Is anyone buying a Ryzen rig any time soon? If so, please post a link to the machine so we can see how well it crunches. Hopefully it'll be a Rosetta beast.

D

---

Very excited to see some competition in the higher end of the CPU market again. This is a huge win for high performance computing / BOINC / Rosetta etc. too

These chips look to pack an amazing overall amount of compute power inside a surprisingly energy efficient envelope.

AMD unveils Ryzen launch dates, clock speeds, performance, pricing [ExtremeTech.com]

---

**38 cores crunching for R@H on behalf of cancercomputer.org - a non-profit supporting High Performance Computing in Cancer Research

I'm thinking at R7 1700...16 thread at 65W (300$)...not bad.
Waiting for single thread IPC benchmarks

---

I'm thinking at R7 1700...16 thread at 65W (300$)...not bad.
Waiting for single thread IPC benchmarks

I like the low power of that one too. We need some projects to test it on though. Rosetta is not ideal since the run times tend to be more constant anyway.

---

I'm thinking at R7 1700...16 thread at 65W (300$)...not bad.
Waiting for single thread IPC benchmarks

I like the low power of that one too. We need some projects to test it on though. Rosetta is not ideal since the run times tend to be more constant anyway.

I find that RAC (recent average credit) is generally very consistent - you can take the granted credit from a few sample complete units and calculate the long-term RAC by finding the average RAC per second, and multiplying that by the number of cores and seconds-per-day.

---

Today first benchmarks of Ryzen...

---

Seems to be great in scientific benchmarks (lammps, namd, gnu octave, etc)!!

---

Ryzen on Seti@home. Very good!!

---

2 minutes on google led me to this R7 1700:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=2225133

and this R7 1800X:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=3181998

For the 1700, assuming it's running 16 threads, from the results returned the RAC is approx 15,210 and for the 1800X it works out to 12,268.

If they're not running 16 threads then the numbers above will be scaled too high. The granted credit-per-second is higher on the 1700 which suggests it's running a lower non-Rosetta load, or is overclocked quite a lot. Or maybe the 1800X gets powered down more frequently in that period. I'd guess it's due to load though.

If those numbers are correct, then they're really good at Rosetta and I want one. Or five.

---

2 minutes on google led me to this R7 1700:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=2225133

and this R7 1800X:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=3181998

For the 1700, assuming it's running 16 threads, from the results returned the RAC is approx 15,210 and for the 1800X it works out to 12,268.

If they're not running 16 threads then the numbers above will be scaled too high. The granted credit-per-second is higher on the 1700 which suggests it's running a lower non-Rosetta load, or is overclocked quite a lot. Or maybe the 1800X gets powered down more frequently in that period. I'd guess it's due to load though.

If those numbers are correct, then they're really good at Rosetta and I want one. Or five.

Great finds! Very exciting to see competition in the higher end again. Hopefully they sell enough of these to recoup their investment and keep up the momentum at their R&D labs in AMD.

A few things I've read about Ryzen have explained that finding the right memory configuration is key to getting the best performance out of these chips as keeping all 16 cores fed requires lots of fast memory bandwidth. Furthermore, some people complained that it was very difficult to find a motherboard+memory combination that actually allowed the memory to run at full speeds, hoping as the motherboard selection starts to mature a bit and more OEMs jump in the ring these issues smooth themselves out. :)

---

**38 cores crunching for R@H on behalf of cancercomputer.org - a non-profit supporting High Performance Computing in Cancer Research

r7 1700(x), 1800x seem to pull in almost double the throughput of i7 4770 and even i7 4790 processors

as boinc runs 1 r@h job per hyperthreaded core, that would in effect make it 16 concurrent jobs instead of 8 concurrent jobs

Running rosetta@home with Ryzen 1700 is doing 16 threads @ 3.15GHz so 1700X and 1800X are faster with that with stock clocks.
But I've overclocked mine 1700 to 3.6 GHz on all cores with just slight voltage bump (+0.012V or +0.03V - can't really remember) and it works rock solid chewing through rosetta tasks (taking 85W on average - readings from HWMonitor).
The temps are 65°C - 70°C, usually 66°C - 67°C (under load from rosetta of course) with stock cooler.
I consider running it with lower frequencies but try to undervolt the CPU, but that's something to try in the future ;)

Intel's response - it can only be good for the consumer and DC projects like R@H.
http://wccftech.com/intel-moster-12-core-hedt-skylake-x-confirmed-launch-30-may-x299/

---

I'd like to buy the upcoming 16-core 32-thread Ryzen OC'ed @4.2 Ghz, but can't afford it; there would be a 12-Core 24-threead Ryzen too, those are actually 2 Ryzens dies on the same encapsulated substrate, 8x2 and 6x2, which are 2 and 1.5 CCX (Computing CompleX, 4 Cores linked) linked reespectively, just to clarify to the ones that don't know. AMD is releasing higher OC frequency CPUs, initial CPUs couldn't be OC much, also they need compiler optimizations for up to +30% performance boost, so BOINC and Rosetta@Home should take note of it. The Server version will come with to 2 32-Core 64-thread Opterons CPUs on the MoBo with up to 1 TB RAM, that would be a Rosetta beast :)

AMD is releasing higher OC frequency CPUs, initial CPUs couldn't be OC much, also they need compiler optimizations for up to +30% performance boost, so BOINC and Rosetta@Home should take note of it.

I am a novice on compilers, but I expect that refers mainly to games. But I would like to know what optimizations could apply to Rosetta and the other BOINC projects too.

---

I am a novice on compilers, but I expect that refers mainly to games. But I would like to know what optimizations could apply to Rosetta and the other BOINC projects too.

It's a looong story about 64bits, SSEx/Avx extensions, gpu, etc on Rosetta.
And every long story, at the end, is boring

---

It's a looong story about 64bits, SSEx/Avx extensions, gpu, etc on Rosetta.
And every long story, at the end, is boring

Yes, I know those stories. But there was something about thread allocation among the CPU-Complex (CCX) units that needed optimizing for games. Whether that applies to Rosetta is the question.

---

It's a looong story about 64bits, SSEx/Avx extensions, gpu, etc on Rosetta.
And every long story, at the end, is boring

Yes, I know those stories. But there was something about thread allocation among the CPU-Complex (CCX) units that needed optimizing for games. Whether that applies to Rosetta is the question.

"Thread affinity" is where threads are dispatched back to the core they most recently ran on, if that core is available. This improves the odds that some of the memory being accessed by that thread is still within the core's level 2 cache and so can save some transfers from memory and improve performance.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense