Jump to content
mark84

Atomic Superpi Scores V5

Recommended Posts

Not tea-bag... what were the Ram timings on that?

 

I did some testing on my newer machine, i7-4790 before moving over to it. It was running stock speed but Ram slightly faster than spec and I managed to get a couple under 9 sec.

 

All set up now and my 2x8 Gig Ram sticks are fairly lowly DDR3-1600 gear where earlier runs were with the 2x4 Gig Kingston HyperX 1866 on it's own with better latencies. So, everything at the more conservative settings. Can still get consistent low 9 second scores. Current Ram timings are 1600 11-11-11-28, the HyperX is capable of 1866 11-11-10-29

 

For whatever reason the Bios on this thing isn't making the strapping options available otherwise I'd have done some overclocked runs with BClk = 133.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

presuming you are talking to me, Here is a screenshot of CPUZ memory tab
I am using Trident Z 3200MHZ 2 x 8GB

cdDaV6y.png


And here is my Y crunch score
pnuyWcX.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really have thought you'd get a better score than that... only about a second under my best and you have virtually double the Ram speed, better latencies and Skylake almost 10% faster than my Haswell.

 

I've played around with "little things" that can give advantage such as - set task priority in Task Manager up 1 or 2 positions. Try setting CPU Affinity so it only executes on a single core, usually one other than 0, and also tick the box for the virtual LP to cover hyperthreading e.g. tick 2 and 6 on a quad-core CPU. Get rid of much background processing as possible. The strategy there being to ensure that other cores don't get busy and reduce the max multiplier available.

 

Another thing I've noticed - it can take a little time for the system to throttle up the CPU. I've tried running another task that gets it turbo'd up, then try and start the bench run as soon as that finishes although it'd be way easier if it was an automated process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still learning to overclock, Will keep playing around and seeing what i can do, Always running these tests when i have 0-1% background cpu utilisation so should be no issue there, I do need to try and get my ram running better, But for me at the moment it is fine. Just thought id see what i could get as the pc is at the moment before i start playing alot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re yCruncher.

 

I've just been doing some side-by-side BMs with my Haswell i7-4790 (3.6-4.0) vs an Ivy Bridge i7-3770 (3.4-3.9). Only a generation apart, in fact about 14 months.

With SuperPi they were almost the same, wPrime the earlier one was actually a touch quicker in the 4T 32M one though that was bare desktop vs open browser and other stuff going on.

 

The surprise packet is yCruncher though. My Haswell almost twice as fast. I suspected it might be writing to HDD which could severely handicap a mech vs SSD but it seems it doesn't.

Just goes to show the improvements in the maths processing as time goes on. I've noticed it before with video encoding, the first gen i7s simply whip the arse of the Core 2 at similar frequencies.

Similar story with some types of work as you get newer i- generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryzen%20SuperPi%20Run_3.9_RAM_zps7wsfvlw

 

New AGESA has done massive wonders. Will try and push the CPU harder as I can probably nail 4GHz at this rate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does it go on yCruncher? Try tests (0,1,2) through to (0,1,5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, will try now. :D

 

EDIT: y-cruncher_Ryzen_3.9_zpspihm3gjw.jpg

 

Because Rybags wanted it...

 

y-cruncher_Ryzen_3.9_simple_zps9oxlcske.

y-cruncher_Ryzen_3.9_harder_zpsxdvg8cfe.

y-cruncher_Ryzen_3.9_blah_zpswgmlsvw2.jp

y-cruncher_Ryzen_3.9_blah2_zps0k71cqiu.j

Edited by sora3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice Sora. Updated your SuperPi and ycruncher scores in OP

 

Re yCruncher.

 

I've just been doing some side-by-side BMs with my Haswell i7-4790 (3.6-4.0) vs an Ivy Bridge i7-3770 (3.4-3.9). Only a generation apart, in fact about 14 months.

With SuperPi they were almost the same, wPrime the earlier one was actually a touch quicker in the 4T 32M one though that was bare desktop vs open browser and other stuff going on.

 

The surprise packet is yCruncher though. My Haswell almost twice as fast. I suspected it might be writing to HDD which could severely handicap a mech vs SSD but it seems it doesn't.

Just goes to show the improvements in the maths processing as time goes on. I've noticed it before with video encoding, the first gen i7s simply whip the arse of the Core 2 at similar frequencies.

Similar story with some types of work as you get newer i- generations.

Yeah the guy that makes ycruncher makes bespoke binaries for each architecture to make the best use of the intruction sets and hardware accelerated logic available.

Even on the same architechure but with a newer version of ycruncher I've seen large performance gains as he improves his algorithms and tries to make the calculations happen as efficiently as possible with the hardware resources available.

 

Which is a better way of benching imo, it delivers the real full potential of the chip rather than running the same thing on every CPU the same way, which might not be the best or fastest way of executing it. Like SuperPi and it's long outdated x87 intructions, newer and better methods come along over time. Doing a 1M superpi quivalent run in ycruncher (0, 1, 0, 20), my work (Zen) PC can do the math in 0.1s as opposed to 11.9s.

 

RE HDD writing, the ycruncher compute time is before it writes the results to disk, so that doesn't affect the score. Only the start-to-end wall time is affected by the mass storage sub system.

 

http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/version_history.html

Always a good read.

If you see his March 2017 update, most binaries copped a +5% speedup, Zen was added and got a 14% increase too.

Edited by mark84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the value in platform specific enhancements, really the bench should be generic and just use features widely available.

 

I also don't like versioning where results change, all that serves to do is invalidate months worth of data. The value of legacy albeit a bit obsolete benches like SuperPi, wPrime is that they went through only a few versions once becoming popular and the results expected didn't deviate too much.

 

The value of these benches shouldn't be eWank value but the ability to make relative comparisons which then can be basis for good decisions relating to upgrading or buying new gear. If results are skewed or handicapped or vary depending on which version was run, then that particular benchmark loses it's value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes. But if you're going to be calculating Pi (or anything) in 2017 for sciencetic stuff are you going to be using x87 or the latest accelerated instruction sets?

 

You make a good point regarding comparitive results. And of course that's needed. But equally you want benchmarks to reflect real world capability, if you can exploit AVX-512 on one CPU to make it legitimately process something faster you're not showing it's full real world potential by not using it. They may be comparitive, but not the whole story. There's room for both methods imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of getting a value of Pi itself is a bit irrelevant. It's a benchmark for benchmark's sake, not for mathematical sake.

To be worthwhile you have to just pick a landmark set of CPU features and stick with that. If you favour a new set of features that only certain CPU models support then the results can be unfairly skewed.

 

But in the real world you need benches that can reflect real world results. Generally number-crunching benches don't do that entirely well. They're affected by how well CPUs do FP work, and I've also found since they're so intensive that they're also affected greatly by decent memory bandwidth. You can get a greatly variable result e.g. in yCruncher by a pair of Core i CPUs that are a couple of generations apart but otherwise very close for other tasks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×