100 Copies of Doom vs Threadripper 7995WX PRO 96-core 192-thread CPU
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2024
- Dave puts the new 96-core 7995WX to the test by pitting it against 100 copies of Doom, plus Cinebench R23, R24, Geekbench 6, and more. Dave also time-builds the Linux Kernel and does GPU testing of the A4000 GPU included.
To launch a Doom server in Docker, execute:
sudo docker run -p 8000:8000 elliottking/doom-wasm:0.1.1
00:00 Intro
00:14 🎮 The Threadripper Pro 7995WX with 96 cores and 192 threads can run 100 copies of Doom simultaneously on the HP Z6 g5a workstation, handling it with ease.
02:28 🛠 Setting up the server side involved using Ubuntu under Hyper-V to run the Doom server, spawning multiple browser windows pointing to it.
05:01 🕹 The Threadripper 7995WX managed 200 copies of Doom well, running at reasonable frame rates with 10% CPU usage and around 20% GPU.
06:36 🚫 Pushing it to 500 copies, the system struggled, experiencing issues with graphics rendering and potentially running out of system resources.
07:48 📊 The benchmarking involved Geekbench 6, Cinebench R23/R24, showcasing the 7995WX's impressive single-core and multi-core performance, surpassing previous processors in tests.
11:04 🌡 Under max load, the CPU maintained temperatures around 72-80°C, handling a 350W power draw while maintaining clock speeds of 3,000-3,200 MHz.
12:38 ⚙ Compiling the Linux kernel on the 7995WX demonstrated exceptional speed, completing the task in 28 seconds, more than twice as fast as the 3970X.
13:48 💻 For serious professional work, the RTX A4000 GPU proved capable, sitting between an RTX 3070 and 3080 in performance, ideal for tasks like video - Věda a technologie
A hundred instances of Chrome might stress the machine more than a hundred instances of Doom....
TBH even 1 instance of Chrome might do that !
It’ll melt
Maybe he should have tried dosbox instead?
Recreating the infamous LTT experiment "How much chrome tabs you can open with 2TB RAM" in 2023 would be very interesting
Might?
As others have already pointed out, running 500 instances of Chrome was the actual stressful factor. Not the copies of Doom.
Yes, I'm aware :-). And it's Chrome that ultimately depleted whatever it was runing out of, not Doom itself. But since doom requires Chrome, it's a built in cost for this version.
So what is the point of re-stating what others have already stated?
@@Katchi_ Catharsis.
@@DavesGarageI can't believe you haven't heard of GZDoom, where have you been?
@@demo9750 There is more in this world beyond what you could possibly imagine. And of what you could imagine, you will only have time to meaningfully understand a fraction of the topics, and of the topics you do explore and gain understanding in, you will only gain reasonable mastery of a few.
And you know what? It's awesome.
So instead of "Where have you been?" - Try Something like: "Hey, there is the GZDoom version that you might want to check out for tests like this". Comes across a lot better.
Considering Doom was designed to run on a 30mhz CPU from 3 decades ago, I'd be astonished if the hardware wasn't powerful enough to run over a *thousand* copies of Doom simultaneously.... if it wasn't bogged down by the web browsers and virtualization...
if all resources were utilized to their fullest, this could probably run a hundred thousand copies before it starts to drop frames.
Yeah, i normally like daves videos but tbh this is a non starter. Its like trying to drive a rally car over a bog and then saying its not actually a fast car
@@GraveUypo using a modern gpu to offload work from a modern 192 thread cpu to run vanilla doom is kek; and deserves own video.
“Can it run Crysis?”
Actually Doom required a lot more than 30mhz. 30 mhz did not exist biut 33 mhz did. 486 dx 33 with pci graphics card could run a decent frames.
CPU benchmarking videos sure are improved by a lack of obnoxious ads and no annoying host.
poor linus just got burned 🔥🚒
i actually thought he meant gamers nexus xD @@xxPow3rslave
@@DiverseGreen-Anon I was actually thinking precisely of both.
@@icarvs_vivit valid
Can I please add that Jay bloke?
Superb episode! Feeling lucky you decided to start the channel!
You probably could run a lot instances of Doom by running it in a source port. Chocolate Doom is very close to DOS Doom and runs on modern OS. Could probably spin up tons of containers running Chocolate Doom inside them if it doesn't like multiple instances running on the host machine.
yeah I am pretty sure you can run more then 100 instances of Doom cause the cpu is running so fast plus has 96 cores
More fun to run then under one OS to see how the scheduler handles it. You could probably pin each instance to one core (or thread) and if you rely on the software renderer, it'll be the true test.
Also still curious as to how the Crysis software mode runs nowadays. I know LTT did a video on a Threadripper years ago but they've grown up since then.
I wouldn't put past it running 100 chocolate dooms per core
@@affegpus4195 what about 2500 per core?🤣
My i7-9700KF processor from 2019 needed around 60-70% to run 70 Chocolate Dooms tiled using the original 320x200 resolution and software rendering. There's a vid on my channel and a python script if you want to try it yourself. :)
We had the Raymond interview AND we get a Threadripper review? What a week!
Please keep up the FANTASTIC content coming Dave (and thanks!)
This is so awesome, Dave! I sincerely hope that your DoomBench becomes an industry standard for high-performance machine characterization.
First time seeing your channel and all I Gotta say is sick. Computers/Code/Tech and cars. Oh yeah
The best rundown of the 7995wx! Good stuff 😊
As always, superb .. good show !!
The web browser and OS instances are probably adding a huge amount of overhead. I'd use a simple souce port like PRBoom.
I'd use DOSBox, personally.
@@CptJistuce That's going to add more overhead than just running 100 instances of PRBOOM
@@mrturret01No question, but running the OG code with emulated sound hardware etc. would be pretty cool in my books. Depends on what you want test I guess, either way it'd be a lot more interesting than Chrome.
DOSBox does like 1 thread..., but I thought it needed plenty from 1 thread? But then, doom was never heavy...reaches back and remembers computers it was heavy for... LOL!@@CptJistuce
Now that was one very informative video. I kinda want one of these on my workstation now!
Wow what an insane chip! Thanks for testing both fun and serious workloads!
Seeing it run every major version of Windows at the same time would be fun!
the biggest bottleneck is chrome eating up all of your ram
easy fix just slap 256 gbs of ram into that machine cause I have 128 gigs of ram so he should have more since he's got more cores then me🤣🤣🤣
@@SaraMorgan-ym6ue Did you watch the video? He was at 32GB of RAM used
@@ChrisSmith-rm6xl They just wanted to mention they have 128gbs of ram i think.
Maybe try with Chrome flags "--in-process-gpu --process-per-tab" to avoid Chrome serializing GPU access from multiple tabs from the same server. Note that Chrome will probably eat even more RAM than usual so 128 GB may not be enough for 500 windows. Another fun test would be to add "--disable-gpu" to force CPU to set the visible pixels on screen, which should improve CPU load quite a bit.
Viva Firefox
Nice review, thorough video, excellent production quality. NICE.
ThreadRipper 7995 workstation giveaway when? Sorry, couldn't resist.
dave, man, im happy that today i found your channel!
I love your video, this is what i looking for, high-end amd threadripper in pre-built workstation desktop. I'm glad i'm found your video
Sheesh, that's crazy powerful! Cinebench R23 score is 10x of my R5 3600's score. Insane.
The 96 core beast costs a LOT more than 10x R5 3600s.
@@pompeymonkey3271 Yeah, I looked at the price... I can buy a decent motorcycle for that amount....
@@pompeymonkey3271 Eh, it's just 13k USD here, chump change lol
Actually a lot more than 10x, because that's without PBO on. The 7980X/7985WX can get 115k-120k with PBO on with simple water cooling. For the 7995WX with PBO on, it will get something like 140-150k depending on how good your cooling is. With LN2 the world record is 200k with the 7995WX (6ghz on all 96 cores). Threadripper overclocks like a beast.
When Dave said "Thirty two megabytes of memory total" I perked up. But no, gigabytes. For a second there I was going to nominate JC for a noble prize.
If you award a noble prize, make it novel as well.
Nice one Dave; very techi-licious vid 😉🧐🧐😉
For the curious, I also tried with chocolate doom and one other, and got better results with chrome... but am still looking for something lightweight enough to run more of them!
What gpu does this very nice hp workstation have in it
For lightweight source ports, there's FastDoom which can run in glorious 80x200 resolution on a 386.
If you want something goofier, there's also PhoenixDoom and PsyDoom which are PC ports of the 3DO and PlayStation versions
Running Doom in the taskmanager, with the cpu utilization tile would have been more fun lol
@DavesGarage that is the challenge... :D
Awesome video !
@Dave's Garage Love the choice of tyre on those rims. Michelin Pilot Sport. Perform almost as well as the 7995WX Pro
Impressive. Also nice idea creating your own Linux server to host Doom. What library did you use to host the actual webservices? Or was it all contained in the Docker Image?
Great video!
What lens are you using?
That DOF is crazy shallow.. Very cinematic. 🎥
Awesome, thanks for the entertainment! You’re the best!
The Doom test brought back some memories: my first PC was a 386SX, clocked at 16 MHz. On it, I had Windows 3.1 and an early version of Linux (1.0 kernel, I think). Once I installed Xwindow, I discovered that that the share ware version of Doom was available. Out of curiosity, I tried running multiple instances in windows. Two was tolerable, three was unusable.
On the same machine, building the Linux kernel took the better part of an afternoon!
Doom wouldn't be playable on a 386sx.
I remember playing doom on 486 when it came out on my friend's computer. I would call you insane that one day you can easily run 200 simultaneous dooms on one computer :D Thanks Dave!
I remeber it being sluggish on my low end 486 back then. So I was thinking the same.
Same thought here. And I think 99.9% of the people don't even realize what's happening here in terms of cpu power. Man, if you told me around 1995 that this would be possible, people would go crazy and this would be world news. Now it's 'just' a video and by chance people pass by this channel and take it probably for granted.
On the dedicated server end of things, this bodes pretty well. Would love to have a system with that many cores, but we would need probably 2 to 4 TB of RAM. That'll probably be available soon.
Already is with epyc.
Hey you might of done a video on it already or might not be able to talk about it at all lol but I was trying to learn more about the origin of Windows for Warships. Who fist proposed the idea and was it an internal project or out sourced? I can only imagine the Navy hiring a full time IT on a battle ship for debugging lol.
I thought we'd at least be talking about the 2016 Doom version 😅 but very nice video anyway 👍 you gained another sub, sir!
I have a couple of old HP Desktop workstations. Nothing special specs wise but the build quality of the hardware was a real step up from over the counter cases I had tried before. Very nicely thought out and nicely pressed metal nicely put together.
I despise HP, but I still use a 2540p elitebook from more than a decade ago. An absolute tank, it bounces around in the passenger's seat of my cars more often than not, running tuning software with it's little fan just screaming trying to eat the passenger's seat. OG battery, it will last more than 30 minutes like that still!
Anything consumer grade? Pure trash.
Replace old battery or it might explode
I love the scientific test at the start with DOOM, good video! ^_^
thats some really nice lightning man
very cool that was fun to watch
You’re living the dream. Fun stuff.
Your system for running and automating the Doom benchmark was super impressive! I wonder if it would've been possible to use instances of DosBox running Doom instead, and how that would affect the benchmark? I might have to try it out myself sometime
As in multiple vm's ? The RAM would have been swamped --> I have 128GB of ram in my workstation; running too many vm's concurrently is it's Achilles heal 🧐🤔🧐
@@chionyenkwu2253 128 gigs is plenty for some MS-DOS VMs. I can't imagine there's over 64 megs of overhead in each DOSBox instance so that gives you 2048 copies if I'm not mistaken.
28 seconds(!) I remember building new kernels over night back in the 90’s 😅🔥
@6:16 Why the diagonal cpu usage, wit the 100% at the mid?
Hi Dave! Well, it seems you might want to work on a fun doom project. As others mentioned, other versions of doom that might work with a much more hardcore doom testing, I really hope you will have the time and will to provide us a deeper dive of a multiple doom runs. Thank you for everything comes into your mind and ends up on our 'tele vision'! :)
How did the two solutions you thought of were DOOM 95 and web server DOOM rather than... Chocolate Doom or even running 100 copies of DOSBox with the original executable running inside?
i love how dave's house is so high tech he had to upgrade the workstation
Haha, get that pleb 10gbps e-waste outta here!
My favorite so far was a take on 'can it run crysis' where someone used the vram of a 3090 as a ram drive while also playing the game. I think it was a 3090, maybe ti, it was one of the 24GB cards of late. I thought it was cheeky
Would be great to see benchmarks per CCD and and also the ability to test groups of CCDs, possibly running some workloads in a checkered board pattern with much higher clocks could be interesting, though I suspect AMD already found the sweetspot
How about loading it up with DOSBox, FractInt version 20+, edit the virtual video resolution to 20,480x20,480 pixels, then generate a highly detailed fractal with and without "co-processor" use? You can press the TAB key to see how long the render is between manual save operations. Then using batch mode, follow their instructions for auto generation of a deep zoom up to 1 trillion zooms deep. Throw in some color cycling for good measure. Maybe play around with the other methods of rendering the fractal in the same deep zoom at maximum virtual video resolution. Then show a comparative chart for the results.
You know I haven't found a good fractal software like fractint for windows. There's a few that are ok but none are as good/as many features and free.
I think I'm seeing yet more anectdotal evidence to not worry too much about the automagic threading/hyperthreading optimization issue in video game land. Thank you!
That's a really nice setup. I have a dual Xeon E5-2699a v4 with 1TB of DDR4 RAM to play with. For the high number of cores you have, I'd highly suggest increasing your RAM from 128GB to at least 256GB or even 512GB to take full advantage of all of those cores.
2gb per thread would probably be optimal
Those Xeon E5 V3s and V4s have becone cheap as hell... but I lost track of the subsequent xeon generations... gold... silver... platinum... very confusing... I'm tempted to go back to a dual socket-setup but the V4's are too old...
Very neat. Maybe someday an audio performance test will be run on this chip as well with something similar to Dawbench. That would require a decent audio interface as well, since measurements are done at different buffer sizes (2^x samples usually starting at 32 samples). If you have some time for it, great. If not, oh well. Someone will try it I hope.
Nice bit of performance there! That seems designed for doing ML type stuff. Bet it’s an awesome bit of kit as a daily driver.
Great video, way over my head
Ok I really want this as my next PC! It is only 2k more than this one lol But I noticed that you are not using dual monitors for the tests? As you know, you should get even better test results if you were to run the tests in the foreground placing the task manager on the second monitor.
I have a realtime muti-threaded FFT/spectrogram program that will almost peg any cpu (at certain settings). As far as raw single precision floating point performance, Apple does really well pushing floats around compared to zen3 cores.
Yo, what do you do with the FFT spectrogram stuff? Sounds really interesting.
@@Zangetsu_X2 On the private side, I use it to validate my math for high order filters, normalized lattice filters, half bands, IR capture, etc.
On the public side, I made a bunch of videos testing guitar peddles during its development. There is a free version available for mac/linux on the channel. I put up 6 months ago, but the spectrogram stuff was not ready at the time so not included.
It is basically something like 'Smaart' or 'REW' (room equalization wizard) but I do all the math 60 times a second rather than once when a button is pressed.
Since the channel only got 91 subscribers in about 2 years, so it is abandonware or something to occasionally scratch my programming itch.
Loved the video
Thanks for win95!! That 640k problem became a thing of the past.
People don't know...Having to make several boot floppies for different games and programs.
just built a 7950x3d system. my first amd build since 2000. not exactly a workstation pc but it suits my needs. curious to see how fast it will compile compared to my older 10900k
can you do a video on how to programm a software that can make use of so many threads.
I enjoyed seeing some Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires at 00:02:05! What do they go to...I wonder...
Did you use WSL or straight up a separate installation of Ubuntu inside hyper-v?
At the end of 100 copies I and the subtitles thought you said 68 percent, you in fact said 6 to 8 percent. Insane.
I’ll finally be able to run Minesweeper with this processor. Thanks Dave!
how do you show CPU utilization as percentage instead of the graph in task manager?
Reason? Because you can! :)
I remember optimizing my system to run a single copy of doom properly back in the day. Threadrippers and EPIC CPUs have come a long way.
Obtaining the CPU in a workstation setup like this might be the best way to actually get a system like that. The threadripper sockets, tightening the socked down and placing a cooler is a bit of a nerve wrecking experience.
I wonder if it's possible to locate a app window to a specific location on the screen. I have to have multiple copies of putty running and trying to get them positioned and sized has always taken a very long time. I would love to know if there is a script or command I can use to position the windows exactly where I want them.
How do you make the Task Manager to show % in the cpu usage instead of the chart?
Is there an advantage of running the Linux distro on Hyper-V instead of WSL2 especially considering it's running headless anyway?
That's one of a Doom machine.
This is such a cool video.
This is some mad scientist stuff. Crazy CPU
Fun times as always... Another retro software on modern hardware idea that's been percolating in my head --- and I suspect you might be one of the best equipped to pull it off if it's actually possible... Windows 95 only needs 4MB of RAM to run, which is well below the L3 cache numbers for just about every processor out there. I've been wondering what it'd take to coax it to run on a system with no installed RAM ;)
I'd start by considering what it would take to pull the ram sticks after boot.i doubt you can get it booted without them.
@@Azeazezar Do not think the motherboard chipset will run without RAM, though you can just take the RAM and update the ID chip to have it report that you only have 16M of RAM on the chip, which would allow the PC to boot, though you likely would have to write a custom BIOS, basically making an old 1990's era BIOS run on a modern multicore processor, which would mean having to add in the core operating logic, to set up all the registers on the north and south bridge, to set them up like they need, then start to run the old bios as a direct task on it, and boot from there. Would need an old PCI graphics card, and also a PCIE to PCI adaptor as well, or even ISA and PCIE to ISA adaptor, to allow the VGA routines on the video card ROM to run. After all modern graphibns cards no longer likely support the older VESA standards, though it will be fast.
Did think, when Pentium processors got past the 1GHz mark, that you could actually put a simple program into a ROM, and boot off it, to use that fast bus speed to directly synthsise FM radio carriers, and also the audio modulation, as a dual core could run fast enough to have one core do the DSP to read in audio, and the other core do DDS to generate the RF waveform direct, modulation and all. Just a simple low pass filter on the output needed. 300MHz processors could easily do AM radio as well, with a simple resistor DAC and a latch, with the enable being simply a write to any high order address line. After all, with 32 bits, and only needing 12 for the ROM, you can be very wasteful with address decoding if you need speed, and really only have 4 actual peripherals to interface.
It depends on what you mean by no installed RAM. Intel Xeon Max CPUs have 64 gigs of HBM and will boot no fuss without any DIMMs installed. If you install DIMMs the HBM can be used as an extra layer of cache.
That’s cool Dave. But can it run Pinball at 1000 FPS?
Very intriguing.
wow! thats a fast machine
Duuuuuuude!
Im stoked to see how this turns out!
It does indeed run dooms, hah!
😂
I was proud of my first ever Ryzen 6c/12 thread cpu, it looked awesome in task manager :) I've never seen that many. 192 threads .. wow. Just wow.
How do you get Task Manager to show the individual cores?
How do you get past memory management for non focused applications?
Hello, Dave! There's an incorrect link to a code's repository in the description of the video "Stupid C Tricks: Unsafe Functions You MUST Avoid!". It leads to some .asm files, I guess it is from another video. Do you have the code from the mentioned video anywhere? Maybe you could fix the link in the description?
I LOVE how you benchmark; ain't no school like the old school! 😂❤😊😁😁
I wonder if a triple-slot RTX 4090 would fit in the HP case. The power supply connectors and max wattage on the graphics rail would also be a consideration.
I'm pretty sure you can not. All those OEM workstations are normally following the official PCIe specs. Same with my workstation (Dell 7865).
The fastest graphics card I could fit was a RTX 4070 FE. And that is very, very tight. Everything else is way too big.
There is a pretty small OEM 4090 from Dell that might fit. But you cannot buy it separately - but only within a Alienware gamer PC as far as I know.
At around 6:14 the CPU cores form a weird diagonal pattern, does anyone know what is happening there?
6:55 If the problem at 500 is handles or something, it'd be interesting what would happen under a different OS for the clients in the test.
That has to be the most ridiculous way to run a lot of DOOM. I love it!
Dave, every window on the desktop allocates some vram, even if it's running something that's doing software rendering. I've noticed that Windows will start failing to draw stuff when vram is exhausted. To its credit, the system _tends_ not to die at this point, although _that_ will happen eventually. Run 500x again and try checking system stats like GPU mem to see if this is the case.
6:14 You've got one CPU maxed out when running 200 dooms. I'd be really curious to know what that one process is. Is it the kernel servicing all the threads? Or is it the Python library running single threaded? I feel like that's your bottleneck right there.
Python always run single-threaded so I would guess it. In addition, if you run Chrome without extra flags, Chrome will internally serialize all access to GPU in a single thread and the window management of Chrome is also single threaded if I've understood correctly.
@@MikkoRantalainen Yeah, that's why I find playing doom in a browser window such an odd choice. It's a convenient way to spin up an instance of doom, but I feel like you're dredging up a lot of constraints that might not be there otherwise.
Dave please do a video on John Carmack! You guys were contemporaries dealing with some of the same issues from different sides I'm curious your thoughts.
I was honestly positively surprised that the window manager in Windows was able to render 200 windows correctly. Does Windows support something similar to OS X Expose view where every window were scaled down to fit on screen at once and rendered live with current contents of the window? That way every window could have normal size instead of small corner only.
Dave wrote the original, and the code has been updated so it currently is well more capable than any CPU available, as the original would fall over, as Dave has said before, with only 16 cores. might struggle with 16k cores now, and with them all being almost a pixel wide.
@@SeanBZA I think you're thinking about task manager instead of window manager. The window manager is the part of the operating system that moves and draws all the windows on the screen. With modern desktops, it might also take care of allocating GPU VRAM to different windows and with hundreds of windows that's not an easy task because total pixel count gets rapidly very high.
The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. And what a nice toy. The compile test was enlightening as it shows off the new system in a real world usage case. What happens with the old system?
100 copies of Crysis might melt a hole into the desk...
2:30 there are multiple great source ports which run perfectly on windows 11 eg. chocolate doom, woof! or gzdoom
But can it run 100 instances of _Crysis_
The CPU probably can if you can give it enough GPU resources. The original Crysis only used two cores and didn't use them all that much either. On a modern platform, a single core with SMT enabled should have absolutely no issues running Crysis.
@@Steamrick But can it run 100 instances of Crysis using _software rendering!_
I was wondering the same
@@trustnoone81 I asked this question as well.
Gotta see some POV-Ray tests on that beast
When I started programming it took 17 seconds to redraw the screen when I moved a textbox 1 pixel to the right.
Should've tested with PBO on. The 7980X/7985WX can get 115k-120k with PBO on in Cinebench R23 with simple water cooling. For the 7995WX with PBO on, it will get something like 130-140k depending on how good your cooling is and this is without tweaks. With LN2 the world record is 200k with the 7995WX (6ghz on all 96 cores). Threadripper overclocks like a beast.
Nice tyres! :)
Amazing that you can make a video with this machine when I can't even order one from HP. Can't imagine what it cost since all I can find on the interwebs is the probable cost of a 7995WX by itself is about 10 grand.