Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Ryzen Running Stable On Linux, Threadripper Builds Kernel In 36 Seconds (phoronix.com)

Posted by msmash on from the issued-in-public-interest dept.

An anonymous reader writes: After AMD confirmed the a "performance marginality problem" affecting some Ryzen Linux users, RMAs are being issued and replacement Ryzen processors arriving for affected opensource fans. Phoronix has been able to confirm that the new Ryzen CPUs are running stable without the segmentation fault problem that would occur under very heavy workloads. They have also been able to test now the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. The Threadripper 1950X on Linux is unaffected by any issues unless you count the lack of a thermal reporting driver. With the 32 threads under Linux they have been able to build the Linux kernel in just about a half minute.

3 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Depends a lot on how you configure it. If it's 36 seconds to compile a stripped bare kernel, it's mildly impressive. If it's 36 seconds to compile a complex kernel with tons of options, modules, etc. it's very impressive. I used to compile kernels with options for a home computer in 10-15 minutes in the late 90s early aughts (486-PIII days). A complex config might take hours. No doubt modern kernel compilation is more complex.

  2. Re:Stable at last! by ckatko · · Score: 3, Informative

    What the hell does heat have to do with stability?

    I've been running AMD processors since the X2. And X4... and AMD FX-8370. All of which run 100% fine to this day. (Even though I've had more than 2 motherboards die in the last couple years, the same CPUs keeps running fine.)

    My childhood friend ran an AMD Athlon 64 when they first came out.

    I used an AMD K6-266 when I was a teenager, and have numerous 486's (and even a 586 IIRC) lying around that still run. I even have a fucking AMD 8088 in my Compaq "Portable" (36 LBS!) built in 1986.

    And I'm not even a complete AMD fanboy. I'm a fanboy for my wallet. I've run nVidia videocards ever since 3DFX and my Voodoo 2 and 3 went tits up.

    But as for unreliable, I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. And there are tons of hot Intel CPUs out there. Pentium 4 HT's ran at a whopping 110 Watts back in the year 2000. My FX-8370 runs at... 125 W. And the Core i7 3970X Extreme Edition runs at... 150W. Now, you can cite the FX-9570 at 220W but that was a joke CPU (Google: "outlier") using a dated architecture to keep a little trickle of money coming into AMD from die-hard enthusiasts. It cost over $100 more, and only got like 15% more throughput than my 8370, while consuming another 100 watts of power.

    So yeah, AMD's typically run a little hotter because they have to make up for their worse fab technology (of which Intel a supreme leader). But as for super hot, or being unreliable... you better pull some citations out of your ass.

  3. Can Confirm by iCEBaLM · · Score: 3, Informative

    Have an Ryzen 7 1700 that was affected by the segfault issue. Contacted AMD, they wanted a pic of my case to make sure it wasn't a thermal issue. Then asked me to try some different vcore/vsoc voltages and retest. When I still had the problem they shipped me out a brand new in box CPU, and it's been working perfectly.

    AMD support is bloody stellar.