![]() At least if we are talking about actual heatsinks, and not those slabs of massive metal that some manufacturers started to put on their boards. It is a sign that the manufacturer put some thought into the thermal design. Ī decent sized heatsink is not a sign that a component runs hot. Every time that I check the X299 motherboards, the thick heat-sink warn me something might be very hot. I have not tested 10900x, no chance for additional budget if I miss the 24 hours workload condition. Best performance per budget (total 1000 to 1200$), not the fastest. I am planing a budget PC to use it for a long time with-out worry about VRM temperature or even liquid cooler etc. ![]() The 7302p reach to a maximum of 42 degrees by 16 cores and 100 percent load, really awesome. We concluded that the Flow 3D scale fall after 4 cores rapidly, and now they announce the new HPC release for in-house clusters!! I am still using the previous version due to license issues.Īnyway, the reason that I interest in EPYC line-up is low-temperature working conditions. You are right, you taught me how to scale the Flow 3D using 7302p. It's the same CPU, just with less active cores. you already tried an Epyc 7302p, right? If that's the case, forget about the 7262. Other 7302 results are closer to the ideal line, so some caution is required when drawing conclusions like these. The super-linear effect might be explained by effectively doubling the available 元 cache with two CPUs. The effect might be more pronounced than it should be, OP never responded to the comments he got.Īnd those Epyc 7302 perform much better thanks to an abundance of available memory bandwidth. Even at a thread count of 8, memory bandwidth is not enough to keep those fast cores busy. My conclusion: That TR 3960X is being held back by the performance of its memory subsystem. It clearly shows that the 3960X is well below ideal scaling at 8 threads, while the 2x Epyc 7302 even shows super-linear scaling with up to 16 threads. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will chime in.Īny particular reason for that assumption? I would be inclined to disagree with it.Īnyway, we can just dissect the results at hand further, and do our own strong scaling analysis: I'd also be interested to see how the results here would differ with all 8 of the 7302's cores on a single socket. There obviously is some difference, but going any further with the available information is beyond me. Ok so in this case a 7302 core is 1.7x faster per GHz than a 3960X core, but they had 4x the memory bandwidth. the TR is not overclocked in any way.Ģ) The chips have similar IPC since they are both zen2, though this may be a moot point since we already have the product of their work.7302: 8 cores running at 3.3 GHz do the work in 81.4 seconds, so with perfect scaling 1 core at 3.3 GHz would do it in 651.2 seconds, and at 1 Ghz it would do it in 2149 seconds.ģ960X: 101.5s * 8 = 812s, 812s * 4.5GHz = 3654 seconds. 4 channel chips, at least to some degree, by comparing the amount of work done on a per-core per-clock basis, though we'll have to make some assumptions:ġ) Both chips are running with their base memory speed of 3200MHz, i.e. We can try to isolate the difference caused by the 8 (actually 16 available in this case) vs. I might be making some incorrect assumptions but to me this comparison is pretty good evidence of 8 channels being better than 4, even at these small core counts.īut, again it is difficult to accept the differences in 8 cores. If I had the funds do such a comparison I would, but alas.Īlso the TR has a decent clock speed advantage and it should have pretty similar IPC to the 7302 since they're both zen2 chips, so that's 2 big advantages it's got going for it here yet it's still ~20 seconds slower. Of course the best comparison would be to test a 7302 against one of the 64Mb cache models. I suspect the results of running 8 cores on a single 7203P would be better, and that might give a better idea of 4 vs. As fast as infiniband is it's not as fast as the memory on a single socket, so these ROME chips are being saddled with a pretty big disadvantage from the slower message passing they're being forced to do. I think a safe assumption here is that each 7302P is running four cores with an infinband connection. The 7302P is a single-socket only chip, so any test with two of them is going to also include an interconnect. This is a pretty apples and oranges comparison. How it is possible? in 8 cores benchmark, the 4 channel bandwidth must be enough!! 8 channel vs 4 channel memory bandwidth using only 8 cores! - CFD Online Discussion Forums
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |