AMD Ryzen performance

Message boards : Number crunching : AMD Ryzen performance

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Sergei Chernykh
Project administrator
Project developer

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 17
Posts: 489
Credit: 72,451,573
RAC: 0
   
Message 324 - Posted: 8 Mar 2017, 15:10:01 UTC

The first AMD Ryzen processor popped up on the project yesterday: https://sech.me/boinc/Amicable/show_host_detail.php?hostid=1941

So I wrote initially that it's 20% faster than Core i7-5960X, but I compared data from old version (1.05) with data from new version of the program (1.10). After comparing data from the same version 1.10 it appears to be 8% slower than Core i7-5960X.

It's not that bad, because this program has been developed and optimized precisely for Haswell (I did all optimizations and run time tests of the program on Core i7-4770K).

P.S. Some more info on my program: it uses only 64-bit integer arithmetic (no SSE, AVX etc.) and fits in 8 MB L3 cache, so it doesn't really depend on memory speed or AVX performance.
ID: 324 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Sergei Chernykh
Project administrator
Project developer

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 17
Posts: 489
Credit: 72,451,573
RAC: 0
   
Message 325 - Posted: 8 Mar 2017, 15:25:44 UTC
Last modified: 8 Mar 2017, 15:27:20 UTC

Some more relevant data:

Ryzen 7 1700 vs Core i5-4590, same app version, same work unit: https://sech.me/boinc/Amicable/workunit.php?wuid=257771

Ryzen 7 1700 (8 cores, 16 threads): 25,231.77 seconds CPU time
i5-4590 (4 cores, 4 threads, no HT): 15,091.41 seconds CPU time

If i5-4590 was a dual CPU system, it couldn't have finished faster than in 15,091.41 / 8 = 1886.42625 seconds. Ryzen finished in 1616.47 seconds

So Ryzen with HT on is 16.7% faster than Haswell with HT off.
ID: 325 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Sergei Chernykh
Project administrator
Project developer

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 17
Posts: 489
Credit: 72,451,573
RAC: 0
   
Message 330 - Posted: 8 Mar 2017, 17:46:24 UTC

I've run the same work unit on Core i7-4770K and it finished in 2884 seconds. So it's 4 cores, 8 threads at 3.9 GHz. If it had 8 cores, 16 threads at 3.5 GHz, it would finish in 2884 / (8 / 4) * 3.9 / 3.5 = 1606,8 seconds. Almost exactly the same time as AMD Ryzen 7 1700 which runs at 3.5 GHz boost frequency when all cores are active. So IPC is the same.
ID: 330 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Sergei Chernykh
Project administrator
Project developer

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 17
Posts: 489
Credit: 72,451,573
RAC: 0
   
Message 442 - Posted: 6 May 2017, 7:47:01 UTC
Last modified: 6 May 2017, 20:12:22 UTC

A small update: I have a brand new PC now (AMD Ryzen 7 1700) and I've already tested it on current work units. I didn't have time to overclock anything, so it runs at stock settings.

1) Time per WU for AMD Ryzen 7 (8 cores, 16 threads running at 3.2 GHz): ~825 seconds, CPU time is ~12950 seconds.
2) Time per WU for Intel Xeon CPU E5-1650 (6 cores, 12 threads running at 3.5 GHz): ~1060 seconds, CPU time is ~12460 seconds.

Judging by the numbers, it looks like that AMD Ryzen is ~5% faster (per Core, per MHz) than Intel Haswell on current type of work units.
ID: 442 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Matt Kowal
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Feb 17
Posts: 14
Credit: 177,829,581
RAC: 0
   
Message 443 - Posted: 6 May 2017, 22:12:57 UTC

Thank you for the benchmarks. I have shared them in the /r/BOINC thread BOINC Performance on AMD Ryzen.
ID: 443 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : AMD Ryzen performance


©2024 Sergei Chernykh