I run it on 58 cores.
My machine has 64 physical CPUs, but I find when I set more than 58 the machine becomes less and less responsive.
Ubuntu 14.4 = OS
128 GB RAM.
Is anyone here already using a Ryzen 1800X processor ?
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 12542
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Is anyone here already using a Ryzen 1800X processor ?
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 5:58 pm
Re: Is anyone here already using a Ryzen 1800X processor ?
Dan,Dann Corbit wrote:I run it on 58 cores.
My machine has 64 physical CPUs, but I find when I set more than 58 the machine becomes less and less responsive.
Ubuntu 14.4 = OS
128 GB RAM.
So if I have 36 physical cores (HT is set to ON in BIOS), then would you suggest running popcnt engine with 35 threads?
Last edited by cma6 on Mon May 15, 2017 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 12542
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Is anyone here already using a Ryzen 1800X processor ?
Run experiments to find the happy spot where your machine is still snappy and yet you get plenty of CPU power.cma6 wrote:Dan,Dann Corbit wrote:I run it on 58 cores.
My machine has 64 physical CPUs, but I find when I set more than 58 the machine becomes less and less responsive.
Ubuntu 14.4 = OS
128 GB RAM.
So if I have 36 physical cores (HT is set to ON in BIOS), then would you suggest running poipcnt engine with 35 threads?
I guess every machine is different.
I also have services running in the background (e.g. database daemons). So your system might respond differently than mine does.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:43 am
- Location: New Delhi, India
Re: Ryzen tips
Very interesting. Your results seem to indicate that Ryzen is not that much different from Intel, insofar that it seems to prefer Real Cores to Virtual Cores. Using virtual cores may not do any harm but it doesn't seem to be doing much good either.jstanback wrote:I agree that using all 16 threads on Ryzen is probably not best. To take a stab at how many threads is best for my program Wasp, I ran the arasan19.epd test suite (200 positions) for 1 second per position and calculated the average depth reached. My system is a Ryzen 1700 running at 3.7 Ghz on all cores with SMT turned ON. I used 64 Mbytes hash. Here is some data. Knps is the combined nodes/second, Depth is the average depth reached (not necessarily fully completed), and EBF is effective branching factor for the last 4 completed plies.
So for my program anyway, I don't get any depth increaset from using more than 8 threads. But I did a similar test a couple weeks ago at 5s per position and got very slightly higher avg depth for 10 threads as compared to 8. Also, sometimes more cores can give a different (hopefully better) move for a given search depth. So maybe 9 or 10 threads is best for me. Maybe if I improve my lazy SMP search I can make better use of the additional nodes/second for threads beyond 8.Code: Select all
Threads Knps Depth EBF 1 1447 14.2 1.72 2 2886 14.9 1.72 4 5660 15.9 1.68 6 8294 16.5 1.71 8 10806 16.7 1.68 10 12045 16.7 1.69 12 13141 16.7 1.71 14 14149 16.7 1.69 16 15135 16.7 1.67
FYI, as a comparison I get 1534 Knps for 1 thread on an i5-4690K at 3.9 Ghz. So for my program the Ryzen and Intel systems have nearly identical speed if clock rates are equal.
John
At worst, it will increase energy consumption and heat production.
Your Test results seem to be in sync with what I've observed in my online engine-engine matches.
i7 5960X @ 4.1 Ghz, 64 GB G.Skill RipJaws RAM, Twin Asus ROG Strix OC 11 GB Geforce 2080 Tis
-
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:18 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
Re: Ryzen tips
Hi John,jstanback wrote:Code: Select all
Threads Knps Depth EBF 1 1447 14.2 1.72 2 2886 14.9 1.72 4 5660 15.9 1.68 6 8294 16.5 1.71 8 10806 16.7 1.68 10 12045 16.7 1.69 12 13141 16.7 1.71 14 14149 16.7 1.69 16 15135 16.7 1.67
It's interesting to me, going from 8 threads to 16 yields a speed increase of almost 5 million nodes per
second but no depth increase. I wonder why that is? I would have expected a small increase, but you
get an identical depth of 16.7 for all threads at 8 and beyond yet the nodes per second is clearly increasing.
regards,
--tom
regards,
--tom
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: Ryzen tips
The search widens with more threads. So that 16.7 depth with 16 threads is stronger than 16.7 depth with 8 threads. According to this data, 16 threads is the best to use strength-wise.Tom Likens wrote:Hi John,jstanback wrote:Code: Select all
Threads Knps Depth EBF 1 1447 14.2 1.72 2 2886 14.9 1.72 4 5660 15.9 1.68 6 8294 16.5 1.71 8 10806 16.7 1.68 10 12045 16.7 1.69 12 13141 16.7 1.71 14 14149 16.7 1.69 16 15135 16.7 1.67
It's interesting to me, going from 8 threads to 16 yields a speed increase of almost 5 million nodes per
second but no depth increase. I wonder why that is? I would have expected a small increase, but you
get an identical depth of 16.7 for all threads at 8 and beyond yet the nodes per second is clearly increasing.
regards,
--tom
regards,
--tom
-
- Posts: 3657
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:41 am
- Location: hungary
Re: Ryzen tips
[quote="Laskos"]
The search widens with more threads. ....
[/quote]
But why?
If you swells the number of cores from 1 to 2, from 2 to 4 or from 4 to 8
not only the wide of search but the depth of search grows too - presuming the cores are physical cores. But if you uses logical cores (by HT/SMT modes) you can experience this strange phenomenon described above.
I think this issue is caused by the behavior of CPU and maybe the operating system too.
The search widens with more threads. ....
[/quote]
But why?
If you swells the number of cores from 1 to 2, from 2 to 4 or from 4 to 8
not only the wide of search but the depth of search grows too - presuming the cores are physical cores. But if you uses logical cores (by HT/SMT modes) you can experience this strange phenomenon described above.
I think this issue is caused by the behavior of CPU and maybe the operating system too.
-
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:14 pm
- Location: Colorado, USA
- Full name: John Stanback
Re: Ryzen tips
Hi Tom,Tom Likens wrote:Hi John,jstanback wrote:Code: Select all
Threads Knps Depth EBF 1 1447 14.2 1.72 2 2886 14.9 1.72 4 5660 15.9 1.68 6 8294 16.5 1.71 8 10806 16.7 1.68 10 12045 16.7 1.69 12 13141 16.7 1.71 14 14149 16.7 1.69 16 15135 16.7 1.67
It's interesting to me, going from 8 threads to 16 yields a speed increase of almost 5 million nodes per
second but no depth increase. I wonder why that is? I would have expected a small increase, but you
get an identical depth of 16.7 for all threads at 8 and beyond yet the nodes per second is clearly increasing.
regards,
--tom
regards,
--tom
With "lazy SMP" search, the number of nodes required to reach a given depth increases as #threads increases. In the case of Wasp, it appears that the additional nodes and additional speed for cores beyond 8 just balance and the depth stays constant. But ask Kai mentioned, the search "widens" with more threads -- which means that different branches are examined and the chance of finding a better move increases. So perhaps Kai is right that 16 threads is best for Wasp. Maybe I'll run a match between 16 threads and 8 threads to see what happens. But it will take quite a while to get enough games....
John
-
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:43 am
- Location: New Delhi, India
Re: Ryzen tips
WOW ! So many different interpretations of the same data !
Now what Kai Laskos says seems to make sense....until someone else contradicts him !
Now what Kai Laskos says seems to make sense....until someone else contradicts him !
i7 5960X @ 4.1 Ghz, 64 GB G.Skill RipJaws RAM, Twin Asus ROG Strix OC 11 GB Geforce 2080 Tis
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: Ryzen tips
What I said is valid for Stockfish with Lazy SMP, I forgot that the numbers are for another engine.jstanback wrote:Hi Tom,Tom Likens wrote:Hi John,jstanback wrote:Code: Select all
Threads Knps Depth EBF 1 1447 14.2 1.72 2 2886 14.9 1.72 4 5660 15.9 1.68 6 8294 16.5 1.71 8 10806 16.7 1.68 10 12045 16.7 1.69 12 13141 16.7 1.71 14 14149 16.7 1.69 16 15135 16.7 1.67
It's interesting to me, going from 8 threads to 16 yields a speed increase of almost 5 million nodes per
second but no depth increase. I wonder why that is? I would have expected a small increase, but you
get an identical depth of 16.7 for all threads at 8 and beyond yet the nodes per second is clearly increasing.
regards,
--tom
regards,
--tom
With "lazy SMP" search, the number of nodes required to reach a given depth increases as #threads increases. In the case of Wasp, it appears that the additional nodes and additional speed for cores beyond 8 just balance and the depth stays constant. But ask Kai mentioned, the search "widens" with more threads -- which means that different branches are examined and the chance of finding a better move increases. So perhaps Kai is right that 16 threads is best for Wasp. Maybe I'll run a match between 16 threads and 8 threads to see what happens. But it will take quite a while to get enough games....
John