Creator Mode and Game Mode

*This page was updated on 8/17. A subsequent article with new information has been posted.

Due to the difference in memory latency between the two pairs of memory channels, AMD is implementing a ‘mode’ strategy for users to select depending on their workflow. The two modes are called Creator Mode (default), and Game Mode, and control two switches in order to adjust the performance of the system.

The two switches are:

  • Legacy Compatibility Mode, on or off (off by default)
  • Memory Mode: UMA vs NUMA (UMA by default)

The first switch disables the cores in one fo the silicon dies, but retains access to the DRAM channels and PCIe lanes. When the LCM switch is off, each core can handle two threads and the 16-core chip now has a total of 32 threads. When enabled, the system cuts half the cores, leaving 8 cores and 16 threads. This switch is primarily for compatibility purposes, as certain games (like DiRT) cannot work with more than 20 threads in a system. By reducing the total number of threads, these programs will be able to run. Turning the cores in one die off also alleviates some potential pressure in the core microarchitecture for cross communication.

The second switch, Memory Mode, puts the system into a unified memory architecture (UMA) or a non-unified memory architecture (NUMA) mode. Under the default setting, unified, the memory and CPU cores are seen as one massive block to the system, with maximum bandwidth and an average latency between the two. This makes it simple for code to understand, although the actual latency for a single instruction will be a good +20% faster or slower than the average, depending on which memory bank it is coming from.

NUMA still gives the system the full memory, but splits the memory and cores into into two NUMA banks depending on which pair of memory channels is nearest the core that needs the memory. The system will keep the data for a core as near to it as possible, giving the lowest latency. For a single core, that means it will fill up the memory nearest to it first at half the total bandwidth but a low latency, then the other half of the memory at the same half bandwidth at a higher latency. This mode is designed for latency sensitive workloads that rely on the lower latency removing a bottleneck in the workflow. For some code this matters, as well as some games – low latency can affect averages or 99th percentiles for game benchmarks.

The confusing thing about this switch is that AMD is calling it ‘Memory Access Mode’ in their documents, and labeling the two options as Local and Distributed. This is easier to understand than the SMT switch, in that the Local setting focuses on the latency local to the core (NUMA), and the Distributed setting focuses on the bandwidth to the core (UMA), with Distributed being default.

  • When Memory Access Mode is Local, NUMA is enabled (Latency)
  • When Memory Access Mode is Distributed, UMA is enabled (Bandwidth, default)

So with that in mind, there are four ways to arrange these two switches. AMD has given two of these configurations specific names to help users depending on how they use their system: Creator Mode is designed to give as many threads as possible and as much memory bandwidth as possible. Game Mode is designed to optimize for latency and compatibility, to drive game frame rates.

AMD Threadripper Options
  Words That Make Sense   Marketing Spiel
Ryzen
Master
Profile
Two Dies or
One Die
Memory
Mode
  Legacy
Compatibility
Mode
Memory
Access
Mode
Creator Mode Two UMA   Off Distributed
- Two NUMA   Off Local
- One UMA   On Distributed
Game Mode One NUMA   On Local

There are two ways to select these modes, although this is also a confusing element to this situation.

The way I would normally adjust these settings is through the BIOS, however the BIOS settings do not explicitly state ‘Creator Mode’ and ‘Game Mode’. They should give immediate access for the Memory Mode, where ASUS has used the Memory Access naming for Local and Distributed, not NUMA and UMA.  For the Legacy Compatibility Mode, users will have to dive several screens down into the Zen options and manually switch off eight of the cores, if the setting is going to end up being visible to the user. This makes Ryzen Master the easiest way to implement Game Mode.

While we were testing Threadripper, AMD updated Ryzen Master several times to account for the latest updates, so chances are that by the time you are reading this, things might have changed again. But the crux is that Creator Mode and Game Mode are not separate settings here either. Instead, AMD is labelling these as ‘profiles’. Users can select the Creator Mode profile or the Game Mode profile, and within those profiles, the two switches mentioned above (labelled as Legacy Compatibility Mode and Memory Access Mode) will be switched as required.

Cache Performance

As an academic exercise, Creator Mode and Game Mode make sense depending on the workflow. If you don’t need the threads and want the latency bump, Game Mode is for you. The perhaps odd thing about this is that Threadripper is aimed at highly threaded workloads more than gaming, and so losing half the threads in Game Mode might actually be a detriment to a workstation implementation.  That being said, users can leave SMT on and still change the memory access mode on its own, although AMD is really focusing more on the Creator and Game mode specifically.

For this review, we tested both Creator (default) and Game modes on the 16-core Threadripper 1950X. As an academic exercise we looked into memory latency in both modes, as well as at higher DRAM frequencies. These latency numbers take the results for the core selected (we chose core 2 in each case) and then stride through to hit L1, L2, L3 and main memory. For UMA systems like in Creator Mode, main memory will be an average between the near and far memory results. We’ve also added in here a Ryzen 5 1600X as an example of a single Zeppelin die, and a 6950X Broadwell for comparison. All CPUs were run at DDR4-2400, which is the maximum supported at two DIMMs per channel. 

For the 1950X in the two modes, the results are essentially equal until we hit 8MB, which is the L3 cache limit per CCX. After this, the core bounces out to main memory, where the Game mode sits around 79ns while the Creator mode is at 108 ns. By comparison the Ryzen 5 1600X seems to have a lower latency at 8MB (20ns vs 41 ns), and then sits between the Creator and Game modes at 87 ns. It would appear that the bigger downside of Creator mode in this way is the fact that main memory accesses are much slower than normal Ryzen or in Game mode.

If we crank up the DRAM frequency to DDR4-3200 for the Threadripper 1950X, the numbers change a fair bit:


Click for larger image

Up until the 8MB boundary where L3 hits main memory, everything is pretty much equal. At 8MB however, the latency at DDR4-2400 is 41ns compared to 18ns at DDR4-3200. Then out into full main memory sees a pattern: Creator mode at DDR4-3200 is close to Game Mode at DDR4-2400 (87ns vs 79ns), but taking Game mode to DDR4-3200 drops the latency down to 65ns.

Another element we tested while in Game Mode was the latency for near memory and far memory as seen from a single core. Remember this slide from AMD’s deck?

In our testing, we achieved the following:

  • At DDR4-2400, 79ns near memory and 136ns far memory (108ns average)
  • At DDR4-3200, 65ns near memory and 108ns far memory (87ns average)

Those average numbers are what we get for Creator mode by default, indicating that the UMA mode in Creator mode will just use memory at random between the two.

Silicon, Glue, & NUMA Too Test Bed and Setup
Comments Locked

347 Comments

View All Comments

  • Lolimaster - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    A single 1950X destroyed 80% of the intel xeon lineup.
  • Lolimaster - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Any cpu after nehalem perform enough at single thread except for software optimized too much for certain brands, like dolphin and intel.
  • Lolimaster - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Specially when every cpu right now autoclocks to 4Ghz on ST tasks. Single thread is just an obsolete metric when just the most basic of tasks will use it, tasks the last thing you will worry is speed, maybe curse about that piece of c*rap not using 80% of you cpu resources.
  • ZeroPointEF - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    I would love to see more VM benchmarking on these types of CPUs. I would also love to see how a desktop performs on top of a Server 2016 hypervisor with multiple servers (Windows and Linux) running on top of the same hypervisor.
  • ZeroPointEF - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    I should have made it clear that I loved the review. Ian's reviews are always great!

    I would just like to see these types of things in addition. It seems like we are getting to a point where we can have our own home lab and a desktop all on one machine on top of a hypervisor, but this idea may be my own strange dream.
  • smilingcrow - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    And others would like to know how it works at video editing or as a DAW etc.
    To add a whole bunch of demanding benchmarks just for HEDT systems is a hell of a lot of work for little return for a site whose main focus is the mainstream.
    Try looking at more specialised reviews.
  • johnnycanadian - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    This, please! My TR purchase is hinging on the performance of multiple VMWare VMs all running full-out at least 18 hours per day.

    Ian, I'd love to see some of your compute-intensive multi-core benches running on a Linux host with Linux-based VMWare VMs (OpenCV analysis, anyone? Send me that 1950x and I'll happily run SIFT and SURF analysis all day long for you :-). I was delighted by the non-gaming benchmarks shown first in this review and hope to see more professional benches on Anand. Leave the gamerkids to Tom's or HardOCP (or at least limit gaming benchmarks to hardware that is built for it): Anandtech has always been more about folks who make their living on HPDC, and I have nothing but the highest respect for the technical staff at this publication.

    I don't give a monkey's about RGB lighting, tempered glass cases, 4k gaming or GTAV FPS. How machines like Threadripper perform in a HPC environment is going to keep AMD in this market, and I sincerely hope they prove to be viable.
  • mapesdhs - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    Yes, I was pleased to see the non-gaming tests presented first, makes a change, and at least a subtle nod to the larger intended market for TR.

    Ian.
  • pm9819 - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    Your going to spend a $1000 on cpu but have no clue how it handles the tasks you need it for, smh. As a VMWare customer they will tell you which cpu has been certified to handle a specific tasked. You don't need a random website to tell you that.
  • nitin213 - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    Hi Ian
    It's a great review but i do have some suggestions on the test suite. The test suite for this CPU was not materially different from test suites of many of the other desktop CPUs done earlier. I think it would be great to see some tests which explicitly put to use the multi-threaded capabilities and the insane IOs of the system to test, e.g server hosting with how many users being able to login, virtual machines, more productivity test suites when put together with a multi-GPU setup (running adobe creator or similar) etc. I think a combination of your epyc test suite and your high-end GPU test suite would probably be best suited for this.

    Also, for the gaming benchmark, it seemed you had 1080, 1060, rx580 and rx480 GPUs. Not sure if these were being bottlenecked by GPU with differences in framerates being semantic and not necessarily a show of PC strength. Also, Civ 6 AI test suite would a great addition as that really stresses the CPU.

    i completely understand that there is only so much that can be done in a limited timeframe typically made available for these reviews but would be great to see these tests in future iterations and updates.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now