Threadripper 1950x very low integer and floating point math tests. Help?

[ajc9988]

We had a few similar reports over the last year. Here are the links.
https://www.passmark.com/forum/perfo...ger-math-score
https://www.passmark.com/forum/perfo...int-math-score
Especially this post.
https://www.passmark.com/forum/perfo...7566#post37566

So as a summary, this seemed to help in other cases:
- Turning on Intel Speed step in BIOS
- Uninstalling Gigabyte bloatware (e.g EasyTuningService)
- Full reinstall of Windows if above don't work.

In your case you won't have Intel speed step or Gigabyte EasyTuningService software, and have already reinstalled windows. (I assume you run the benchmark directly after the new install of Windows and didn't load any 3rd party "tuning" first).

Some type of throttling seems likely.

Some other things to check.
- Windows power plan
- Any power saving settings in BIOS
- If there is any updated drivers available
- Some people with Ryzen CPUs are blaming the HPET for performance issues (High Precision Event Timer), we don't know if this is true however.

I can confirm with my 1950X that when I turned off HPET, the Integer Math and Floating Point scores both increased into the normal range, with the Integer Math being about 1/3 and the floating point being about 1/6th with it on. I believe this is related to the HPET latency issues. Here is a recent article discussing that, which primarily talked about Intel and gaming. I recently have been looking at timers and their interplay with different programs in Windows 10. When I try yours with HPET, RTC, and ITSC, I will report the information gathered as well as some screenshots so that you can see the information and perform your own investigation, as needed. I have not started playing with the program detailed in the Anandtech article for HPET latency as my antivirus went nuts when trying to use it, so sending that to them for examination to be sure it isn't a false positive due to the nature of the program having to examine timers, etc.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12678...-ryzen-results

[pumpusx]

So, before you drive yourself batty any further, have you run the benchmarks both with and without GAME MODE in Windows 10? I have a hunch you're running Win 10 OS...

If you're running Windows 10, please give this a try and report back with your results. Perhaps this "Integer Math/Floating point math CPU mark" issue has been resolved on these boards through prior investigation, but I've just resolved my own issue today by linking it directly to the use of Windows 10 GAME MODE with the Passmark Performance Test application. Turn off Game Mode and VOILA! benchmarks normalize. Applies to both my intel 8th Gen i5 8600k (new, not OCd) and an AMD FX 8350 OCd to death over the years.

The exact mechanism by which Win 10 Game Mode causes the benchmark problems, I have no idea...

[NBrizzler]

Right... I've made some progress. There's probably some further work to be done for the system to be fully optimal for my needs, but it is usable now, and substantially faster than the previous i7 laptop.

Key findings:
- RAM configuration matters significantly. Overclocking RAM (now on 2800MHz with CAS 16, up from 2400MHz with CAS 15, but will both try to push this further and also see if I can get some faster sticks) has made a noticeable difference to single-threaded performance.
- There is, at least in my Python code, a greater overhead associated with parallelization than before, so short tests won't necessarily show a speed benefit overall - but in long tests improvements over old setup become obvious. Some of my code is now running more than twice as fast as before - but given 4x core count at higher clock speed, there would appear to still be scope for improvement.
- My code needs to be re-profiled and re-optimized...

Thanks for support to get me this far!

[David (PassMark)]

2D graphics performance doesn't scale with the cost of the graphics card. Cheap cards can do OK at 2D.

My guess is that your Python code is more single threaded than you think. And the 1950X is no better than the 4800MQ in this regard. Or maybe there is some other difference. e.g. different versions of Python.

[NBrizzler]

Sorry for the delay, thanks for getting back to me, and the explanation on overclock profile names. I've got a manual profile running currently, but it's based on a preset Asus 4GHz profile (Zenith Extreme board with 701 BIOS).

So the laptop was running an i7-4800MQ - 4 cores at 2.7GHz. This is rather less than the 16 cores at 4GHz with water cooling I've now got... Similarly, all other hardware now is better on paper than previous machine, e.g. new workstation is running a 1TB Samsung 960 pro M.2 SSD - vs. spinning disk on laptop. And the benchmark scores reflect that - overall scores are much higher, some individual test scores are a bit worse (notably RAM latency). Oddly, the 2D graphics score is lower on new workstation, despite running a Titan XP, vs. Quadro K4100M.

I did switch RAM mode to "local" (as used in "Game" profile in Ryzen Master software), which cut latency to about 65ns, but with a smallish penalty on the CPU scores. This has improved my Python code's performance, but it's still slower than on the laptap...

I'm tearing my hair out here! Any other ideas for what I should be trying??

[David (PassMark)]

What model i7 was in that laptop? Maybe the laptop had a nice SSD which helped the Python scripts?

XMP was an Intel thing.
AMD also called it, AMP, AMD Memory Profile
Asus called it DOCP, Direct Over Clock Profile,
Gigabyte called it EOCP, Extended Over Clock Profiles.
MSI called it it A-XMP

So have a look for those acronyms in your BIOS.

[NBrizzler]

P.S.: BTW, I don't seem to be able to find the XMP profile in the BIOS... any ideas? An explanation for performance troubles?

[NBrizzler]

Thanks, David.

Hmmm. Well, for a custom high-spec workstation I would expect a memory mark better than 57th percentile - although my latency is "only" 89ns!

Fundamentally, SOMETHING is killing my "real-world" performance, i.e. running Python computations (which involve a range of single & multi-thread operations etc.): overall timings are 10-30% worse (even without AI Suite killing performance) than the i7 laptop I'm moving from! As the RAM benchmark is the only score which is substantially worse than on old system, this seems like the obvious culprit.

[David (PassMark)]

We have a 1950x ThreadRipper machine here for testing & the memory latency is bad. We see 97ns on our system. This is with 64GB of PC4-21333 RAM.

You might be able to get it slightly better by playing around with the BIOS setting for the RAM. You could also try setting 'Creator Mode' and 'Game Mode' to see what impact that has. But I don't think there is any 'fixing' it as it is a consequence of the design of the CPU.

Those qualified memory lists are often out of date and incomplete.

[NBrizzler]

Actually, I've just checked the QVL http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/..._2133-3600.pdf, and the part number of what I have fitted is not on the list! I has assumed that the company I got the custom workstation from would check such matters...

Could that essentially be the explanation for what is going on?

[NBrizzler]

Thanks a lot for posting this issue and solution - shame resolution was a couple of weeks too late for me, on my very similar rig, and I'd made same discovery the hard way in that time.

Unfortunately, I still have an issue as my RAM scores are some way off. I'm running a 64GB 2x Corsair CMK32GX4M2Z2400C16 setup... Would you mind posting your RAM scores for comparison, please? Especially my latency score is terrible.

Any suggestions for what I should be looking at to resolve this? Thanks.

[Carey.briggs]

Confirmed: Installing the Dual Intelligent Processors 5 software (under AI suite) completely nerfs ThreadRipper. Even if I let it "learn" my system and turn performance all the way up. Complete trash.

This is a testament to how important software like PassMark is.

[Carey.briggs]

Following up for others (I know... it's been a busy few weeks). I've reinstalled everything except for the "Asus AI suite 3" utility and the "AMD chipset" driver. No issues whatsoever. I don't see the need for installing either of those right now since the system is currently up and running in its completed state, giving me no issues, and benchmarking very nicely.

[David (PassMark)]

Thanks for update. Let us know which driver is at fault, as it will likely help other people as well.

[Carey.briggs]

You're my personal hero right now. In my naivete, I installed the latest ASUS drivers right after installing windows and THEN performed the benchmark. I just wiped my system and did my 4th reinstall, but went immediately from the windows install->switch power profile to high performance (always did that before)->install and run passmark. Now, without the asus drivers, my threadripper is nestled very comfortably in the middle of all of the group results. You're awesome! Thank you!!!

Now I'm off to install drivers one-by-one until I find the culprit...