Ruedii
-
Posts
1,209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Status Replies posted by Ruedii
-
About your question on Ryzen and KSP.
More influential is the enhancements to the SSE pipeline which is used for physics on KSP 1.2 and later.
The DDR4 memory should also see a LOT of added performance in the GC cycles, and the cache won't hurt. However, short of about 256MB of cache, you won't see massive improvement from the cache itself.
Finally, I didn't want to mention this in front of the Intel fan-boys because they'd claim I was BSing (despite direct notes from the Linux kernel staff having to do the same thing) but we won't see the full performance from Ryzen cpus for about 6 months because the Operating Systems need to update their thread balancing systems to better distribute for maximum performance on desktop and maximum power saving on laptops. This will likely give a 10-20% performance increase on desktops and an equal power saving on laptops (sacrificing some of that performance increase, of course.)Hopefully most motherboards will properly report the power-save data so that it runs efficiently (nothing is worse than having to run in the always-maximum "performance" mode that actually cripples the turbo feature on the CPU.)
-
I know that Linux actually saw that 10-20% in the following months. It still is recieving updates. The new SchedUtils power manager on Linux is particularly seeing gains. However, it too needs updates to reduce latency. I really think
When my Ryzen Quad Core (8 thread) motherboard was working I saw a 25%-45% performance gain over my faster clock speed 6 core FX processor, especially on large craft. This was even when under-clocking it drastically. (Damn that bad bios, though. Now it locks in an endless boot cycle.)
-
-
About your question on Ryzen and KSP.
More influential is the enhancements to the SSE pipeline which is used for physics on KSP 1.2 and later.
The DDR4 memory should also see a LOT of added performance in the GC cycles, and the cache won't hurt. However, short of about 256MB of cache, you won't see massive improvement from the cache itself.
Finally, I didn't want to mention this in front of the Intel fan-boys because they'd claim I was BSing (despite direct notes from the Linux kernel staff having to do the same thing) but we won't see the full performance from Ryzen cpus for about 6 months because the Operating Systems need to update their thread balancing systems to better distribute for maximum performance on desktop and maximum power saving on laptops. This will likely give a 10-20% performance increase on desktops and an equal power saving on laptops (sacrificing some of that performance increase, of course.)Hopefully most motherboards will properly report the power-save data so that it runs efficiently (nothing is worse than having to run in the always-maximum "performance" mode that actually cripples the turbo feature on the CPU.)
-
I wasn't talking about the power-plan software. There is only so much AMD can adjust with that. I was talking more about how Windows distributes various programs over the various cores.
It currently is unaware of the layout of a Ryzen system, and thus does not know the best way to distribute activity to optimally use both cache and power.
-
-
About your question on Ryzen and KSP.
More influential is the enhancements to the SSE pipeline which is used for physics on KSP 1.2 and later.
The DDR4 memory should also see a LOT of added performance in the GC cycles, and the cache won't hurt. However, short of about 256MB of cache, you won't see massive improvement from the cache itself.
Finally, I didn't want to mention this in front of the Intel fan-boys because they'd claim I was BSing (despite direct notes from the Linux kernel staff having to do the same thing) but we won't see the full performance from Ryzen cpus for about 6 months because the Operating Systems need to update their thread balancing systems to better distribute for maximum performance on desktop and maximum power saving on laptops. This will likely give a 10-20% performance increase on desktops and an equal power saving on laptops (sacrificing some of that performance increase, of course.)Hopefully most motherboards will properly report the power-save data so that it runs efficiently (nothing is worse than having to run in the always-maximum "performance" mode that actually cripples the turbo feature on the CPU.)
-
As a note, I recommend if you do over-clocking on Ryzen processors, do it from from the motherboard. That way you keep the power-saving mode and boost function.
I mainly prefer AMD for cost/performance ratio. The way I see it is that if you can't get a top of the line Intel, you should go for the AMD processors. It makes sense. I'm not a fanboy that fails to acknowledge that Intel's top of the line models are better. I just know the middle and economy lines are overpriced.
When my dad called me about my wife's laptop having found an mid-range Intel model on sale, I told him that I had specified AMD for the tier of the i5s because the AMD equivalent was cheaper when it wasn't on sale. The slight improvement in the graphics performance wouldn't be noticeable for what my wife was using it for.
-
-
Just curious, do you need help getting the mods you maintain up to 1.2?