My new rig - B450 with Ryzen 3 2200G

Message boards : Number crunching : My new rig - B450 with Ryzen 3 2200G
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Bill Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 05
Posts: 251
Credit: 3,963,573
RAC: 4,037
United States
Message 1972340 - Posted: 28 Dec 2018, 19:59:07 UTC

After weeks of waiting, I have finally built my first computer and got it up and running! I installed S@H a few days ago and I appear to be crunching along just fine. My build is:
- Ryzen 3 2200G
- No GPU, for now (AMD graphics are integrated on the APU)
- ASRock B450 Pro4 mobo
- G.Skill Flare X RAM (16 GB, 3200 , CAS 14)
- Be Quiet! Silent Base 601 case (includes 2 case fans)
- Seasonic 550 W Platinum PSU
-WD Blue 500 GB SSD
- Windows 10 64 bit

When I started running S@H many years ago I was not really configuring my computers, it was just running on whatever I had (probably a Pentium of some variety back then). After many years away I finally came back to running S@H, but I have been running them on laptops, so not much to tool around with.

So, this computer will be a starter for me to get my feet wet, and we'll go from there. At some point I'm sure I'll play with overclocking, installing a GPU or two, etc. For now, I just wanted to have something simple to work with. I know there are other more impressive systems others have built; I'm just happy I got this to work and help crunch some more WUs.

I did notice a few things (somewhat minor) since I started running on this computer:
- The integrated graphics appear to be running just fine. As it has been noted on this message board before, Intel GPUs seem to have a problem with thrashing. I had experienced that with other laptops and have not run iGPU WUs. I was wondering if the APU would either be compatible for GPU WUs, and if so, worth crunching. So far, they appear to be working fine.

- The 2200G has a base clock of 3.5 GHz and a boost clock of 3.7 GHz. I assumed without updating any settings it would default to the 3.5, but it actually was running at 3.7. I eventually found the bios setting to disable the boosting, and I'm coasting at about 50 deg C running at full bore. My temps were a bit higher, even hitting close to 80 at one point when I was running 3.7 GHz. I am pretty sure the fans were all at max RPM, so I am not sure what happened there. Something to play with later.

I think my next step is to get my ram speeds up, but I have to review some posts/articles that Keith shared awhile back. Thanks to everyone that has helped with information posted here to help get me to this point!
Seti@home classic: 1,456 results, 1.613 years CPU time
ID: 1972340 · Report as offensive
Profile Keith Myers Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 9893
Credit: 933,876,962
RAC: 1,491,422
United States
Message 1972343 - Posted: 28 Dec 2018, 20:26:41 UTC

Use the Ryzen DDR4 RAM Calculator and try for the 3333Mhz or 3400 or 3466 Mhz speed settings. I assume you are running the RAM at its rated XMP speeds and clocks. That RAM is certainly some of the best and capable of further clocks if the IMC on the chip is any good.

I don't know if there have been any recent tests of the Ryzen APUs and running on the integrated graphics controller along with running cpu tasks. I know Raistmer documented quite well the problems of running the earlier generation AMD APU chips based on Kaveri over at Lunatics.

You should at least attempt to see if you can run gpu tasks on the APU along with some cpu tasks. Might try to reduce the number of cores being used by the cpu to make things go smoother. And since system memory is used for the graphics, the faster you clock the system memory the better the graphics speed will be.

Gives you something to play with and experiment a little to see what your simple system is capable of.
Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours
ID: 1972343 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 05
Posts: 251
Credit: 3,963,573
RAC: 4,037
United States
Message 1972385 - Posted: 29 Dec 2018, 0:41:27 UTC - in response to Message 1972343.  

Use the Ryzen DDR4 RAM Calculator and try for the 3333Mhz or 3400 or 3466 Mhz speed settings. I assume you are running the RAM at its rated XMP speeds and clocks. That RAM is certainly some of the best and capable of further clocks if the IMC on the chip is any good.

I don't know if there have been any recent tests of the Ryzen APUs and running on the integrated graphics controller along with running cpu tasks. I know Raistmer documented quite well the problems of running the earlier generation AMD APU chips based on Kaveri over at Lunatics.

You should at least attempt to see if you can run gpu tasks on the APU along with some cpu tasks. Might try to reduce the number of cores being used by the cpu to make things go smoother. And since system memory is used for the graphics, the faster you clock the system memory the better the graphics speed will be.

Gives you something to play with and experiment a little to see what your simple system is capable of.


I am currently crunching 3 CPU and 1 GPU tasks. Before I edited an app_config, it was running 4 CPUs/1GPU (with a fraction of a CPU). I know the rule of thumb is to dedicate a CPU per GPU, but I honestly don't know that it ran any differently with part of a CPU. I may revisit that later on.

I know the ram is slowing things down and I need to look into it a little more when I have time (a LOT of settings to change, and I don't know what they all are). Right now I am running at 1200, which I think makes sense because the SPD speed is 2400? Regardless, there is room for improvement there. I looked at the RAM calculator, and my choices for CPUs are Ryzen Gen 1, Ryzen +, and TR. Since this is a 2200G, isn't that second generation? SO would Ryzen + be appropriate?
Seti@home classic: 1,456 results, 1.613 years CPU time
ID: 1972385 · Report as offensive
Profile Keith Myers Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 9893
Credit: 933,876,962
RAC: 1,491,422
United States
Message 1972389 - Posted: 29 Dec 2018, 0:50:24 UTC - in response to Message 1972385.  

Yes the 2200G is a Ryzen+ so you should select that from the menu. But first you should just select the rated XMP setting in the BIOS first before starting to change things from the Calculator. Your memory is rated to run at 3200Mhz at CL14 latency. Just select XMP and leave the memory timings at Auto for everything and it should run fine at that setting.

That will get the memory clock running at 1600Mhz and the Data Fabric for the cpu will run at 1600Mhz too then. That will speed up the cpu quite a bit from the 1200 Mhz you are running at currently.
Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours
ID: 1972389 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 05
Posts: 251
Credit: 3,963,573
RAC: 4,037
United States
Message 1972407 - Posted: 29 Dec 2018, 3:48:52 UTC - in response to Message 1972389.  

Yes the 2200G is a Ryzen+ so you should select that from the menu. But first you should just select the rated XMP setting in the BIOS first before starting to change things from the Calculator. Your memory is rated to run at 3200Mhz at CL14 latency. Just select XMP and leave the memory timings at Auto for everything and it should run fine at that setting.

That will get the memory clock running at 1600Mhz and the Data Fabric for the cpu will run at 1600Mhz too then. That will speed up the cpu quite a bit from the 1200 Mhz you are running at currently.


Just changed it and I'm at 1600 MHz now, thank you! The BOINC benchmark shows a 1% and 2.5% increase in floating/integer MIPS, respectively. I'll run this for a bit before I tweak anything else.
Seti@home classic: 1,456 results, 1.613 years CPU time
ID: 1972407 · Report as offensive
Profile Keith Myers Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 9893
Credit: 933,876,962
RAC: 1,491,422
United States
Message 1972413 - Posted: 29 Dec 2018, 4:13:08 UTC - in response to Message 1972407.  

Yes. Just run stock with XMP for a while to feel things out. If stable, then try bumping the memory to 3400 via the Calculator settings.
Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours
ID: 1972413 · Report as offensive
Profile Tom M
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 28 Nov 02
Posts: 3573
Credit: 212,561,443
RAC: 509,220
United States
Message 1972531 - Posted: 29 Dec 2018, 19:43:23 UTC - in response to Message 1972340.  
Last modified: 29 Dec 2018, 19:46:00 UTC

1+

Bravo!

---Edit---------
Darn, your computers are hidden so I can't see what kind of speed your gpu is processing at.

I have a 2400G coming online (probably next week) and I want to be able to compare to someone else with CL14/3200 ram.

Tom
A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)
"Over the hill? WHAT Hill? I don't REMEMBER any hill...." (from a bumper sticker I bought at a truck stop).
"If its Tourist Season why can't we shoot them?" (another bumper sticker)
ID: 1972531 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 05
Posts: 251
Credit: 3,963,573
RAC: 4,037
United States
Message 1972546 - Posted: 29 Dec 2018, 21:48:53 UTC - in response to Message 1972531.  

Darn, your computers are hidden so I can't see what kind of speed your gpu is processing at.

I have a 2400G coming online (probably next week) and I want to be able to compare to someone else with CL14/3200 ram.

Tom


Sorry, visible now. I was looking at the GPU performance this morning, and it is not impressive, but still better than what a CPU can crunch (credits / seconds for WU).

My system has been up for a week, and I am done tweaking for now. I updated the ram speed just yesterday. Time to just wait and see how my rac for that system levels out.
Seti@home classic: 1,456 results, 1.613 years CPU time
ID: 1972546 · Report as offensive
Profile Keith Myers Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 9893
Credit: 933,876,962
RAC: 1,491,422
United States
Message 1972551 - Posted: 29 Dec 2018, 22:12:36 UTC

I'd continue to get a proper baseline for the gpu tasks. The scheduler is still trying out various application on the host to finally settle on the fastest. Once you know where the gpu RAC settles out, then consult Mike for suggested tunings for the APU optimized over stock settings.
Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours
ID: 1972551 · Report as offensive
Profile Tom M
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 28 Nov 02
Posts: 3573
Credit: 212,561,443
RAC: 509,220
United States
Message 1972657 - Posted: 30 Dec 2018, 18:36:46 UTC - in response to Message 1972551.  

I'd continue to get a proper baseline for the gpu tasks. The scheduler is still trying out various application on the host to finally settle on the fastest. Once you know where the gpu RAC settles out, then consult Mike for suggested tunings for the APU optimized over stock settings.


Once you have a baseline that has settled out you may be able to OC the gpu for higher production. I got this from 3-4 reviews on the 2200G/2400G CPU/gpu at AnandTech.com

Tom
A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)
"Over the hill? WHAT Hill? I don't REMEMBER any hill...." (from a bumper sticker I bought at a truck stop).
"If its Tourist Season why can't we shoot them?" (another bumper sticker)
ID: 1972657 · Report as offensive
Profile Tom M
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 28 Nov 02
Posts: 3573
Credit: 212,561,443
RAC: 509,220
United States
Message 1972658 - Posted: 30 Dec 2018, 18:44:50 UTC - in response to Message 1972546.  

Darn, your computers are hidden so I can't see what kind of speed your gpu is processing at.

I have a 2400G coming online (probably next week) and I want to be able to compare to someone else with CL14/3200 ram.

Tom


Sorry, visible now. I was looking at the GPU performance this morning, and it is not impressive, but still better than what a CPU can crunch (credits / seconds for WU).

My system has been up for a week, and I am done tweaking for now. I updated the ram speed just yesterday. Time to just wait and see how my rac for that system levels out.


Those are VERY respectable cpu crunching times. Apparently running between 56 minutes and 1 hour 7 minutes. I wish I could get my Intel server (it only turbo's to 3.3GHz) to run that fast :)

I bet you will be able to get better than 35 minutes average on the gpu crunching once you apply suggestions from Mike as well as trying to OC it. And try OCing the memory.

Tom
A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)
"Over the hill? WHAT Hill? I don't REMEMBER any hill...." (from a bumper sticker I bought at a truck stop).
"If its Tourist Season why can't we shoot them?" (another bumper sticker)
ID: 1972658 · Report as offensive
Profile Tom M
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 28 Nov 02
Posts: 3573
Credit: 212,561,443
RAC: 509,220
United States
Message 1974073 - Posted: 7 Jan 2019, 20:33:04 UTC

So far your CPU processing speed is much above mine on every version of the cpu task.

And your GPU processing speed is the equal of mine.

Eventually, I am going to find something that works better :) After all mine supposed to be faster :)

Tom
A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)
"Over the hill? WHAT Hill? I don't REMEMBER any hill...." (from a bumper sticker I bought at a truck stop).
"If its Tourist Season why can't we shoot them?" (another bumper sticker)
ID: 1974073 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 05
Posts: 251
Credit: 3,963,573
RAC: 4,037
United States
Message 1974085 - Posted: 7 Jan 2019, 21:55:30 UTC - in response to Message 1974073.  

So far your CPU processing speed is much above mine on every version of the cpu task.

And your GPU processing speed is the equal of mine.

Eventually, I am going to find something that works better :) After all mine supposed to be faster :)

Tom
I'm trying to figure out how that is possible. The 2400G should be leaps and bounds better than the 2200G, just based on the number of threads you can run. The only tweaking I've done is increase the ram speed to 3200 (as the ram is rated for). If you don't mind me asking some questions:
1. I'm running only S@H on this PC, 24/7, with 100% of processors operating 100% of the time. I'm assuming you are the same?
2. Clock speed? I tuned down to the base clock of 3.5 GHz. Are you running at base clock, boost clock, or OC?
3. Ram speed?
4. I see you have Windows 10 Pro, mine is the home version. I would assume there wouldn't be much of a difference between the two, but maybe there is? Even so, I would assume the pro version would be more streamlined.
5. I don't see how the mobo could affect performance THAT significantly, but could it?

I've had the computer crunching for almost 2 weeks now. I'm not sure how far back RAC goes, but my credit seems to be tapering off for this PC. I will admit, without knowing what level of RAC I would be getting prior to building the machine, I am impressed. I even got into the 5% avg credit range!
Seti@home classic: 1,456 results, 1.613 years CPU time
ID: 1974085 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 11659
Credit: 174,313,265
RAC: 118,347
Australia
Message 1974170 - Posted: 8 Jan 2019, 7:25:57 UTC - in response to Message 1974085.  

5. I don't see how the mobo could affect performance THAT significantly, but could it?

Yep, it all depends on RAM & CPU speed & timings.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1974170 · Report as offensive
Profile Tom M
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 28 Nov 02
Posts: 3573
Credit: 212,561,443
RAC: 509,220
United States
Message 1974178 - Posted: 8 Jan 2019, 9:03:28 UTC - in response to Message 1974085.  

My preliminary results look something like this.

With the 8.05 cpu task it appears to be running about 1 hour 45 minutes. All the others are slower.

With the gpu I seem to sometimes get it down near 28 minutes per task and up near 49 minutes.

I was looking at your processing Gflops numbers under details. All your cpu Gflops are very high. Up near 50 I think. Your gpu Gflops are close to mine.

I have now taken a look at some of the tasks in pending. And I will freely admit your gpu times are some slower. And so are the 8.05 cpu tasks I have been looking at on your system.

So it may be my perception of your 2200G being faster is strictly due to the impressive cpu Gflop#'s I was seeing.

I am guessing that my gpu at its very best is about 50% as fast as a gtx 750Ti.

Tom
A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)
"Over the hill? WHAT Hill? I don't REMEMBER any hill...." (from a bumper sticker I bought at a truck stop).
"If its Tourist Season why can't we shoot them?" (another bumper sticker)
ID: 1974178 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 11659
Credit: 174,313,265
RAC: 118,347
Australia
Message 1974179 - Posted: 8 Jan 2019, 9:24:38 UTC - in response to Message 1974178.  
Last modified: 8 Jan 2019, 9:26:06 UTC

So it may be my perception of your 2200G being faster is strictly due to the impressive cpu Gflop#'s I was seeing.

?
It's showing around 40 GFLOPs for the CPU.
My i7-8700k with Hyper-Threading is good for around 50 GFLOPs (and that's with the AVX application).

So for some reason your CPU output is very sub par; and there are a lot of GPU computing errors there as well.


I am guessing that my gpu at its very best is about 50% as fast as a gtx 750Ti.

If you're running 1 at a time, it'd be around that.
For the BLC16s your run time is just under 38min, my GTX 750Tis are doing the same WUs in a bit over 15min.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1974179 · Report as offensive
Profile Brent Norman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 99
Posts: 2767
Credit: 575,301,754
RAC: 911,231
Canada
Message 1974186 - Posted: 8 Jan 2019, 10:36:08 UTC - in response to Message 1974170.  

5. I don't see how the mobo could affect performance THAT significantly, but could it?
Yep, it all depends on RAM & CPU speed & timings.
It is my understanding that your B450 board will out perform a B350 board when fitted with the newer CPUs.
But I don't know what board you are comparing to ...
ID: 1974186 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 05
Posts: 251
Credit: 3,963,573
RAC: 4,037
United States
Message 1974224 - Posted: 9 Jan 2019, 3:54:31 UTC - in response to Message 1974178.  

My preliminary results look something like this.

With the 8.05 cpu task it appears to be running about 1 hour 45 minutes. All the others are slower.

With the gpu I seem to sometimes get it down near 28 minutes per task and up near 49 minutes.

I was looking at your processing Gflops numbers under details. All your cpu Gflops are very high. Up near 50 I think. Your gpu Gflops are close to mine.

I have now taken a look at some of the tasks in pending. And I will freely admit your gpu times are some slower. And so are the 8.05 cpu tasks I have been looking at on your system.

So it may be my perception of your 2200G being faster is strictly due to the impressive cpu Gflop#'s I was seeing.

I am guessing that my gpu at its very best is about 50% as fast as a gtx 750Ti.

Tom
Tom, I'm not sure if you're just curious about the difference in computing power or if you're looking to troubleshoot why your Gflops are low. I would be glad to help even though there are more people here that have more knowledge than me. The smell test doesn't pass for me because the 2400G has more threads, faster clock speed, and a better GPU than the 2200G. There is something different with your computer, whether the rest of the hardware or how it operates which is causing the difference in Gflops.
Seti@home classic: 1,456 results, 1.613 years CPU time
ID: 1974224 · Report as offensive
Profile Tom M
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 28 Nov 02
Posts: 3573
Credit: 212,561,443
RAC: 509,220
United States
Message 1974235 - Posted: 9 Jan 2019, 5:03:41 UTC - in response to Message 1974179.  

So it may be my perception of your 2200G being faster is strictly due to the impressive cpu Gflop#'s I was seeing.

?
It's showing around 40 GFLOPs for the CPU.
My i7-8700k with Hyper-Threading is good for around 50 GFLOPs (and that's with the AVX application).

So for some reason, your CPU output is very sub-par; and there are a lot of GPU computing errors there as well.


I am guessing that my gpu at its very best is about 50% as fast as a gtx 750Ti.

If you're running 1 at a time, it'd be around that.
For the BLC16s your run time is just under 38min, my GTX 750Tis are doing the same WUs in a bit over 15min.


I think that because it is early days, the scheduler is still feeding me various different tasks. And because I was going around and around with some of the settings and having it crash, that my Gflops# does not yet represent what the latest cpu processing speeds seem to be pointing to. I thought when I looked at the results of his 2200G that he was getting 50+ Gflops on the cpu. I am not up to that but my latest cpu processing speeds may lead to those levels, eventually.

I had a LOT of gpu computation errors until I switched the gpu settings from "turbo" back to "auto". I also tried uninstalling/reinstalling the driver. And various other fixes like getting rid of the parameters in the command line file. Only when I switched the gpu setting in the bios to "auto" did it stop throwing errors.

It may be that I will be able to manually OC the gpu now that I think I have gotten the memory speeds fully up to CL14/3200.

Tom
A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)
"Over the hill? WHAT Hill? I don't REMEMBER any hill...." (from a bumper sticker I bought at a truck stop).
"If its Tourist Season why can't we shoot them?" (another bumper sticker)
ID: 1974235 · Report as offensive
Profile Tom M
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 28 Nov 02
Posts: 3573
Credit: 212,561,443
RAC: 509,220
United States
Message 1974239 - Posted: 9 Jan 2019, 5:30:32 UTC - in response to Message 1974085.  


1. I'm running only S@H on this PC, 24/7, with 100% of processors operating 100% of the time. I'm assuming you are the same?

Yes. But I just got started.

2. Clock speed? I tuned down to the base clock of 3.5 GHz. Are you running at base clock, boost clock, or OC?

I have now used a feature that is part of the bios to set the cpu clock speed to 3.9GHz which is also the turbo boost speed. It calls the setting "ASUS Optimum".

3. Ram speed?[/quote0
CL14/3200 which is the base for the ram I have.
[quote]
4. I see you have Windows 10 Pro, mine is the home version. I would assume there wouldn't be much of a difference between the two, but maybe there is? Even so, I would assume the pro version would be more streamlined.

I don't think there is likely any visible performance difference between the two. I am using the balanced power plan with "never stop" for the run time.

5. I don't see how the mobo could affect performance THAT significantly, but could it?

I had to apply the memory settings manually. It recognized the XFR profile in the ram but I couldn't find any toggle so I had to add both the frequency and the CL settings manually.

I've had the computer crunching for almost 2 weeks now. I'm not sure how far back RAC goes, but my credit seems to be tapering off for this PC. I will admit, without knowing what level of RAC I would be getting prior to building the machine, I am impressed. I even got into the 5% avg credit range!


I have been up for less than a week plus having it keep crashing and not being able to figure out why till lately (the DRAM voltage on auto wasn't cutting it. Once I set it manually to 1.35 volts it has run MUCH[stable] better).

If the CPU times of 1 hour and 45 minutes begin to become stable/average I estimate my systems theoretical RAC would look something like this.

(1440 / 105 [minutes per task] ) X 6 [threads] X 55[avg credits per task] =~ 4.500 RAC for the cpu and
(1440 / 28 ) X 1 X 55 =~ 2,800 RAC for the gpu for a grand total of 7,000+ RAC under stock Seti apps.

What bothered me is I thought that the fastest of Windows cpu apps were as fast as the Linux apps from the CUDA91. Then I went and looked at the faster of the two of my other Windows 10 machines (@3.8Ghz) that are running stock Seti and saw that my best CPU task times were comparable (eg. slower than Linux/CUDA91).

Tom
A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)
"Over the hill? WHAT Hill? I don't REMEMBER any hill...." (from a bumper sticker I bought at a truck stop).
"If its Tourist Season why can't we shoot them?" (another bumper sticker)
ID: 1974239 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : My new rig - B450 with Ryzen 3 2200G


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.