Hehe, it's nice living in its own world of imaginary numbers. One thing I find fascinating is amount of Dunning-Kruger with chess hobbyist. They think they know so much while in essence they don't have a clue about how engines or actual underlying hardware is working.Zenmastur wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:36 amPut that crack pipe down and go outside and get a little air, you need it!Milos wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:17 amLol at 12+3-4%. That is more than a difference between running with minimal Hash size (e.g. 32MB) and optimal hash size (e.g. 16GB).Zenmastur wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:09 am On my system the difference between running the ram at 2133 and 3200Mhz was about 12% in NPS using stockfish. That was just for enabling the XMP profile. I got another 3-4% by tweaking the ram parameters even though I have crap ram sticks (crap meaning they don't overclock well). They're stable enough, just not much head room for overclocking. E.g. I couldn't get them stable at any speed faster than 3200Mhz but some of the timings at 3200 could be cut to fraction of the value the BIOS had them set at. Many of the parameters weren't even close to the minimum at which they would run stable.
I bet you have some totally crappy test conditions that have nothing to do with realistic game conditions (like testing speed of TB searches/caching or testing totally ridiculous hash sizes, etc or your system has some other serious bottlenecks).
New chess rig
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 4190
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:47 am
Re: TRX40 mobos
-
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:28 am
Re: TRX40 mobos
Yeah, whatever you say...Milos wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:56 amHehe, it's nice living in its own world of imaginary numbers. One thing I find fascinating is amount of Dunning-Kruger with chess hobbyist. They think they know so much while in essence they don't have a clue about how engines or actual underlying hardware is working.Zenmastur wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:36 amPut that crack pipe down and go outside and get a little air, you need it!Milos wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:17 amLol at 12+3-4%. That is more than a difference between running with minimal Hash size (e.g. 32MB) and optimal hash size (e.g. 16GB).Zenmastur wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:09 am On my system the difference between running the ram at 2133 and 3200Mhz was about 12% in NPS using stockfish. That was just for enabling the XMP profile. I got another 3-4% by tweaking the ram parameters even though I have crap ram sticks (crap meaning they don't overclock well). They're stable enough, just not much head room for overclocking. E.g. I couldn't get them stable at any speed faster than 3200Mhz but some of the timings at 3200 could be cut to fraction of the value the BIOS had them set at. Many of the parameters weren't even close to the minimum at which they would run stable.
I bet you have some totally crappy test conditions that have nothing to do with realistic game conditions (like testing speed of TB searches/caching or testing totally ridiculous hash sizes, etc or your system has some other serious bottlenecks).
It's clear that you can spew horse shit with little effort. You seem very practiced at it.
If you think you know something about my system that I don't please enlighten us. I think this will expose us to more substance than just your verbal diarrhea.
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
-
- Posts: 4190
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:47 am
Re: TRX40 mobos
I know that you either don't know how to reliably measure nps of SF or that you are simply lying, because gaining 15+% of average SF performance in nps just by using faster DRAM settings is simply impossible. Period. It's the same type of statement as "I changed my cooler and I am getting 50% extra nps". Now go and bullshit someone else.
-
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:47 am
- Location: Almere, The Netherlands
Re: TRX40 mobos
I see you mean repeatability instead of stability. The AMD Threadripper 3 is not very stable in this respect, even with Precision Boost turned off it sometimes gives weird speed fluctuations, even when using just a single core.corres wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:28 pmIf you run other program in the back the repeatability of your results (analysis, test) is decreased.Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:47 pmOf course the temperature will get somewhat lower with SMT disabled, but I don't understand what it has to do with stability, my system is stable as a rock, last time I had it run for 12 days in a row at full load and there was no sign of instability at all. The only thing getting unstable was me because I could not withstand the enormous amount of heat generated by the system.
Disabling SMT has the drawback that when you run the system at full load on all cores you leave very little room for other threads to run, like IO or other operating-system threads, I clearly notice Windows gets laggy when I do, maybe Linux is better in this respect.
The weaker stability is caused by the more heat.
The stability is not mean only that your system did not freeze under 12 days.
Recently I also built a machine with an Intel 10980XE that I currently use as my primary workstation, this machine has a much better repeatability. So if you want high repeatability you'd better use an Intel box.
-
- Posts: 3657
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:41 am
- Location: hungary
Re: TRX40 mobos
Thank you, Zenmastur this study about RAMs.Zenmastur wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:09 amI see statements like this a lot.Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:00 pm ...
Memory speed is not very important, the difference in speed I measured between 2133 MT/s and 3200 MT/s memory is at max. 5%, buying very expensive G.Skill memory with low latency to gain maybe 1 or 2% is IMHO complete nonsense.
The first thing to note is the performance of the memory subsystem is, to a great extent, determined by the BIOS. Jedec/XMP profiles only store a few of the memory timings needed to initialize the memory subsystem. The rest are determined at boot time by a process called “learning” in which the BIOS tries different values in the many timing parameters visible in most BIOSs. Not all parameters are visible in the BIOS and therefore can't be changed or modified by “normal” means.
The other MAJOR issue is the quality of the MB memory trace layout. A poor design, will perform poorly and may not allow the RAM to reach it's full potential.
Since there are several different RAM manufacturers, many different memory chips with different strengths and weaknesses, many different retail memory vendors, many different motherboards manufactures, and many different BIOSs out there making a claim like “Memory speed is not very important,” is completely worthless and misleading.
If you know relatively little and just buy a bunch of “RANDOM” parts and then do NOTHING other than enable your XMP profile you can expect shit result most of the time. If you want better results, you have to put a little more time and effort in to choosing your motherboard and RAM. During setup you have to take the time to control most or ALL of the memory timings.
Most people aren't willing to do this because it takes time and can be frustrating if you don't have a clue what's going on.
On my system the difference between running the ram at 2133 and 3200Mhz was about 12% in NPS using stockfish. That was just for enabling the XMP profile. I got another 3-4% by tweaking the ram parameters even though I have crap ram sticks (crap meaning they don't overclock well). They're stable enough, just not much head room for overclocking. E.g. I couldn't get them stable at any speed faster than 3200Mhz but some of the timings at 3200 could be cut to fraction of the value the BIOS had them set at. Many of the parameters weren't even close to the minimum at which they would run stable.
Different BIOSs will perform the “learning” tasks with different results. Some are good at it and some aren't. Certain types of chips will perform better than others, not because they are “better” in general, but because the BIOS finds better parameters for those chips. The easiest way to get around this is to manually control ALL the available timing parameters. Like this:The first four columns show what the JEDEC/XMP profiles control and the latencies at the given clock speed. The second four columns show what I manually set them to and what the BIOS set them to along with latencies. In some cases the difference between what the BIOS set them at and what they will reliably run at is VASTLY different. Two likely causes are the Hynix CJR chips were relatively new and the bios is probably tuned for Samsung and Crucial chips or earlier Hynix chips.Code: Select all
Memory Type= Hynix CJR 128GB 8 X 8Gb Dual Rank DDR4-2133 C/18nm lithogrophy Downbin MB=B0 Rev. 8-layer Page 1Kb 8 Dimms Gear-down mode Disabled DDR4-2133 Time ns DDR4-3200 Time ns DDR4-3200 Time ns DDR4-3200 Time ns Parameter Description Parameter JDEC@1067 XMP@1600 Actual (tested) BIOS set@1600 CAS latency tCL 15 14.1 16 10.0 14 8.8 16 10.0 RAS to CAS Delay read tRCDRD 15 14.1 18 11.3 15 9.4 18 11.3 RAS to CAS Delay write tRCDWR 15 14.1 18 11.3 17 10.6 18 11.3 RAS Precharge time tRP 15 14.1 18 11.3 17 10.6 19 11.9 Active to Precharge Delay Time tRAS 36 33.7 36 22.5 28 17.5 36 22.5 Act to Act/Refresh Delay Time tRC 50 46.9 54 33.8 42 26.3 56 35.0 Short Row Active to Row Active Delay tRRDS 4 3.7 6 3.8 4 2.5 6 3.8 Long Row Active to Row Active Delay tRRDL 6 5.6 9 5.6 6 3.8 8 5.0 Long CAS to CAS Delay Time tCCDL 6 5.6 9 5.6 9 5.6 9 5.6 Four Active Windows Delay tFAW 23 21.6 36 22.5 16 10.0 34 21.3 Normal Refresh Recovery Delay Time tRFC1 312 195.0 560 350.0 2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time tRFC2 192 120.0 440 275.0 4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time tRFC4 132 82.5 255 159.4 Write to Read delay Short tWTRS 3 1.9 4 2.5 Write to Read delay Long tWTRL 9 5.6 12 7.5 Write recovery time (8 CLK min.) tWR 12 7.5 12 7.5 Read to Read delay same bank group tRDRD SCL 3 1.9 4 2.5 Write to Write delay same bank group tWRWR SCL 3 1.9 4 2.5 CAS Write Latency tCWL 14 8.8 16 10.0 Read to Pre-charge Time tRTP 8 5.0 8 5.0 Read Write Command spacing tRDWR 5 3.1 7 4.4 Write Read Command Spacing tWRRD 1 0.6 3 1.9 Write to Write Time same chip tWRWR SC 1 0.6 1 0.6 Write to Write Time same DIMM tWRWR SD 3 1.9 7 4.4 Write to Write Time diff. DIMM tWRWR DD 3 1.9 7 4.4 Read to Read time same chip tRDRD SC 1 0.6 1 0.6 Read to Read time same DIMM tRDRD SD 3 1.9 5 3.1 Read to Read time diff. DIMM tRDRD DD 3 1.9 5 3.1 Clock enable time tCKE 1 0.6 1 0.6
Some of the "Tested" timing are VERY pedestrian while others are VERY fast compared to other types/brands of memory chips. I got about an extra FEW IN PERFORMANCE OVER AND ABOVE THE PERFORMANCE THE XMP PROFILE PROVIDED. THE REASON THIS IS SO LOW IS BECAUSE THESE CHIPS WON'T RUN RELIABLY FASTER THAN 3200MHZ EVEN WITH HIGH VOLTAGES. But at the time I bought them I didn't really have another choice and I was tired of waiting for better memory to become available. Samsung B-die chips are known to run very fast. A lot faster than the ones I bought.
On Ryzen chips faster memory means faster infinity clocks (up to the fabrics clock limits) which means lower memory latency. Most AB engine are latency sensitive ( not sure about NN and NNUE) so lower latency means more NPS.
So, picking random components and expecting stellar performance isn't likely to happen. But people expect it to perform better because they spent more money on the RAM. Few ever think about learning what makes a memory subsystem fast. They just spend money and hope that's good enough. This happens all the time and then you see claims that faster memory doesn't make a difference.
If you want stellar memory performance you need to know a lot and specify every component, even the BIOS revision your going to use and then spend the time to actually set the parameters and do the testing to VERIFY that the settings you choose are actually faster. If you're not going to do that then it “IS” a waste of money.
Last note: The memory times given in this post aren't likely to run on any other system unless they have the exact same components as I do, and even then they will likely need to be tweaked to match your CPU/MB/Memory Dimms due to silicon lottery effects.
Regards,
Zenmastur
If somebody want a bench-winner machine, your study is a good help to him.
In practice the effect of speed of RAM on chess-Elo is rather low.
-
- Posts: 3657
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:41 am
- Location: hungary
Re: TRX40 mobos
Can you make test to compare the repeatability between your AMD and Intel machines?Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:04 amI see you mean repeatability instead of stability. The AMD Threadripper 3 is not very stable in this respect, even with Precision Boost turned off it sometimes gives weird speed fluctuations, even when using just a single core.corres wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:28 pmIf you run other program in the back the repeatability of your results (analysis, test) is decreased.Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:47 pmOf course the temperature will get somewhat lower with SMT disabled, but I don't understand what it has to do with stability, my system is stable as a rock, last time I had it run for 12 days in a row at full load and there was no sign of instability at all. The only thing getting unstable was me because I could not withstand the enormous amount of heat generated by the system.
Disabling SMT has the drawback that when you run the system at full load on all cores you leave very little room for other threads to run, like IO or other operating-system threads, I clearly notice Windows gets laggy when I do, maybe Linux is better in this respect.
The weaker stability is caused by the more heat.
The stability is not mean only that your system did not freeze under 12 days.
Recently I also built a machine with an Intel 10980XE that I currently use as my primary workstation, this machine has a much better repeatability. So if you want high repeatability you'd better use an Intel box.
It would be interesting.
-
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:47 am
- Location: Almere, The Netherlands
Re: TRX40 mobos
Of course I can test this, I only have to think about a method to get meaningful results.corres wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:50 amCan you make test to compare the repeatability between your AMD and Intel machines?Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:04 amI see you mean repeatability instead of stability. The AMD Threadripper 3 is not very stable in this respect, even with Precision Boost turned off it sometimes gives weird speed fluctuations, even when using just a single core.corres wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:28 pmIf you run other program in the back the repeatability of your results (analysis, test) is decreased.Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:47 pmOf course the temperature will get somewhat lower with SMT disabled, but I don't understand what it has to do with stability, my system is stable as a rock, last time I had it run for 12 days in a row at full load and there was no sign of instability at all. The only thing getting unstable was me because I could not withstand the enormous amount of heat generated by the system.
Disabling SMT has the drawback that when you run the system at full load on all cores you leave very little room for other threads to run, like IO or other operating-system threads, I clearly notice Windows gets laggy when I do, maybe Linux is better in this respect.
The weaker stability is caused by the more heat.
The stability is not mean only that your system did not freeze under 12 days.
Recently I also built a machine with an Intel 10980XE that I currently use as my primary workstation, this machine has a much better repeatability. So if you want high repeatability you'd better use an Intel box.
It would be interesting.
The only thing I see right now is that the speed on the TR3 varies quite a lot between different runs, sometimes like 4%, even on a single core with precision-boost disabled, which is strange, I can't explain this. The Intel with turbo-boost disabled varies a lot less. I don't know by how much an engines move choice is influenced by these speed fluctuations.
It is also possible that it is a Windows 10 scheduler issue, and that it has nothing to do with the processor as such, I don't know.
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: TRX40 mobos
I was also planning to buy a Ryzen 3rd Gen, but this fact, which seems more universal for Ryzen than just TR3, bothers me. I am used to my old Intel turbo-boost disabled, well kept at low OC CPU which is rock-stable in frequency and speed. Reproducibility is quite important to me. I will probably end up with an Intel 8 core at a discount (9th Gen).Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:18 amOf course I can test this, I only have to think about a method to get meaningful results.corres wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:50 amCan you make test to compare the repeatability between your AMD and Intel machines?Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:04 amI see you mean repeatability instead of stability. The AMD Threadripper 3 is not very stable in this respect, even with Precision Boost turned off it sometimes gives weird speed fluctuations, even when using just a single core.corres wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:28 pmIf you run other program in the back the repeatability of your results (analysis, test) is decreased.Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:47 pmOf course the temperature will get somewhat lower with SMT disabled, but I don't understand what it has to do with stability, my system is stable as a rock, last time I had it run for 12 days in a row at full load and there was no sign of instability at all. The only thing getting unstable was me because I could not withstand the enormous amount of heat generated by the system.
Disabling SMT has the drawback that when you run the system at full load on all cores you leave very little room for other threads to run, like IO or other operating-system threads, I clearly notice Windows gets laggy when I do, maybe Linux is better in this respect.
The weaker stability is caused by the more heat.
The stability is not mean only that your system did not freeze under 12 days.
Recently I also built a machine with an Intel 10980XE that I currently use as my primary workstation, this machine has a much better repeatability. So if you want high repeatability you'd better use an Intel box.
It would be interesting.
The only thing I see right now is that the speed on the TR3 varies quite a lot between different runs, sometimes like 4%, even on a single core with precision-boost disabled, which is strange, I can't explain this. The Intel with turbo-boost disabled varies a lot less. I don't know by how much an engines move choice is influenced by these speed fluctuations.
It is also possible that it is a Windows 10 scheduler issue, and that it has nothing to do with the processor as such, I don't know.
-
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:48 pm
- Full name: Alayan Feh
Re: New chess rig
If you want constant speed, rather than trying to disable turbo mechanisms, it's better to use the overclock settings. You don't actually need to set high values if you don't want to deal with the heat/cooling (nothing prevents to use the settings to even underclock/undervolt), but it will make the clock speed fixed.
For general purpose usage, fixed clocks tends to miss on performance and/or energy efficiency, but that's not relevant here.
For general purpose usage, fixed clocks tends to miss on performance and/or energy efficiency, but that's not relevant here.