location
North-Rhine-Westphalia
Processor Ryzen 2700
Motherboard B450
Cooling Thermalright ARO
Memory 2x 8GB DDR4-2133
Video Card(s) RX 570 8GB
Storage 256GB SSD
Display(s) UHD 40" HDR TV
Case Sharkoon AM5 Window red
Audio Device(s) USB Headset
Power Supply beQuiet PurePower10 400W
Software Win10
@DeathtoGnomes yes, i believe the intle CPUs with the mesh-architecture could gain an advantage if the windows scheduler would be aware of the core near or far from I/O or memory, even if it is monolitic.

The inherent goal of the windows scheduler has remained as a kind of time-slice and hierarchic priority planning until today, thats really old and comes out of the single-core era.
On top of that came the thermal and efficiency planning, wich looks like a kind of panicreaction microsoft made after the first dual-cores came out.
This legacy led to the scheduler making apps hop over the cores because of some insane temperature-abstraction-causes and to cores "more efficient" .. meaning lower clocked cores.
This legacy is now what gets manipulated by some kinds of "patches" and hidden settings and offsets in powerprofiles.
Microsoft eventually is not able to change the scheduler so courageous, how it would be needed by now. Thas very sad, i think.
The linux community is more courageous related to their scheduler.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
4,597 (4.33/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R7 1700X - 4.0 Ghz / 1.350V
Motherboard ASRock B450M Pro4
Cooling Scythe Katana 4 - 3x 120mm case fans
Memory 16GB - Corsair Vengeance LPX
Video Card(s) OEM Dell GTX 1080
Storage 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) 4K Samsung TV
Case Zalman R1
Power Supply 500W
And some applications, like CPU-Z in evaluating single-thread performance, aren't written to leverage any core except Core 0, regardless of power plan.
It's not the application that targets core 0, Windows does. This can't be fixed by AMD or anyone else except Microsoft, thread scheduling has always semi-broken even back when all CPUs had uniform topologies and clockspeeds.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
1,595 (1.74/day)
System Name Best AMD Computer
Processor AMD TR4 1920X
Motherboard MSI X399 SLI Plus
Cooling Alphacool Eisbaer 420 x2 Noctua NHU-14S TR4
Memory Gskill RIpjaws 4 3000MHZ 48GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vega 64 Nitro, Gigabyte Vega 64 Gaming OC
Storage 6 x NVME 480 GB, 2 x SSD 2TB, 5TB HDD, 2 TB HDD, 2x 2TB SSHD
Display(s) Acer 49BQ0k 4K monitor
Case Thermaltake Core X9
Audio Device(s) Corsair Void Pro, Logitch Z523 5.1
Power Supply Corsair HX1200!
Mouse Logitech g7 gaming mouse
Keyboard Logitech G510
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 Steam. GOG, Uplay, Origin
Benchmark Scores Firestrike: 24955 Time Spy: 13500
Windows is exactly why Ryzen CPUs work better in Linux.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
4,447 (0.92/day)
Location
Hong Kong
Processor Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Motherboard X399 Fatal1ty Professional Gaming
Cooling Custom loop water, 3x 420 Rad
Memory Team T-FORCE XCALIBUR RGB 4000 @3400 CL14
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 2080 Ti
Storage Samsung 960 Evo 512GB 3-way Raid 0
Display(s) Samsung C27HG70
Case Thermaltake Level 20 XT
Audio Device(s) EVGA Nu Audio
Power Supply FSP Aurum PT 1200W
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Make sense. The Windows scheduler is either too stupid and/or too focused on the Intel design philosophy to optimally load and manage threads within AMD's CCX architecture, so using a bunch of metrics such as, individual core performance, CCX performance, cache location, etc, they have the firmware/drivers fool Windows in an attempt to have the scheduler use the most suitable core.

The stars and dots are a ranking for the physical quality and performance of a core, whereas the CPPC2 'preferred cores' is a ranking based on the aforementioned metrics and are used to 'trick' the scheduler.
It is more than this.
The Windows Scheduler is worse even for Intel CPUs.
Often the difference is quite significant that not even the extra "bloat" in Windows can explain the difference.

Note: the graphs are Time in ms, lower time is faster. All these test are run on the same Dell machine with Ice Lake 1065G7 CPU.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=icelake-clear-windows&num=2
1574430023923.png

1574430054605.png
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2014
Messages
338 (0.19/day)
Location
Nowy Warsaw
System Name SYBARIS
Processor AMD Ryzen™ 5 3600
Motherboard MSI Arsenal Gaming B450 Tomahawk
Cooling Cryorig H7 Quad Lumi
Memory Team T-Force Delta RGB 2x8GB 3200CL16
Video Card(s) Colorful GeForce RTX 2060 6G V2
Storage WD Black WD1003FZEX 1TB + Crucial MX500 500GB
Display(s) LG 22MP68VQ-P 22" 75hz IPS
Case In Win Mana 136
Audio Device(s) HyperX Cloud X | iVOOMi iVO-169SUFBT 2.1
Power Supply Cooler Master G550M
Mouse Logitech G102 Prodigy | Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Keyboard Fantech MK871 RGB TKL Outemu Blue mechanical keyboard
Software Windows 10 Education 1909 x64
So basically: Best Core is absolute best core as validated by AMD from the factory.
Preferred Core is relative best core assigned by Windows Scheduler.

AMD gonna update ryzen master in the future to match Windows Scheduler.

Is that everything.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
1,876 (1.81/day)
Processor i5-8400
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-3200 CL16
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 2080 Phoenix
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Logitech G700
Keyboard Corsair K60
It is more than this.
The Windows Scheduler is worse even for Intel CPUs.
Often the difference is quite significant that not even the extra "bloat" in Windows can explain the difference.

Note: the graphs are Time in ms, lower time is faster. All these test are run on the same Dell machine with Ice Lake 1065G7 CPU.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=icelake-clear-windows&num=2
The results in that article are more nuanced than that.
Windows wins 50% of these tests, Clear Linux 37% and Ubuntu 13%.
Windows 10 geometric mean is lowest by 4/8.5% but without redoing the calculations it would seem this is largely due to couple very bad results.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,785 (4.09/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Make sense. The Windows scheduler is either too stupid and/or too focused on the Intel design philosophy to optimally load and manage threads within AMD's CCX architecture, so using a bunch of metrics such as, individual core performance, CCX performance, cache location, etc, they have the firmware/drivers fool Windows in an attempt to have the scheduler use the most suitable core.

The stars and dots are a ranking for the physical quality and performance of a core, whereas the CPPC2 'preferred cores' is a ranking based on the aforementioned metrics and are used to 'trick' the scheduler.
So you're saying Microsoft should have had a CCX aware scheduler, before AMD launched the CCX?
All cores were created equal until Ryzen, the scheduler was good enough for that. Now that even AMD can't point out the "best" core accurately, it's still Microsoft's fault for not being able to pick it from the line up?

To be clear: all the scheduler should do is ask the driver which is the best core and put it to good use. The driver is supposed to come from AMD first and foremost.

Also, I'm not saying Windows's scheduler is perfect. No scheduler ever is (Linux itself support like a dozen scheduler, none of which is better than the rest is every situation).
 
Top