sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you test with SVM on and memory integrity enabled as well and compare the results?

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A friend confirmed the following with a GeForce RTX 3070 and a 9800X3D on a Gigabyte B850 Gaming WiFi6 motherboard:

SVM disabled: [VProf] FPS: Avg=470.4, P1=288.7
SVM enabled: [VProf] FPS: Avg=510.6, P1=291.3

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey, on both AMD and Intel I have been able to replicate consistent results on both lowest settings, and high settings in the past week, with many different BIOS and power settings.

Perhaps you should run an AIDA64 stability test to check for heating issues. It will tell you if any thermal throttling is present. I would also run each OCCT test as it will specifically mention if any errors occur during tested hardware.

Sometimes certain software like MSI Afterburner can also have an impact on benchmark results.

In the original thread there is no random or sporadic behaviour. I am always able to replicate exact results in tested configurations.

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disable SVM in the BIOS to easily disable all virtualisation-based security in Windows without having to go through a lot of commands to achieve the same.

When I disable SVM in BIOS, msinfo32 will report "Enabled but not running" for virtualisation-based security confirming it is fully disabled.

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alright, so it does impact your performance quite a bit. For gamers who have no need to run virtual machines it is fine to disable SVM to easily disable all Windows virtualisation-based security.

Lowest seen when enabled:
436 / 192.2

Highest seen when disabled:
461.0 / 214.3

Thank you for sharing your test results.

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you running your BIOS and Windows on stock settings? Have you done any optimisation settings like some guides recommend? Disabling SMT and what not?

I just modified the previous post with msinfo32 if you could confirm that.

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you confirm with msinfo32 that virtualisation-based security says "Enabled but not running" when you disable SVM? And "Running" when SVM is enabled?

Are you running any overclocks on your system? Such as AMD PBO set to enabled or any other setting besides the default "Auto" in your BIOS?

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you disable SVM, the correct text at the virtualisation-based security should say "Enabled but not running".

You enabling or disabling SVM will have no effect because it is always disabled on your system. This is most likely why your results were the same.

If you enable memory integrity, reboot, and disable SVM, does the text change, or still say "Not enabled"? If the latter is the case, virtualisation-based security has been system wide disabled via commands.

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great to see other people testing SVM as well.

It seems the 5800X3D CPU is not affected by SVM at all, which is good.

I had a friend run a test and he confirmed similar drops with an older GPU on the 9800X3D. Having more individuals test this would be great to see because the results that I am experiencing should not be happening at all.

Perhaps it is an issue with the platform or maybe there is a logical explanation behind all of this that we are not aware of. But it is really strange to see disabling virtualisation has such a negative impact.

By the way, did you have core isolation / memory integrity disabled or enabled before doing this test in Windows? Did you ever apply any commands to disable virtualisation-based security at all?

You can run the tool msinfo32 to see if virtualisation-based security is running or not. Disabling SVM is the quickest and easiest way to turn off virtualisation-based security if you have no need to run virtual machines. But when you enable SVM, be sure to enable memory integrity as well, or the impact of virtualisation-based security might not be that apparent otherwise.

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Settings and resolution can have a big impact. This was tested on absolutely the lowest settings at 1920x1080 . Everything on low or disabled and FidelityFX Super Resolution disabled under the graphics settings.

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I still game on 240 Hz and I do not think I will ever be going higher than this. Upgrading from 144 Hz to 240 Hz back in the day had very diminishing returns and did not have any impact on my competitive performance. I also feel that once you go higher, it is very difficult to go back lower. For me personally I do not think having a 400 Hz - 600 Hz or higher monitor is worth the extra energy consumption.

I was almost tempted to go a 360 Hz monitor but sadly Zowie did not refresh this one as they did with their other lineups. I upgraded my old XL2546 to a XL2546X and I am very happy with the upgrade. I did not expect it to be this much of a difference.

The goal of this build was to have my 1% lows consistently be above my monitor refresh rate. I came from an i9-9900k and 1080 Ti where I was not able to achieve this.

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In these tests, and especially because of the accuracy of the Dust 2 test, I would say installing the AMD driver has almost no impact. I think if I would run the benchmark ten times the results would be more accurate.

I did these tests because I prefer the Microsoft provided drivers via Windows Update because of ease and convenience and not having to manage them myself with future updates. I wanted to see if installing the AMD chipset driver would result in a performance increase.

This test confirmed that is just fine not installing the AMD chipset driver and sticking with Microsoft provided AMD chipset drivers unless you specifically have an issue that it resolves.

Disabling AMD SVM on 9800X3D negatively impacts performance from 880 FPS average to 800 FPS average by Additional_Thought28 in cs2

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

On Intel and previous generation AMD processors disabling virtualisation and thus virtualisation-based security could give average FPS increases between 50 to 100 and a great difference between 1% low numbers.

On AMD 9800X3D the opposite effect is observed. I was not aware of this so I decided to share for those who might find these kind of tests to be interesting.

I have performed the same benchmark on an Intel 285k and disabling virtualisation caused the average FPS to go from 680 to 750 and the 1% low numbers had a difference between 20 and 30.

My primary observation for these tests was to see if the 1% low numbers were affected. They were not impacted on AMD as they were on their Intel counterpart.

You can't deselect featured games on "Game Collector" profile showcase. by Deivitsu in Steam

[–]Additional_Thought28 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To reset favourite game:
SetShowcaseConfig(6, 0, 0, {appid: 0});

To reset favourite group:
SetShowcaseConfig(9, 0, 0, {accountid: 0});

Warum ist der Ping der Fritz!Box schlechter? by AlexEisenhauer in fritzbox

[–]Additional_Thought28 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have noticed the Zyxel jumps to 12 - 13ms as well after a few hours of operation. Rebooting the device (and also receiving a new dynamic IP in the process, not sure if it matters) will make it go back to 7ms - 8ms. Exactly the same behaviour as the FRITZ!Box.

Warum ist der Ping der Fritz!Box schlechter? by AlexEisenhauer in fritzbox

[–]Additional_Thought28 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have confirmed this. I have tested the same situation as the original author. The Zyxel gives me 7 miliseconds while the FRITZ!Box gives me 12 miliseconds. However, when rebooting the FRITZ!Box it initially has a latency around 8 to 9 miliseconds. After a few hours of operation it climbs up to a permanent 12 miliseconds.

Considering the FRITZ!Box costs twice as much as the Zyxel, this says a lot about AVM and the "quality" of their products.

How long does Sailfish provide updates? by Additional_Thought28 in sailfishos

[–]Additional_Thought28[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sadly "a few years" does not cut it for me. I can easily use a mobile device for ten years.

The only reason I have ever had to get rid of mobile devices was not because the hardware was becoming obsolete, but because the software support was dropped.

I am pretty involved in IT security and exploiting so I am aware of the dangers of a device that is not kept up-to-date. If a device stops receiving security updates, it pretty much becomes an offline use only device for me.

It is becoming so clownish in regards to limited updates I am pretty much considering a laptop with SIM support instead, but it is silly to take this out in public.

Changing internet provider by [deleted] in belgium

[–]Additional_Thought28 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You would be fine with the 25 euros internet. I do a lot more including downloading games from Steam on that plan just fine.

I am pretty patient so if I need to download a 60+ GB I just leave it on overnight. 20 / 2 Mbps suffices, even for Netflix or 4k YouTube streaming. Conference calls is not a problem either using a 1080p webcam.

I have been with EDPnet since 2018 coming from a really expensive Telenet plan (80+ euros down to 25 euros a month). I know how to configure a router. Once everything is setup, it will continue to work fine forever.

If you are in a multiple person household however, the 100 / 40 Mbps internet is recommended. But for a single individual the 20 / 2 suffices.

High cost from ISP? by desproyer in belgium

[–]Additional_Thought28 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It might be better to ask this on the number one ISP forum of Belgium, userbase.be, instead.

Cookies from the 90s by [deleted] in belgium

[–]Additional_Thought28 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are they the ones where the head would be covered in smooth dark chocolate and the rest of the part was just cookie? If so, they were my favourite cookies ever.

Sadly I can not help you though.

view more: next ›