Non-server CPU compatibility - Ryzen and Intel
-
If you have pro support, please open a ticket so we can see how to prioritize this
-
@dave-opc said in Non-server CPU compatibility - Ryzen and Intel:
@stormi
what about support for 8.2 and new CPUs like 7900/7950 ?I saw this post, but haven't had time to log back in to say anything. We were actually deploying a few virtualizations, and ran into one of the most incredible hacks I've ever seen on a client (I had never, ever heard of someone using AI to hack voice from an externally compromised Zoom call recording before.. until now)
But I've also had time to go through and check a few things out, as it is often easier for me to stress test units that will be for engineering with a hypervisor than it is for me to just throw windows on it and their licensed product and assume things will be good.
Here is what I can tell you: I've had zero issues with the 7900/7950X. Even better news: now that 48MB DDR5 DIMMS are now available, and BIOS update available, if you're using an X670 platform, I've had success at 192GB of RAM. That's a nice boost over 128GB for a platform so that you can get more RAM on board at a lesser cost than hopping to Threadripper, Epyc, or Xeon.
I have NOT had great luck with 7950X3D. Not frequent but not safe for production kernel panic.
-
@tmservo433
Hmm.. I don't see 48 GB modules on sale, only 2x24
Maybe you had the opportunity to compare the performance with the 5900X ? -
@alex821982 Plenty of 48Gb modules/96Gb Kits on the market right now. Here's an example: https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-2x48GB-5600MT-Desktop-CP2K48G56C46U5/dp/B0C79RMMCL/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=9OY04CIGEEZH&keywords=96gb+ddr5&qid=1692893900&sprefix=96gb+ddr5%2Caps%2C143&sr=8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1
Thanks to newer BIOS updates on the X670 boards, making memory work together (as long as same manufacturer/same speeds) is not as difficult. As to your question of between the 5900X.. the real question is what are you doing with your virtualization as a home lab? I generally say this because I don't think of Ryzens as what I use in production atmosphere; that is generally Epyc at this point on my end.
But if you virtualize for say, Plex/HomeAssistant/some Ubuntu/test environments/etc. then you're probably set with the 5900X.. IF, however, you are utilizing it for things that will intensively task passthrough IO and you want to need it (we have a few virtualized workstations running MS Project, and Adobe) then yes, being able to hand out more memory and cores does in fact help; then again, setting up on very fast NVMEs also helps.
Decide for yourself what the goal is. For most, the jump from a 5900x to a 7950 for virtualization is one where it is a "wait".. but the 8000 series is around the corner, and the one really nice thing about AMD is they aren't always switching sockets; so buyers of the X670 are going to be able to grab the next CPU, whereas it appears Intel's 14000 series is going to require new boards/sockets.
-
@tmservo433
Did I understand you correctly that on X670 and 7950 you have version 8.2 running from open access with the latest updates?
And no problems have been noticed in the work?
And according to the memory configuration, did you just say that there is an option with 96+96 or do you use it in your configurations too?
And can I ask what specific models of motherboards and memory you use for this configuration? -
@alex821982 A few notes: this was done using the Asrock Taichi board; at this point, in testing numerous boards, I no longer recommend ASUS boards for anything AM5. Nothing but trouble and their performance significantly lags everyone else. At first, I thought it was just me, but having talked to several others (like Gamer's Nexus/etc.) it seems as though this problem is universal and may be related to something they've done in the design process.
Out of the box, you likely will not be able to support 192Gb. You will need to flash the BIOS using a 16Gb module or something smaller to the newest BIOS. Do not boot directly to 192Gb. Boot to 96Gb, then 192Gb.
The "retrain" mode will take a bit. Your first time you boot is going to take you at least a minute, in my experience.. prepare for a blank screen for a while.
After BIOS has trained memory modules, boot modes are going to be fast and things are going to move exactly as you expect.
I have not had time to try on other AMD boards with this configuration on XCP-NG, as right now I've been spending too much of the later half of my summer in major Acronis and Sage/Mas update rollouts to clients to cover their SQL configurations, and that is what pays the bills..
Still, I'm looking at potentially upgrading my own home machines this fall; and I like the AM5 platform. For reference, I used Crucial 48Gb modules, as I linked above..I think those were the models. There are many others on the market now. In speaking to our AMD partner, I was told that 64Gb single modules should ship Q1 next year, and they expect AM5 to be fully compatible via BIOS update.
-
@tmservo433
Hmm.. interesting information, thanks...
and I was just choosing from ASUS...
Let's see what Asrock offers on AM5
If we consider the configuration with 192 Gb, then only 96Gb DDR5 6800MHz G.Skill 2 x 48 Gb KIT is available to me so far, that is, I can take two such kits, I hope there will be no problems... -
@alex821982 Go to YouTube and anywhere and find their Asus AM5 problems. If you go back in this thread, I started talking about it before they were talking about it there, but I could see some performance problems and we kept running into strange issues. MSI works, but I really just dislike their BIOS. I don't see many Gigabyte around here, and that leaves me Asrock. Now, Asrock's rack product (Asrack) is great stuff, and I will look into that soon enough for homelab purposes.
Right now, to be honest, outside of rolling out that software, we upgraded several PC units there, and took away 5-X99 Xeon PCs and 3-Threadripper 2950X PCs, and all of them are absolutely everything I would need (outside of power hunger) for a homelab test environment.
I can't vouch for that memory kit you are trying, but I'd assume you'd be OK. Do not expect DDR5-8000. Slow it down if you can for stability. You aren't trying to play for gamer-overclocker purposes.
-
@tmservo433
Yes, of course, I was also not going to overclock I'm even ready to use it at a lower frequency than 6800, the main thing is that it works stably. This choice is only due to the fact that only such a kit is available to me for purchase so far.
Here is an offer available to me from ASRock
X670E Taichi Carrara -
For me it's working without issues since it was released.
ASUS Prime X670-P , 7900X and 2x32 GB 5600 (QVL).The realtek nic, gave me some trouble, so I move on from it to a i350-T4 temporary.
The ASUS motherboard was the only one with 3 mechancal 16x ports.
I use them with 3 cards (2xi350-T4 and 1 x520-DA2).I left a VM for a week with 20 cores doing ML and seems to be stable.
I would prefer a more enterprise solution but I had this HW for another purpose and did some testing.,
I chose the AM5 route so I don't spend money on a dedicate x1 GPU in a headless computer. And had to deal with many issues in the BIOS settings to get things properly running.
Today I tested a Corsair 6200 MT 32-38-38 Memory, lot's of issues @ 6.2 (just XCM profile Auto). Lot's of issues, @ 6000 MT seems to be working fine.
-
According to the reviews above, we can conclude that the new platform on AM5 is fully supported by version 8.2 ?
-
T tjkreidl referenced this topic on
-
There is very little information on this issue
I'll ask you again more specifically hereWho used the MSI MEG X670E ACE?
Since there have already been not very good reviews on specific models for example ASUS
-
I will write for information.
There is a configurationMSI MEG X670E ACE
Ryzen 9 7950X
2 x 96Gb DDR5 5600MHz G.Skill Ripjaws S5
Version 8.2.1 could not be installed
When IOMMU is enabled, I get Kernel Panic at the beginning of the installation
If IOMMU is disabled, the installation begins, the initial boot takes place, then even before the first graphical installation interface and a black screen appear...
-
It should work with 8.3, also it would work with an updated 8.2 ISO containing 2023's fixes about this
-
@olivierlambert
Hmmm...
I tried installing from this iso
https://mirrors.xcp-ng.org/isos/8.2/xcp-ng-8.2.1.iso?https=1In the end, yes, I installed 8.3 beta1
However, I lost the use of this server as part of my 8.2 pool
I thought I saw that you were planning to release 8.3 before the end of the year? -
This ISO is not containing the fix.
@stormi do we have a "experimental" recent 8.2 ISO around containing the fix so it can be used in that case?
-
@olivierlambert Yes: https://nextcloud.vates.fr/index.php/s/5GHSMojntLKT5z5
With SHA256SUM being
172e295f561dc567251302a1a7670aa5cc07d495fec67428a25e3e837ff1a4a4 -
Ah great, please test it @alex821982 that might be exactly what you seek
-
Thank you, I will try to check in the coming days
-
From this ISO, the installation went fine
I will test further...
