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

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.

Comments

Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

[Joe_Dragon]

Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

[DontBeAMoran]

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.

Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

[DontBeAMoran]

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.

Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

[stabiesoft]

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.

Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

[msauve]

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

Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

[DontBeAMoran]

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.

Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

[ganjadude]

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.

Re:Apple needs this not the $700 more intel cpu!

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Inaccurate Article

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

Re:Inaccurate Article

[courteaudotbiz]

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.

Re:Inaccurate Article

[bluefoxlucid]

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).

What is an average kernel build time?

[CycleFreak]

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.

Re:What is an average kernel build time?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:What is an average kernel build time?

[TimothyHollins]

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.

Re:What is an average kernel build time?

[mark-t]

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

Re:What is an average kernel build time?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What is an average kernel build time?

[ckatko]

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.

Re:What is an average kernel build time?

[CycleFreak]

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

Re:What is an average kernel build time?

[Strider-]

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...

Re:What is an average kernel build time?

[evilbessie]

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

Re:Stable at last!

[DontBeAMoran]

My AMD 80386 DX-40 was stable.

Re:Stable at last!

[ckatko]

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.

Can Confirm

[iCEBaLM]

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.

Re:Can Confirm

[ffkom]

"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.

Re:Stable at last!

[Lothsahn]

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.

Threadripper != Ryzen

[Billly Gates]

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.

Re:Stable at last!

[Billly Gates]

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

what a dribbling paid Intel shill

[Anonymous Coward]

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.