|
Good call out.
This is a way to future proof against someone adding a messed up operator later.
The ironic thing is that if someone wrote incorrect overrides for “==“ or “!=“ where they neglected null, then the likely outcome would be a null pointer exception from the operator itself.
Legacy code, before someone introduces a bad operator!=
if (obj != null) obj.f();
Avoids future introduction of bad operator.
if (obj is not null) obj.f();
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: With latest c# iteration, instead of x != null, one can write x is not null.
Something else to insist people should not use.
Super Lloyd wrote: But then I tried to override the == and != operators and then.. I understood!
Operator overloading was something that C++ programmers learned to avoid like the plague before C# existed.
|
|
|
|
|
Been using that all over the place. Technically, it does about the same as != null, but I think it's increased readability is a boon. A comparison may look like any other value comparison at a quick glance, but an is not null screams "Yo dawg, this is a very special case here, potentially used for high-level control flow/error handling".
|
|
|
|
|
I've been running benches on my machine, and my CPU benchmark is coming up really poorly compared to other systems with the same CPU. Like 10-17% percentile depending on the run.
I've updated the BIOS (which I think clobbered by hardware virtualization) and updated the chipset drivers.
It's a Ryzen Pro 4750G and I don't know much about AMD, but are these clock locked? If not it could be that others are overclocking theirs.
Does anyone have any insight here? Or know a bit about AMD cpus (this is my first one) and can tell me if these are overclockable at least? That would help my investigation.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
My first thought: cheap slow memory
|
|
|
|
|
My memory benchmark is about average to good. It's not gamer memory but it's decent.
This bench runs separate tests for CPU and memory so I imagine their CPU bench code fits in the cache.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that one told me to use a particular benchmark software, but that software wants an installer to run their installer. Seriously. And they require you to register with the website, and you can't even use a big three sign on/register method.
It's like they don't want me to use their product. (Cinebench)
So I'm not going to.
The problem with getting millions of likely hits is they may as well be no hits at all. 
Real programmers use butterflies
modified 23-Dec-21 2:52am.
|
|
|
|
|
G means APU, do you have a discrete video card? If not, then the CL value of the RAM is important. Also important how much of the memory is assigned to the video card functionality.
|
|
|
|
|
I have discreet video - an RTX 2080ti, and the memory is set to autoassign to the onboard GPU (which isn't being used)
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be that your CPU is throttled in the Windows Power settings?
|
|
|
|
|
I checked that. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Check for thermal throttling. I have seen this on some of my AMD boxes.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Does anyone have any insight here
Not a great deal. But take a look at this: https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/ryzen-master
If the CPU supports overclocking, this tool will allow you to do it from a GUI screen. I think maybe a reboot is needed aftewards, but it far easier than trying to figure out what BIOS settings to change, and/or what's safe values.
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
How's the CPU temp while running these benches?
|
|
|
|
|
My bench tool didn't track that. I'd need to find a separate tool to use to check
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
As others have said I will bet it is due to temperature. Is the heatsink dusty? Or loose?
I would check it (CoreTemp is a good program Core Temp[^] )
If that shows high temps and thermal throttling buy some good thermal paste and maybe even a better cpu cooler.
|
|
|
|
|
No, the chip is running far cooler than it really should be under load.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
"The chip" or individual cores? Can you see if it is throttling? CoreTemp will give you info on each core. Also make sure your power settings are set to high performance.
It would also be nice to know if performance was better before the bios update.
|
|
|
|
|
Everything. All cores top out at maybe 65C when they're rated for 90-100 under load. Nothing appears to be throttling. Nothing is set to throttle. HWInfo64 gives per core temps, and doesn't have the problem some software has of misreporting temps on AMD
Performance was about the same before the BIOS update. A BIOS update was one of the first things I tried, since I had never updated the BIOS on this board.
The only thing I can think of is this board has a very conservative profile for this chip, in terms of the voltage levels and such that it's using. But then I'm just spitballing. But the chip *does* go to full clock under load. I don't know how much of the OC stuff I can change with this board/cpu combo. The board is a low-mid range ASUS (so like a middling board, or lower end gaming board in terms of performance). I know the chip itself isn't strictly overclockable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not being undervolted or something maybe? Again, not sure, just spitballing.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought shutdown rwmp on Ryzen was 95C. All I have is ThreadRippers and they definitely start throttling cores in the high 60's. If you are brave you can download something like ThrottleStop to see if you are both getting accurate temps and if you get shutdowns, but I wouldn't recommend it. Also, full throttle temps should be compared to idle temps.
But yeah, if nothing is obvious, you're probably 'spit balling' untilyou get lucky. Could be a lot of things, like Windows itself.
|
|
|
|
|
I did try setting some profile in my bios to like CM5 Aggressive, but it causes a reboot as soon as the CPU went under load, so I do have *some* control over the hardware/firmware in this respect. I haven't dug around there, because I don't like doing things that could cause a thermal watchdog reset, especially I'd think on 7nm pathway dies. I'm hoping my answer doesn't lie down that path, because I think then my best solution is a better motherboard more geared to tuning everything and better cooling to go with it. I just dumped another $1000 into my machine recently, so I'm not eager to dump another several hundred in right now. This MB isn't really meant for a lot of tuning anyway, and I think it may run very conservative out of the box. It may not be a strictly gaming board. It's an ASUS Prime A520M-K, if that means anything, and it's probably not top shelf.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I would still be suspicious of temperature throttling. Always am.
It is generally cheap to remount your heatsink as well as ensuring it is clean. The only effort is time and some thermal paste, maybe some isopropyl to clean the heatsink.
Always a bummer when you don't get 100% performance from anything, but especially a cpu.
|
|
|
|
|
Is Christmas always a Claus for celebration, or just Claus and Effect?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
For those of us that are working over the holiday, it's a cause for cerebration.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
