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.

112 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

    1. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      If Apple really wants to lower their costs they'll put their own A-series CPU/GPUs in their Macs.

      Now that I have a gaming PC next to my Mac mini, I don't care as long as the future Mac can run the software I need. Bonus points if it means a cheaper MacBook Air that can run for 20 hours per charge.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think I had read that Apple is locked into a deal with Intel for several more years, so I wouldn't expect to see any AMD processors soon.

      I suspect that in the long run, Apple's plan is to replace Intel with their own custom chips. Their recent ARM SoCs don't clock as high as Intel chips, but they have been able to achieve similar performance per clock in many areas.

      It's probably still a few years before they make the move to their own chips, but it seems like that's where they're going. This seems even more likely as the amount of performance needed for consumer PCs is going to remain relatively fixed while improvements in chip design and fabrication processes make it economically possible for Apple to use their own SoCs in their notebooks or desktops even if they can't compete with the most powerful high-end Intel or AMD chips.

      Perhaps Apple will start designing products intended for the professional market that still use those high-end CPUs from Intel/AMD, but most of their customers don't require that level of power and it's probably much more cost economical for Apple to use their own custom chips, especially if they have lower power draw for similar levels of performance.

    3. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I think he was probably talking about performance not cost. I've seen many claims that ARM processors can match desktop ones, but they are bad claims. ARM ones can do very well on microbenchmarks, but they lack the cache and memory bandwidth to go fast, because those things are expensive in terms of power, heat and die area.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by enjar · · Score: 1

      I wonder which is cheaper: 1) Porting OSX to A-series CPUs, then supporting multiple processors for a while, and potentially lose customers/vendors or 2) Buying AMD outright. AMD's market cap is only 12.4 billion. Apple could pay for that out of cash. Apple probably has a decent number for what they paid to move to Intel, and what moving to Intel got them.

    5. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's not like you can't pair any core with a bigger cache and memory controller, though.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Whatever the cost, remember when the Keynote when they told us they had Mac OS X running on Intel CPUs since practically the beginning? You can be sure they also have macOS running on A11 (or whatever) in their labs right now.

      And since power requirements and heat dissipation are much different in something the size of a MacBook air compared to something like an iPhone or iPad, you can be sure whatever numbers we've seen for the iPad Pro are lower than what we'd see in a A11-powered MacBook.

      Perhaps they also have dual or even Quad-A11 in their prototypes. I don't know the cost of an A11 compared to a i5 but I'm thinking they can put multiple A11's inside a Mac before reaching the cost of a single i5.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      What about multiple multi-core ARMs working in parallel compared to a single multi-core mobile CPU? Because that's what Apple uses in the Mac Mini, the MacBooks and the iMac. The MacBook is even worst, using an ultra-low-power mobile CPU, a single ARM is probably at least head-to-head with it, if not faster.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      And the MacBook Pro and iMac have AMD GPUs for a long while. What is the problem?

      http://appleinsider.com/articl...

    9. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by enjar · · Score: 1

      Whatever the cost, remember when the Keynote when they told us they had Mac OS X running on Intel CPUs since practically the beginning? You can be sure they also have macOS running on A11 (or whatever) in their labs right now.

      And since power requirements and heat dissipation are much different in something the size of a MacBook air compared to something like an iPhone or iPad, you can be sure whatever numbers we've seen for the iPad Pro are lower than what we'd see in a A11-powered MacBook.

      Perhaps they also have dual or even Quad-A11 in their prototypes. I don't know the cost of an A11 compared to a i5 but I'm thinking they can put multiple A11's inside a Mac before reaching the cost of a single i5.

      There's a hardware cost, but there's also a non-trivial software cost -- to maintain two compiler versions, support two versions of applications, etc. If they just swapped AMD for Intel they don't need to leave x86 land. And if they bought AMD outright, they control the cost of chips, too.

    10. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by stabiesoft · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does AMD have an x86 license that is transferrable in the case of a change of control? It could be no one can buy AMD and retain the jewel.

    11. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      RISC core with a bigger cache and memory controller. They could call it PowerPC.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      As I said, they won't say it but I'm sure the non-trivial software cost is already done and always have been there since the first days of Mac OS X. It's not like Apple are strangers to platform changes. 68K to PPC, PPC to Intel and maybe Intel to ARM in the (near) future.

      They also had fat binaries with both PPC and x86 code at the same time, then 32-bit and 64-bit too, so don't count them out because they'd have to support two versions of everything. They've done it before and they're probably still doing it. So there's no added cost. If they think people will accept ARM-powered Macs and it can both reduce the price of the Macs and make them more profit at the same time, they'll do it.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    13. Re: Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      He's right, though, sugar tits.

    14. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      dear god no. apple cannot buy AMD. they are finally waking up after a decade slumber, last thing i want to see is apple owning them.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    15. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Why? Apple is mostly consumer oriented and the majority of consumer software and tasks gets little or zero benefit from being able to spin up so many threads. They usually get a far better return on a faster core rather than lots of cores.

    16. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      What about multiple multi-core ARMs working in parallel compared to a single multi-core mobile CPU?

      Depends on the workload. However, there's not a lot of single core processors left in the mobile space.

      Because that's what Apple uses in the Mac Mini

      The bottom end mac mini has a dual core part. But it's a pretty old part, so the comparison isn't great.

      the MacBooks and the iMac. The MacBook is even worst, using an ultra-low-power mobile CPU, a single ARM is probably at least head-to-head with it, if not faster.

      I've got a macbook pro for work. It's got a quad core i7 in it. That also supports 256 bit vector instructions versus somewhat less for ARM. And if you dig into the specs, the memory architecture is much, much wider for the intel processors. Narrow architectures work well for microbenchmarks, much less well for real-world data processing, but the penalty is power draw and heat.

      Anyway, I develop compute intensive codes for mobile deployment. There's always a huge speed penalty going from my laptop to actual phone deployment.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      They may not clock as high, but they're used for small battery powered mobile devices with passive cooling. They could probably clock them up quite significantly with some moderate heatsinks and fans.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    18. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      going ARM will kill fast VM's and other X86-64 only stuff

    19. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      There's a hardware cost, but there's also a non-trivial software cost -- to maintain two compiler versions, support two versions of applications, etc.

      I've shipped MacOS applications built for three different processors (PowerPC 32 bit, x86 32 and 64 bit), and lots of people ship iPhone apps for three different processors (armv7, armv7s, aarch64). Apple has no problem whatsoever supporting any number of different processors if they want to.

      If Apple built an iPhone with an Intel processor for example, that wouldn't be more than five minutes time for most developers.

    20. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Read my comment again. I said multiple multi-core ARMs vs a single multi-core x86. Surely Apple's own A10-whatever costs a lot less than any intel CPU they're using so they could put more than one A10 in their Macs.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    21. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I think I had read that Apple is locked into a deal with Intel for several more years, so I wouldn't expect to see any AMD processors soon.

      Unless AMD has changed, Apple will never invest in an AMD processor.

      The reason is simple. It's why Apple is using Intel these days after abandoning PowerPC. Besides PowerPC performance issues, Motorola and IBM both failed to deliver on their commitments - shortages of Macs were well known in the PowerPC days, because Apple just could not get their hands on enough PowerPC chips to make computers. The best machines were sold out constantly as people wanted them Apple wanted to supply them, but IBM and Motorola decided Apple wasn't big enough a player to get them.

      AMD has the same problem. Even at the enthusiast level, they still have problems supplying enthusiasts with the parts they want. Part shortages are well known. AMD just doesn't have sufficient resources to be able to supply Apple with all the chips it wants.

      Hell, it might get so bad Apple would just buy the design outright from AMD and fab it themselves, which means AMD gets frozen out of the fabs they need in order to produce parts. There is no scenario where Apple using AMD is good for AMD - either they'd be forced to supply Apple at the expense of everyone else, or Apple would be forced to fab it themselves and force AMD to fight for fab capacity.

      Intel has fab capacity - they can make Apple's order of millions of parts easily without jeopardizing their product line or other customer orders.

      Apple has a lot of purchasing clout - the DRAM and flash memory markets are almost single-handledly decided by Apple. When an iPhone sells slower than normal, the price ripple is felt by a glut of parts on the market.

      As for Apple buying AMD? Won't happen. Intel will make sure of it - Intel just cannot have AMD be brought in and have Apple's level of resources behind it. Such a deal would benefit Apple a lot (access to AMD's and Intel's patents would help a lot for their SoCs), and AMD would stop having to go from feast and famine by having the resources of a more profitable company behind it.

    22. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There's a hardware cost, but there's also a non-trivial software cost -- to maintain two compiler versions, support two versions of applications, etc

      They already maintain the compiler, toolchain, kernel, and most of their core frameworks on x86-64, AArch32 and AArch64 and they only just stopped supporting them on x86-32. The biggest issue would be for third-party developers, but Apple hasn't had a problem with this in the past and they already support fat binaries and have infrastructure for building them in their dev tools.

      If they just swapped AMD for Intel they don't need to leave x86 land. And if they bought AMD outright, they control the cost of chips, too.

      They already have their own in-house CPU and GPU design teams. The only thing that they'd gain from buying AMD would be an x86 license. They'd lose a lot because most PC makers wouldn't want to buy CPUs from Apple, so AMD would lose out on economies of scale.

      It's also worth remembering that a big part of the reason for their switch from IBM to Intel was that they were buying all of the particular models of PowerPC chips that IBM was making. When they switched to Intel, they were shipping about 20% of Intel's production: enough that they were the largest single customer and so got preferential treatment but not enough that they were paying the entire R&D costs. For mobile chips, it's worth it because it's a competitive advantage, but for mobile chips it probably isn't.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Who modded this insightful - nobody serious uses AMD.

      True, now, but that's a fairly recent development. The Opteron shipped in 2003. It wasn't until 2009 that Intel integrated the memory controller on die and caught up. In that period, all serious server deployments were AMD. Xeons were overpriced and underpowered in comparison.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      oh ok, but the arm cores don't have expensive, power hungry high bandwidth inter CPU links. Only the server processors have those at the moment.

      It's much harder to male those 10,000 chickens work well on a wide bak variety of tasks.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    25. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by bjb · · Score: 1

      "Pretty small market" ... which are you referring to? Perhaps in the personal consumer space it is a small market (I mean, if you bought the Mac to do email/browser/photos, why would you need Windows?), but in the professional workplace I would say easily 30-40% of the people I know with Macs have run a Windows VM at some point. I'm not claiming to be a defining voice here or perhaps even a strong representative sample, but there are people who wouldn't have bought a Mac if it weren't for the fact that they can run Windows when necessary.

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
    26. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Since iPhones and iPads, iTunes and others bring in a lot more money than all Macs combined, does it really matter to Apple to lose a small percentage of Mac sales if it means lower-priced Macs with a bigger profit margin? (ex: intel CPU cost $300, Apple's A11 cost $30, they lower their Mac price by $200 and still make $70 more profit than before).

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    27. Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu! by Agripa · · Score: 1

      No, AMD's x86 licensing deals are not transferable and would have to be renegotiated.

  2. Inaccurate Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    AMD is using CPUs from week 25+ to fullfill RMAs. They have been doing additional testing in Customer Service on those CPUs -people are getting boxes that have been opened with handwritten notes relating to this testing.

    It's *not known with certainty that ALL* week 25+ CPUs are good. AMD has made no official statement on that. They sent Phoronix a testing CPU just like they have been sending to their RMA customers.

    Most stores and retail sellers are still selling pre-week 25 CPUs, so those may still be impacted.

    I find it really interesting that Phoronix received a bunch of Threadripper and Epyc test hardware immediatly after they published AMDs PR-speak statement. And this article which has no concrete information is being used all over the internet to say that this is "fixed"

    1. Re:Inaccurate Article by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's what PR is all about. It's not about getting the problems fixed: it's about getting people to think that the problem is fixed.

      Engineers usually fix problems. But right now, they don't want to issue a full recall, so they still sell the old - defective - CPUs assuming that most people run Windows on top of it.

      Do any company really care about a desktop processor running a "server" OS like Linux? No.

      Hell, most consumer / prosumer Intel chipsets have no drivers for W2K12 / W2K16. Tweaks exist, but not for the faint of heart.

    2. Re:Inaccurate Article by Kjella · · Score: 1

      From what I understand it the "fixed" CPUs have the same stepping, indicating that it's a build tolerance issue that AMD will initially solve by adding it to their quality control. Presumably they have some inventory that's already boxed, but if you RMA a CPU with this issue they'll explicitly test for it so you don't get affected a second time. I agree it's still not a guarantee you won't experience this problem, but if the cure is a RMA away it's not worse than any other defective/DOA equipment. IMHO that's a solved problem.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Inaccurate Article by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Getting people a CPU that works is a fix. If it doesn't impact your workload, you don't need to worry about it.

      Cost-of-risk factors into business overhead, and requires reserve cash. That means a business's profitability fluctuates--maybe 12% this year, 4% that year, average of 9% profit, once in a while you have to dump your cash coffers to take massive growth (opportunity risk) or deal with 6 straight years of billion-dollar losses (threat risk)--and they need the revenue and thus the pricing to cover that.

      Do you want to pay to cover "we replaced hundreds of thousands of latest-generation processors", or "we got processors that worked for most of our users to them, and put in some expensive-per-unit testing to pick out processor that work for the small fraction of users who experience a particular problem not impacting all of our units"?

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    4. Re:Inaccurate Article by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      It's also apparently only affecting Linux, so they can shelve and test the RMA units and then roll them back out as refurbished units if this proves to not affect other users. They could announce that, or they could do it quietly before announcing the issue has been resolved completely and just rely on 98% of their consumer base being Windows users building ridiculous gaming boxes and deal with "my Linux won't work" exactly as they're doing it today, although someone is going to notice the pattern in refurbished units.

      If it's a build tolerance issue, it's likely more-expensive to just build the machine to better tolerance, so this is the best option for consumers (do you want to pay $3,000, or pay $1,000 and have a small chance of waiting another week to swap the CPU off in the mail? $2,000 expedited shipping is serious shit).

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    5. Re:Inaccurate Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it affects all operating systems. It doesn't affect lightly threaded workloads or workloads where the same program runs in a tight loop (which is most Windows workloads). People who use other Unices or do similar workloads under Windows have the same problem. AMD is intentionally dissembling about the users affected.

      They need to fix this going forward and they know it. They are teetering on the edge of a class action recall as it is.

      In 1999 Toshiba settled a case about defective floppy drive controllers (dating back 21 years) for which they said they had never received a single complaint for $2 BILLION.

      In 1994 Intel recalled ALL its Pentium processors because of an FDIV bug affecting one of out of nine billion floating point divides (being off 61 parts per million). It was discovered by a professor who used his Pentium computers to calculate primes 24/7. This cost Intel $500 million.

      The idea that AMD can knowingly ship chips which fail on the exact workloads they are designed to handle (the fact that gamers buy them out of brand loyalty is beside the point - gamers don't stress the system) is absurd.

  3. What is an average kernel build time? by CycleFreak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For those of us that have not actually built a kernel, is 36 seconds astonishingly fast? A little faster? A totally random number with no meaning whatsoever?

    Maybe some of you that do build kernels every once in a while could share your times along with specs for your rig.

    1. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      about 20 years ago, my 486DX took 2.5 days to build a kernel.

    2. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by scourfish · · Score: 1

      I have a laptop with a mobile core i7 processor. It takes me 2 or 3 minutes to cross compile a linux kernel for an embedded arm device. I run my compiler in a VM. 38 seconds is nice, but not mind-blowing.

    3. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 4, Funny

      For those of us that have not actually built a kernel, is 36 seconds astonishingly fast?

      I did a little checking and here's what I found. It's faster than 37 seconds, but not as fast as 35 seconds.

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

      Back in the days when I would regularly build kernels (about 15 years ago), my 1.2 GHZ Pentium-4 would take most of the night to compile. Most recently, I compiled a custom kernel on a surface-pro-4 (Core i5-6300U CPU @ 2.40GHz) in June, and it took about 15 minutes.

      Neither of the examples above are latest-and-greatest, but 36 seconds is really impressive.

    5. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by kalpol · · Score: 1

      I can't remember how long it used to take, but I do remember starting Gentoo kernel compilations in the evening on my Inspiron 2600 back in the day and it would be done in the morning.

      --
      12:50 - press return.
    6. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      In my experience, it typically takes upwards of 10 minutes, so yes... 36 seconds is astonishingly fast.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    7. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      + fucking 1

      Man I miss those days. You really felt a bad ass when you needed that turbo.

      On my 486 SX25 it would take a day or more to build the kernel so if you messed up on my make menuconfig settings you were in for some hurt when you have to fix it. I remember setting it to compile at night and then coming home from school the next day to test the build image.

      Times they are a changin'. Kids these days have no idea (GET OFF MY LAWN!)

    8. 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.

    9. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by ckatko · · Score: 2

      It's most likely I/O bound too.

      C (and far worse, C++) compilation is incredibly I/O bound because of the insanely archaic include system (and preprocessor too) . I'm not even talking out of my ass. It's such a problem that Facebook and (IIRC) Google have both come up with custom solutions to try and reduce compile times because they're so insanely taxing on their day-to-day operations.

      Fun side note: Andrei Alexandrescu and Walter Bright (creators behind the D language) were directly involved in helping Facebook improve their compile and linking problem.

      https://code.facebook.com/post...

      And one of the main advantages for using D is actually compilation times, of which Facebook ported a large project over. In the previous link, they saw total project build times decrease by up to 40%. FORTY PERCENT.

      Now I'm not saying "Everyone switch to D." But clearly there are issues in C (and worse C++) that become significant headaches for large codebases.

    10. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by ckatko · · Score: 1

      How many times did you run the test?

    11. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by CycleFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is incredibly helpful insight. You should work at Gartner.

    12. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by dow · · Score: 1

      36 seconds is fast whatever they are building, but it shouldn't take all night, or several days even for any of those above processors to compile a kernel... even the 486. When you roll your own kernel, you don't need to compile most of it. Not even as modules.

    13. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by Strider- · · Score: 2

      I remember it taking several hours, but that was 2.0.3x running on a 386dx40 with 8MB of RAM... now get off my lawn...

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    14. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      How long before there's a GRUB2 module (installed by default on Gentoo) that will recompile the kernel from source at every boot? And how long after that until SystemD integrates a compile-on-access setup for all managed services?

      Just imagine, everytime you turn the system on, everything is recompiled from source, and don't even notice! Everytime something connects to a socket over the network, the service is compiled fresh! :)

    15. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by null+etc. · · Score: 1

      It's faster than 37 seconds, but not as fast as 35 seconds.

      So in other words, it's merely average.

    16. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      In the case of Linux it would be more CPU bound because of all the files that could be compiled in parallel as it is a big project. A 16 core 32 thread system can work on alot of .c and .h files at a time.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    17. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

      36 second stat is meaningless for the ThreadRipper 1950X without something to compare it against. How long it it take to compile the exact same kernel with the exact same configuration on another box with an i7-7700K or the Ryzen 1800X?

      That is like me saying my new database program takes 15 seconds to do a certain SQL select statement against a 5 million row table. It means nothing until I tell you that the exact same statement running on Postgres on the same box takes 38 seconds.

    18. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by yorgasor · · Score: 1

      It's theoretically meaningful, but only if it's a measurement others can replicate. In the olden days, I'd build my own kernel every time a new release came out. I had to go through and select all the drivers and features I wanted, but most of the kernel code in the tarball never got compiled. Assuming he's taking the default source config, and assuming that the configuration process doesn't go out and automatically detect a bunch of drivers and automatically select them (this would cause different platforms to be doing different things, and wouldn't allow for a direct comparison in speed), then it would be a good benchmark.

      Compiling goes really fast with really good I/O (I'm guessing he used an NVMe SSD) and lots of cores, so this workload is an excellent way to push the entire system. With slower disks and fewer cores, this process will take considerably longer.

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    19. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by evilbessie · · Score: 2

      I only remember needing to turn it off for games which were clock locked.

    20. Re: What is an average kernel build time? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      I once tried to build a NetBSD kernel on my Mac SE/30....

    21. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by wings · · Score: 1

      For reference a 386SX-16 would take about 4-1/2 hours to bulid R2.x kernels back in the mid-90's.

    22. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by MarginallyStable · · Score: 1

      My Ryzen 1700X (all stock settings ) does a defconfig kernel in 65 seconds. And I have occasional segfaults (although I have yet to have one after upgrading to GCC-7.2)

    23. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      C (and far worse, C++) compilation is incredibly I/O bound because of the insanely archaic include system (and preprocessor too)

      Not on any reasonably spec'd machine. After the first time a header is read, it's going to be in the buffer cache and so the next compilation job that needs them gets them out of RAM (unless you have such a tiny amount of RAM that they're evicted already, but even huge projects only have a few hundred MBs of headers and a single compiler invocation will use more RAM than that). Watching our build machines, they never read from the disk during big C/C++ compile jobs.

      The bottleneck for C/C++ is that you end up re-parsing the same things over and over again. A typical C/C++ compilation unit is a few hundred thousand lines of code, but only a few hundred to a few thousand of those are unique to the compilation unit, the rest are shared. This is even worse for C++ than C, because template instantiations (often the same ones) are computationally expensive and because C++ implementations typically involve generating the same functions repeatedly and then having the linker throw them away. For example, a debug build of clang is 1.4GB, but generates 11GB of object code along the way, so the linker is throwing away almost 10GB of duplicates.

      This is what the C++ module system addresses: it allows you to store ASTs from headers once and avoid re-parsing. With LTO, you can also avoid optimising the same functions multiple times and avoid generating binary code from them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      How long before there's a GRUB2 module (installed by default on Gentoo) that will recompile the kernel from source at every boot?

      It exists already. This was one of the demos for tcc (which didn't optimise much, but compiled really fast): it would compile the kernel from the loader and then boot.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    25. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1

      5-digit UID Burn!

      --
      Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
    26. Re:What is an average kernel build time? by bendarebefore · · Score: 1

      It depends on the kernel settings. I have a Phenom II 1090T (6-core) processor and it takes hours from a make clean to a complete install. Most of that time the processor is fully loaded.
      But, I'm building a BIG kernel, like slackwares Huge.s. For a small embedded device it would take much less time.
      As for what kernel config the stat was garnered from, I don't know.
      I think I'll try to find it and then see how long it takes on my system. The I can post back my results.

  4. Re:Stable at last! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    My AMD 80386 DX-40 was stable.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  5. Re:Stable at last! by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1

    I meant modern generation processors. I also remember that not long after that 80386 DX-40, there were bunches of AMD Athlon running so hot you could use em as pool heaters.

  6. Re:Stable at last! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    No shit. Every CPU back in the day was hot enough that if you got three workstations running them in a room, you could turn the heat off.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Re:Stable at last! by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Back in the days, most people agreed that P4 was performing better and much cooler than the Athlon XP. You usually needed very good cooling to run any interesting workload on an Athlon XP if you wanted it to be stable.

  8. Re:Stable at last! by Kjella · · Score: 1

    No shit. Every CPU back in the day was hot enough that if you got three workstations running them in a room, you could turn the heat off.

    Welcome to nostalgia, truth is the Athlon/Athlon XP/Athlon 64 topped out at 72/79/89W with a few FX processors going up to 125W, roughly the same as a modern day mainstream CPU. It was however a *huge* power hike from the 34W power consumption on a Pentium 3 and Intel's Netburst was even worse but in the race of the Gigahertz power consumption was completely ignored. If the workstations aren't running as hot or hotter today, it's because they're idle...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  9. Re:Stable at last! by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1

    Seriously the most insightful comment I've read today.

    Aside that, a quick search for "FX-8320E problems" on Google gets me a ton of results showing that so many folks have problems with this CPU... OK, so many because they try to overclock it. But some folks get the problem that only 2 out of 4 cores are usable...

    Yeah, nice product man.

  10. Re:Stable at last! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Yes, and desktop CPUs back then had much more limited or no power saving features. So it's not like you can't argue about the heat from an idle Netburst box being negligible.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  11. 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.

  12. Re:Stable at last! by XanC · · Score: 1

    I do believe there was an 80386 DX-40. Intel's topped out at 33MHz, but AMD had a 40MHz part. IIRC.

  13. Re:Stable at last! by Nutria · · Score: 1

    My non-OCed FX-6100 has been rock-stable for 4.5 years.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  14. I doubt Apple pays those prices by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Intel has been without a viable competitor for some time now (especially on low power CPUs). But they've been careful to keep it that way by giving OEMs sweetheart deals.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  15. My A10-5800k is rock solid by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It's also on a high quality board from MSI with good quality RAM. AMD's a lot less tolerant of cheap boards/ram than Intel. You'll regret that $40 dollar AMD mobo. It's the reason I never bothered with an 8350. It wasn't any cheaper than the faster i5 by the time I factored in the cost of the mobo.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  16. Agreed, bullshit by HBI · · Score: 1

    I had many Athlon XPs. I used to run Gentoo on them. Compiling in a distcc cluster. I beat the hell out of those processors, all on air with stock coolers.

    You're spreading disinformation.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  17. WTF? by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

    My Phenom II X2 550 BE, which had two unlockable cores in addition to the two "offical" ones, has been running rock-solid in quad-core mode since I built up the system, and does fine with the stock AMD cooler. Yeah, I lucked out with the extra cores, but it's been running 24/7 aside from occasional hardware changes and OS updates for at least six years now.

    My only regret was not springing for 8 GB of ECC memory instead of 4 GB. At the time, I could only get 4 x 1GB sticks of ECC RAM at a reasonable price. But even with "only" 4 GB it's still pretty quick, especially for its age. A solid-state drive on a SATA-3 controller helped a great deal.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  18. Re:Let's play "Who's the Intel shill?" by Predius · · Score: 1

    Actually, the OS can apply microcode updates as well as the BIOS, so it's possible for Linux / Windows / etc to apply the fix even if the mobo mfg says pound sand.

  19. 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.

    1. Re:Can Confirm by ffkom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Bloody stellar" I would call if they:

      - Had an understanding of the root cause of the bug, and told the public what it was and how they solved it
      - Told everyone how to distinguish affected CPUs from unaffected CPUs (without a multi-hour run of some test-script that not AMD, but desparate affected buyers implemented and made available)
      - Recalled all the defective CPUs and replaced them with working ones, including CPUs sold as part of computers

      What you describe is rather the bare minimum they owe customers going through lots of trouble due to a defect product they were sold.

    2. Re:Can Confirm by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You call that good support? You are affected by a known issue, you have to call them and then they still make you jump through a bunch of hoops to get a replacement part?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re: Can Confirm by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      They engaged him in the process and made him feel like part of the team. Excellent marketing.

  20. Re:Stable at last! by Lothsahn · · Score: 2

    Also calling BS.

    I just decommissioned my Athlon XP 2200+ 2 years ago. It had been in operation for 13 years with the original Motherboard and processor. Rock solid stability on Linux, 3 months between BSOD's on Windows XP. Used a Vantec heatsink--nothing exotic. Oh, and I beat the hell out of that thing--I used to game on all through college, and then used it for a home server.

    Decommissioned because the motherboard died. Capacitors finally wore out and burst after 13 years... Processor still works, but once the caps went, the system became very unstable. One of the best processors I've ever bought.

    --
    -=Lothsahn=-
  21. Re:Stable at last! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Seriously, do people not even bother using Google anymore? Here's the AMD 80386 DX-40.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  22. Re: Stable at last! by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    On the flip side, millions of us got cheaper two core models that unlocked a 3rd and 4th core for free.

  23. Threadripper != Ryzen by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3

    Yes they are very similiar but Threadripper is their consumer version of the upcoming Xeon competitor.

    AMD admitted it did little testing on the regular Ryzen line as most consumers would be running WIndows anyway and admitted in the future they will test this out. FreeBSD is also impacted by the same bug where things get out of order and corrupted under heavy loads.

    Threadripper has more cache and a different caching and memory as it supports NUMA and non-NUMA for server oriented loads and this is where the bug is here.

    Unfortunately, this makes me very cautious to purchase an AMD system as it does have a reputation of being bargain grade. But, it is a brand new architecture from scratch. I maybe open to Ryzen2 or Threadripper2 after some of the bugs are worked out.

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
    1. Re:Threadripper != Ryzen by arth1 · · Score: 1

      This bug is precisely why I just ordered a dual Xeon system instead of a Ryzen Threadripper. I can't risk it.
      The Xeons for the same price are slower clocked than the 1950X, but the build load is mostly thread and IO bound, so that's not as big a worry as a thread dying.

    2. Re:Threadripper != Ryzen by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      This bug is precisely why I just ordered a dual Xeon system instead of a Ryzen Threadripper. I can't risk it.
      The Xeons for the same price are slower clocked than the 1950X, but the build load is mostly thread and IO bound, so that's not as big a worry as a thread dying.

      The newest Ryzen already don't have the issue, and if you see it, you can get a new one through AMD QA. Since it only triggers on Linux it is probably a small subset of costumers affected, though we would all have loved if they could explain exactly what happened.

  24. Re:Stable at last! by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

    It wasn't just the CPU. Those old CRT monitors could crank out the heat pretty well too!

  25. Re:Stable at last! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

    Back in the days, most people agreed that P4 was performing better and much cooler than the Athlon XP. You usually needed very good cooling to run any interesting workload on an Athlon XP if you wanted it to be stable.

    WHo modded this up?

    THe Athlon XP was light years ahead because it had an integrated memory controller on the cpu and not the chipset chip on the board. It also had more FPU units and didn't have long scalar pipelines with terrible memory latency with Rambus ram like the Pentium IV.

    I call BS as well as the P4 was for the clueless who bought Dells and bought Intel for brandname only. THe only thing good about it was the extreme edition in 2004 had hyperthreading. Meanwhile AMD had the Athlon MP for dual cores long before core2duo

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  26. Can you still buy one with the bug? by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

    If you order one now, will it have the fix or not? In other words are they still selling units that were made before the fix was incorporated into the production process?

    I am building a heavily threaded Windows program that does data management. One of the things it does is break SQL queries into small pieces and run them in parallel on multi-core boxes. I have queries that run more than twice as fast (or is that less than half as long?) as the same queries on PostgreSQL v9.5 running on the same box. I am concerned that this bug might affect my software.

    1. Re:Can you still buy one with the bug? by ffkom · · Score: 1

      AMD has never explained (and might not even know) the root cause of this bug. It is merely hear-say that newer CPUs are probably not affected.

      So yes, if you buy a Ryzen now you could still get one that is affected. Better make sure you run the test scripts for this bug for multiple hours before assuming you got a flawless CPU.

  27. Re:Stable at last! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    No shit. Every CPU back in the day was hot enough that if you got three workstations running them in a room, you could turn the heat off.

    Sure, for x86. Not so for Motorola.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Re:Stable at last! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    ive built both systems, and a good number of them both back in the day. every single time the AMD64 chip got a good 2 years of more real use than the intel chips. the intel chips werent really beating AMD until the "core" days

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  29. Re:Stable at last! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    correction - i meant to write athalon XP not AMD64

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  30. Bought the CPU inside a computer? You are screwed. by ffkom · · Score: 1

    AMD in many countries sends people who are affected by this bug off to their computer dealer if they did not buy a boxed retail CPU, but bought a whole computer with the Ryzen CPU as part of it.

    Which basically means they are screwed: Computer dealers totally lack the knowledge or incentive to even understand the nature of this bug, especially given the fact that AMD has never explained which of their CPUs are affected and which are not.

    So at best, your computer dealer will give you another computer in return, with a CPU in it that likely has the same defect. At worst, the computer dealer will just tell you that "Linux isn't supported" because many press articles wrongly claimed that this bug occurs only when using Linux.

    Two of my friends are currently going through this service nightmare, and I have postponed my plans for Ryzen/Threadripper/Epyc computers until I know how this will turn out for them.

  31. Re:Stable at last! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    No way. Pentium M or Intel Core sure. But P4 (especially the 'Presc-hot' version) of the 'Netbust' architecture were anything but that.

  32. what a dribbling paid Intel shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ryzen is generation ONE of a new architecture and it already slaughters Intel's entire x86 range, top to bottom. So Intel, in desperation, floods forums with FUD.

    This lying dribbler, guruevi- trusts that you, the Slashdot reader, are clueless. AMD encryption instructions are much faster than Intel's. Hyperthreading gen 1 on AMD is much more efficient than Intel hyperthreading gen 8, and what the hell is 'encryption' and 'hyperthreading' 'compatibility' even supposed to mean. These are things measured in performance alone, not 'compatibility'.

    As for these 'adavanced' features, Intel actually disables them on most chips it builds. Ryzen suffers far less from this cynical ploy.

    Oh, and BTW, the first two gens on Intel's hyperthreading were so broken you had to switch off HT in the BIOS to ensure serious software would run correctly on your computer.

    It gets worse. Lying dribblers like guruevi previously stated that Intel's R+D spend, and engineering 'expertise' meant it was impossible for any competitor to ever match Intel again. Yet the first gen Ryzen chips are MORE power efficient than all current Intel parts- a true humiliation for Intel. All Intel has left is so-called AVX instructions, an almost never used set of parallel maths processing units. Only problem is that they use so much power they throttle (slow down) greatly if you try to use them.

    AMD makes its CPUs on Global Foundaries. Yet TSMC, the giant Taiwan fab company, is twice as power efficient that GF. This is how far Intel's chip production has fallen behind in state-of-the-art engineering. Behind GF and far far far behind TSMC. No, Intel is finally going the way of DEC and Sun and other over-rated dinosaurs in this biz. Once the margins collapse, Intel won't be able to afford to stay in the game.

    1. Re:what a dribbling paid Intel shill by guruevi · · Score: 1

      All the advanced features which (especially) VMWare and other big name vendors use them and they either don't support AMD or the features don't work cross-platform so you can't do a live migration or you have to reconfigure your VMs to use different CPU architectures.

      This may change with Ryzen but as you said, it's the first generation, I'm not going to entrust my datacenter on something that had trouble handling a Linux kernel compile. Encryption is about half the speed on AMD vs Intel. Check the benchmarks: https://calomel.org/aesni_ssl_...

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  33. Re: Bought the CPU inside a computer? You are scre by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

    I am more concerned about the long term implications. Two years from now will it be iffy at best wether you should even bother trying to install Linux on that old AMD box that was retired from desktop use? Which boxes are the good ones? Which will be a problem? It's really the kind of nightmare nobody needs.

  34. Re:Stable at last! by willy_me · · Score: 1

    Not just the CRT monitors. I have an iMac-i7 with a 27" LCD. After the LCD broke, I unplugged the LCD from the mainboard and switched to an external monitor. The Al case went from being bloody hot to fairly cool. The fan no longer has to turn on making everything much quieter. I was quite surprised that the majority of he heat was from the LCD and not the i7 CPU. FYI, it was a first gen i7 - model 820, or close to that.

  35. Headline: Early Adopters Have Problems by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked, just shocked.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  36. Re:Stable at last! by MarginallyStable · · Score: 1

    My ALR Q-SMP Revolution quad pentium 90mhz ($5 auction score) kept my basement bedroom warm all through out college.

  37. Re:Stable at last! by MarginallyStable · · Score: 1

    I have an AMD 80386 DX-40 sitting on my workbench. I don't think intel could ever get it to 40mhz, But AMD did.

  38. Doubt Apple will buy AMD by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

    Apple switched to Intel because the PowerPC consortium wasn't delivering on their commitments for R & D sufficient to stay competitive with the power / performance ratio of Intel. Apple hardware was falling behind PC hardware. Part of why Steve Jobs was able to convince the Apple BOD to buy NeXT was because their OS was already able to deploy on either architecture.

    Intel's R & D investments were justified by the guaranteed volume. PowerPC was a niche server (IBM) and desktop (Apple) player, in contrast.

    If Apple buys AMD, then they're taking on the enormous R & D expense again to outperform Intel. To defray that expense, they'd have to maintain channels with other platforms they might eventually want to compete with like PlayStation and XboX. It works better for Apple to play both CPU vendors against each other for negotiating the best vendor contracts. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to think one of the reasons AMD investors were convinced to fund Threadripper R & D was because Apple was guaranteeing a bulk purchase for the forthcoming MacPRO pending AMD's ability to deliver a compelling power / performance ration. I'd love to build my next hackintosh on an AMD platform.

    --
    $5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
    1. Re:Doubt Apple will buy AMD by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Actually the PASemi PA6T was very good in terms of performance and power, and it was clearly more advanced than Intel's Core2 Duo: memory controller and PCI-E on die, while Intel's needed an external chipset. It would have been perfect in a laptop

      On paper. They never actually shipped any silicon. Switching to them would have been a huge gamble and would have left them in the same situation that they were attempting to avoid previously: paying 100% of the R&D costs and competing with companies that are were only paying a quarter of it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  39. AMD vs Intel on linux by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    I've been avoiding AMD based cpu / chipsets for a while now, Mostly down to the fact that its just a mistake to
    use AMD for running Linux. (Terrible GPU drivers) . Any Linux users out there care to comment on how AMD fare to Intel these days ?
    Thanks

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  40. In other words, by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 1

    There's a manufacturing problem. To solve this, they've come up with a stress test that gets them enough CPUs known to run the provocation test without failing, that they can ship those to people complaining about that problem. CPUs being sold continue to be as buggy as before, since in Windows such bugs get excused as video card shittiness or w/e.

    1. Re:In other words, by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

      Kinda True.

      I ran folding@home on a Ryzen 1800X and Nvidia 1080 setup, and it managed to cause a multitude of blue screens from which I could not determine the problem.

      A few graphics card driver updates later and the system seems rock solid.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
  41. Re:Stable at last! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    What the hell does heat have to do with stability?

    A LOT back in the day. There was no protection system scaling back processor speed when temperatures were exceeded. The first sign of high temperature is stability issues. Hell even to this day overclocking is still often a function of how much heat you can remove from a chip vs its stability at full load.

    The problem was back in the day not everyone wanted a vacuum cleaner in the study. Yeah my friend's Athlon 800 was perfectly stable. Mine however was always on the edge. Something to do with not wanting a constant drone in the corner of the room. I remember the opposite of overclocking happening quite a bit. People would have competitions to see how quiet they could get their computers without causing stability issues, rather than how fast.

  42. Finally by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    I can install Gentoo in under a day.

    1. Re:Finally by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Came here for this, was not disappointed. That was my first thought too. "When I get one of those in another year or two, maybe I should look at Gentoo again..." 7-8 years ago I got tired of compiling Gentoo all of the time. A 36 second kernel compile would definitely pique my interest in Gentoo once again. Gentoo can be blindingly fast, and I'm wondering exactly how fast with a CPU like this. If the kernel compile goes that fast, how about the rest of it?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  43. Ryzen microcode patch as new cpu with mcode update by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Phronix reported that AMD has debugged the problem and that all CPUs (1600-1800x for example) manufactured after week 30 (30 July) will not have this problem.
    There is a date of manufacture engraved on the cpu cover.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  44. Re:Ryzen microcode patch as new cpu with mcode upd by ffkom · · Score: 1

    Phronix reported that AMD has debugged the problem and that all CPUs (1600-1800x for example) manufactured after week 30 (30 July) will not have this problem.

    Can you provide a link? I am a regular Phoronix reader, but did not spot such a report. (And AMD returned CPUs manufactured earlier to some that RMA'd, and some of these _still_ had the defect.)