• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

New Chipset drivers.

---

Installed these on my Win 10 1903 PC. Can someone tell me if the AMD chipset drivers installed also?

These seem missing in this release.

---

The release notes mention the Ryzen profile is included, but it is not present in my power profiles.
 
Last edited:
New Chipset drivers.

---

Installed these on my Win 10 1903 PC. Can someone tell me if the AMD chipset drivers installed also?

These seem missing in this release.

---

The release notes mention the Ryzen profile is included, but it is not present in my power profiles.

I saw the same thing... have that build and no power plan (I did see a chipset update come through afterwards though.
 
  1. The original AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan was primarily intended to disable core parking. Waking a parked core has a latency penalty that costs performance, especially in gaming.

  2. At the time this plan was conceived, the out-of-box "Balanced" plan that comes with Win10 (AKA "OEM Balanced") disabled core parking for Intel processors, but not AMD processors. Ergo, an artificial performance disadvantage was being applied to AMD processors.

  3. Beginning with Win10 RS4 (IIRC), the OEM Balanced plan also disabled core parking for AMD processors.
3a) At the time Win10 RS4 was released, you may have seen chatter about RS4 improving game performance on Ryzen. These people almost certainly had not installed the AMD chipset drivers with the plan, because the disabling of Core Parking in the OEM Balanced plan was giving them the performance uplift the Ryzen Balanced plan would have given them.

4) Now that Ryzen Balanced and OEM Balanced both disable Core Parking, the need for Ryzen Balanced is diminished. 99% of the time, these plans will offer equal performance.

4a) However, the Ryzen Balanced plan still sets a minimum clockspeed of 90% on a core that is actively under load. This eliminates some small latency penalties that occur when ramping a CPU from low clock to high clock. This will give the Ryzen Balanced plan a small edge in select cases. It's a few percent, and I've only seen it measured in synthetic workloads.

5) In all cases, Ryzen depends on core C-states (e.g. cc6 sleep) for power management rather than winding down the clockspeed. This is why Ryzen has a "high" p2 of approx. 2.2GHz. It's much more efficient just to sleep the core at an extremely low clockspeed and voltage, rather than running it awake at a low clock.

5a) The good news is that Balanced/Ryzen Balanced/High Performance all have approximately the same power consumption as a result of this decision.

5b) The bad news is that Windows cannot probe the clock (only a VID) when a core is in cc6, as a probe would wake the core and kill the power savings. So Task Manager and 3rd party utilities just report the last active clockspeed that was observed before the core went to sleep. So your core might jump right from 4GHz to sleep, and Windows will still report 4GHz on the core.

That's the complete story.

tl;dr: use balanced or ryzen balanced for Ryzen, 2nd Gen Ryzen, Threadripper, etc. It's fine.

Not my post, it's from Robert Hallock @ AMD. Posting in-case people are still using Ryzen balanced :)
 
Yea. I kinda of knew the Ryzen profile was defunct, but from observations I noticed I was getting higher speeds (0.1 - 0.2MHz) using it over the windows balanced profile.

I go back to balanced now tho. Especially considering there is no Ryzen profile in the new chipset drivers.
 
5) In all cases, Ryzen depends on core C-states (e.g. cc6 sleep) for power management rather than winding down the clockspeed. This is why Ryzen has a "high" p2 of approx. 2.2GHz. It's much more efficient just to sleep the core at an extremely low clockspeed and voltage, rather than running it awake at a low clock.
My CPU cores run at ~1.4 GHz when not doing much, so I assume that's the lowest they go before entering sleep.
 
Ryzen 1800X vs 7700K two years on.

Now they are much more evenly matched, tho the 7700K does take the win overall, at least in terms of raw FPS. It is however starting to get in his words "tapped out" as its running at full load in a couple of games causing stutter.

 
Ryzen 1800X vs 7700K two years on.

Now they are much more evenly matched, tho the 7700K does take the win overall, at least in terms of raw FPS. It is however starting to get in his words "tapped out" as its running at full load in a couple of games causing stutter.


What were the results 2 years ago then? I assume Intel was much further ahead because of the optimisation
 
What were the results 2 years ago then? I assume Intel was much further ahead because of the optimisation

Yeah, a few pages back i linked a video where he did the same but with 1600 vs 7600K, two years ago the 7600K was clearly ahead but showing signs that it was about to fall down, two years later the Ryzen 1600 is clearly ahead. with this the 7700K looks like its also about to fall over with it now showing signs of stress in games with the 1800X beginning to over take it in a couple of games.

Edit: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...pu-discussion.18665505/page-969#post-32777225
 
Back
Top Bottom