Analyzing Creator Mode and Game Mode

Way back on page 3, this review explained that AMD was promoting two modes: Creator Mode with all cores enabled and a uniform memory access (UMA) architecture, and Game Mode that disabled one of the dies and adjusted to a non-uniform memory architecture (NUMA). The idea was that in Creator Mode you had all the threads and bandwidth, while Game Mode focused on compatibility with games that freaked out if you had too many cores, but also memory and core-to-core latency by pinning data as close to the core as possible, and keeping related threads all within the same Zeppelin die. Both methods have their positives and negatives, and although they can be enabled through a button press in Ryzen Master and a reboot, most users who care enough about these settings are likely to set it and forget it. (And then notice that if the BIOS resets, so does the settings…)

*This page has been edited on 8/17, due to a misinterpretation in the implementation of Game Mode. This original review has been updated to reflect this. We have written a secondary mini-article with fresh testing on the effects of Game Mode.

Power Consumption and Distribution 2017: The Core Wars (Conclusions)
Comments Locked

347 Comments

View All Comments

  • Pekish79 - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Vraybench 1.0.5
  • SanX - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    *** AMD, make 2-chip mobos for upcoming multicore wars, you will double your profit from this at no cost for you +++
  • vicbee - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Off subject: Having just read the article about nVidia's meteoric rise in profits, some of which directly attributed to high end "gamers" video cards purchased expressly for coin mining, I wonder if it and AMD are going to manufacture CPU's and GPU's specifically for that purpose and how that will affect the price of said parts...
  • Avro Arrow - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Hi Ian, thanks for doing this article. It's important to see all possible outcomes because in the real world, anything is possible. I do have one question that has be puzzled. Why do you say that Threadripper only has 64 PCI-Express 3.0 lanes when it's been reported several times by everyone, including official AMD releases (and also including by you) that it has 64? I thought it might be just a typo but you state it in several places and in all of your specs. This is not a new thing so is there something about Threadripper that we don't know?
  • HotJob - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Could someone explain to me what a "2P" system is from the competition section of the article?
  • coolhardware - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    "2P" system = two processor system, i.e. a system with two physical CPU sockets and two CPUs installed.

    In the past a 2P (or 4P) system was really handy to get more cores especially back when 1 core, 2 core, and eventually 4 core CPUs were high end. In the consumer realm, way back, the Pentium II was the first 2P system I ever built and people even did it with Celerons as well:
    http://www.cpu-central.com/dualceleron/
    the Opterons were also fun for dual or quad processor systems including some SFF options like the ZMAX-DP socket 940 system.
    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N...

    Now fast forward with ThreadRipper already available at Amazon and NewEgg
    http://amzn.to/2wDqgWw (URL shortened)
    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N...
    I do not think I will ever be building a 2P or 4P system again!!!

    :-)
  • rvborgh - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    hi Ian,

    i think the Cinebench 11.5 benchmarks are incorrect for both ThreadRippers. ThreadRipper is almost equivalent to my Quad Opteron (48 core) system which scores 3229cb on R15... and 39.04 on Cinebench 11.5. if i downclock all cores to approximately 2.9 GHz i end up with around 3000cb in R15 and in the 36 range point range for 11.5.

    The fact that you are only scoring in the 18 range makes me wonder if you had the Threadripper set in some mode where it was only using 8 out of the 16 cores. Can you verify this... please? Thanks :) i would think you should see scores in the 36 range with 11.5.

    Other than this minor detail... great article.

    PS: i've had the same issues with software not liking NUMA on my quad opteron system as well... Cinebench especially does not like it.
  • Tchamber - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    Hi, Ian. Thanks for the review. As usual it was in depth and informative. I'm in the middle of building a 1700x system now based on your review. I wanted to say you handle all the nay-Sayers, gloomy Gusses and negative Nacies with aplomb! I think most people's own slant colors how they see your reviews. I appreciate the consistency of what you do here. I took a look over at Ars, and they could be called AMD shills for all the positive things they say... Keep it up!
  • Tchamber - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    P.S.
    I loved your Kessel Run reference, it tied in nicely with your Yoda quote.
  • B3an - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    Too many plebs complaining about a lack of 3D rendering benches. The fact is a 16 core CPU is still much slower than GPU's at rendering. I'll be getting a 1950X but it wont even be used for rendering when i know for a fact that my two GPUs will still be much faster with things like Blender. Even a single high-end GPU will still easily beat the 1950X at these tasks.

    Seems like immature moron fanboys are crying over this stuff because they just want to see AMD at the top of the charts.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now