[QuinEtiam] AMD FX/Bulldozer Registry Fix - 40% performance boost! - Page 21  

Originally Posted by meetajhu

Wrong. You can run same HDD on different CPU there will be 0 problems.

Originally Posted by born2bwild

First the rumours of BD's performance before launch; now rumours of BD's performance increase with a patch after launch.

Die-hard AMD fans don't know when to stop.

Originally Posted by cjc75

Originally Posted by Buffal0

Funny how many in this thread are taking it as gospel or the second coming of jesus when its unconfirmed and in the rumors section.

If there is a fix I hope minimum 10% improvement... still won't put it against SB

Originally Posted by Xaero252

I see a lot of finger pointing and questioning...
Here is my current understanding:

In the past we have seen CPU drivers for windows (mostly XP, and mostly AMD.) This is NOT what is occurring here, its not some weird issue with the processor causing it (although it kind of is)

What is happening is this: The FX 8xxx series of processors has 4 cores, each core with TWO integer pipelines, effectively granting two processor cores for the price of one. (not "hyperthreading" effective, but almost literally additional core effective.)
This is all fine and dandy, except that when Windows (or Linux) goes to issue work to a core in the processor, it picks the core with the least load, and distributes things using a task scheduler. The problem here is that when a single pipeline on a bulldozer core is being utilized both cores are effectively "in use" even though Task Manager sees the cores appropriately, the task scheduler does not. This isn't really anybody's fault, but rather an oversight.
Standard CPU design from a by-the-book standpoint would never add a second integer pipeline to a single core. So nobody ever really thought to code a task scheduler that worked in that situation. So basically, AMD thought outside the box, and Windows got confused.

Oh not to mention that if the scheduler tries to run non-integer work on one of the integer only threads, the CPU returns an error and the command is re-queued and has to sit in line waiting to be executed again. Basically its a scheduler issue, and could definitely cause some HUGE impact in synthetic benchmarks and normal use. And even more issues in a cluttered server environment.

Originally Posted by meetajhu

Wrong. You can run same HDD on different CPU there will be 0 problems.