Link: (I use 64bits version): http://www.mediafire.com/?y3ba4xcs50w6ki7
The BEFORE/AFTER windows scheduler patch.
My rig is in the sig. The only point not listed there is my cpu clock@4.6ghz (Only with multiplier). I know there are more efficient ways of doing it, but what matters here are the differences before and after the "magic patch".
To do this, I uninstalled the patch, then run cine, batman arkham and saints row the 3rd. After that, without any other changes, I run the same tests, on the same order.
If you guys need more info, just ask. Glad to help. I have no real experience with this kind of testing. Feel free to point if I did anything wrong.
PS: Please, can we NOT turn this into BD bashing? I'm so tired of that. This is more of an info thread for those interested in the gains. I know I'm likely wasting my time… but…
CINEBENCH:
Very little gain… it's there, run more than once. CPU is now recognized as 4c/8t.
CINEBENCH with 1 thread:
The one with 4c/8t is the after. Gain of 0.01… wow… world shattering.
![tongue.gif]( "tongue.gif")
ahahah.
CINEBENCH 6 threads:
CINEBENCH 4 threads:
BATMAN ARKHAM CITY
… no visible gain. I did get a +3fps minimum frames, comparing 2 passes on each configuration… if you consider this palpable gain.
I did get a feeling of it running better, but it COULD be wishful thinking. Since I don't have numbers to back me up, I won't make a case here.
BEFORE:
AFTER:
NEW STUFF: Ingame batman arkham city with hottie catwoman.
Well, I felt perhaps I'd see better performance ingame, instead of just running the benchmark feature. So I loaded the game and, without moving the characer from her place, rotated the camera until I got the lowest FPS. Again, change is very small... it's there, though... I ran it twice, then let the screen rest, moved here and there... those are the best results.
CONFIG:
BEFORE:
AFTER:
Again, I kept track of fps fluctuation and all and I can say, without fear of being wrong, that there is a difference. It is, however, still minimal. Do NOT expect miracles, or enough change to make a game go from unplayable to playable.
SAINTS ROW the 3rd:
Wow… here there is a BIG difference. The game plays much better after the patch. It's more fluid, no stuttering…
To take this picture, I ran around and found a spot where my fps would suffer more… somewhere easy to mark. I then proceed to wait for 5 minutes or so, taking pics whenever my fps was the lowest. Really, there's nothing more to say here than… GREAT!
Even being aware there's a problem with AMD drivers and low FPS, it's perfectly playable now (it wasn't before, at least for me). Here I saw the magic happening
![biggrin.gif]( "biggrin.gif")
EDIT: low graphics card usage is more of a crossfire thing atm, I think. From steam forums:
But there is still hope since volition posted a new thread on the official SR3 PC forums stating:
"Our team is well aware of the issues some users are seeing with regard to performance when meeting our minimum / recommended PC specs. Since the official release date of Saints Row: The Third, we've been working on optimizations to the game, which included a small patch on November 24th. We've also been in talks with AMD and Nvidia to look for ways to increase performance across the board both before, and after the game has been released, and we hope to have either a driver update, a game patch, or a combination of both in the near future to correct these issues. "
Hopefully it will be fixed eventually.
BEFORE:
AFTER:
EDIT:
SERIOUS SAM 3:
Also solid improvements. Settings are everything on ultra, 1080p. I got the spot where I found my fdps took the greatest hit, just in the beginning of the game. Saved… then loaded and took pics without moving. The pics were taken during the period of 2-3 minutes, whenever it hit a lower grade I'd SC it. As with saints row, the game now uses my xfire config better, allowing for greater fps:
BEFORE:
AFTER:
CRYSIS 1: The king of benches, I suppose... or it used to be. No matter, let's see how our patch deals with this one:
Palpable difference. Up to now, All games show some gain, no matter how small. Good news huh? =D
EDIT: 12/16/2011
WINRAR: Here folks... I have to give the news... worse results with the patch. I ran this test twice, but I don't know if I did it correctly. I just made it up.... so please patience with the noob.
I ran winrar on a x264.mp4 file of 1.18g. I let the compression reach exactly 80%, paused and took a pic. This is my best results in 2 passes:
As you can see, it's clearly better withou the patch.
So, there it is, 1st official bad news
![biggrin.gif]( "biggrin.gif")
7ZIP: as requested, here's the benchmark. Same archive used with winRAR. 2 passes each, paused at 85%. No difference at all. I'm keeping the 7zip to use with my patch, thank you very much =D
Looks like MS pulled the plug on the patch. I'll keep it, because gaming in where I need the most performance. Guess it's each own's call.
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/12/16/microsoft-releases-amd-bulldozer-patch-by-mistake2c-incomplete-download.aspx (Thanks radaja for the link)
X264HD benchs: To do this, I used a fresh boot each time.
x264 HD BENCHMARK 3.0 RESULTS WITHOUT PATCH
Please do not compare it with older versions of the benchmark!
Please copy/paste everything below the line to to report your data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Results for x264.exe r1342
encoded 1442 frames, 88.17 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 89.51 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 89.01 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 87.98 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.70 fps, 3966.07 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.41 fps, 3947.72 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.64 fps, 3959.38 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.81 fps, 3952.28 kb/s
x264 HD BENCHMARK 3.0 RESULTS WITH PATCH
Please do not compare it with older versions of the benchmark!
Please copy/paste everything below the line to to report your data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Results for x264.exe r1342
encoded 1442 frames, 91.44 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 91.67 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 90.46 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 90.63 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 43.90 fps, 3961.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.56 fps, 3960.99 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.59 fps, 3961.46 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.60 fps, 3958.33 kb/s
Not sure what to make of this. This bench was made as a request from a user.
CONCLUSION (edited_:
Great for gaming. It's a free patch, and the results go from barely seen to solid gains. For those of you who have a BD, it's a bloody MUST.
EDIT: It's a tradeoff. Some things turned out slower, like winRAR.
For those of you who don't have a BD… well, it's a cool patch, but shouldn't be enough of an impact to make a decision of getting one or not, I believe.
Pax,
Alex.
The BEFORE/AFTER windows scheduler patch.
My rig is in the sig. The only point not listed there is my cpu clock@4.6ghz (Only with multiplier). I know there are more efficient ways of doing it, but what matters here are the differences before and after the "magic patch".
To do this, I uninstalled the patch, then run cine, batman arkham and saints row the 3rd. After that, without any other changes, I run the same tests, on the same order.
If you guys need more info, just ask. Glad to help. I have no real experience with this kind of testing. Feel free to point if I did anything wrong.
PS: Please, can we NOT turn this into BD bashing? I'm so tired of that. This is more of an info thread for those interested in the gains. I know I'm likely wasting my time… but…
CINEBENCH:
Very little gain… it's there, run more than once. CPU is now recognized as 4c/8t.
CINEBENCH with 1 thread:
The one with 4c/8t is the after. Gain of 0.01… wow… world shattering.
CINEBENCH 6 threads:
CINEBENCH 4 threads:
BATMAN ARKHAM CITY
… no visible gain. I did get a +3fps minimum frames, comparing 2 passes on each configuration… if you consider this palpable gain.
I did get a feeling of it running better, but it COULD be wishful thinking. Since I don't have numbers to back me up, I won't make a case here.
BEFORE:
AFTER:
NEW STUFF: Ingame batman arkham city with hottie catwoman.
Well, I felt perhaps I'd see better performance ingame, instead of just running the benchmark feature. So I loaded the game and, without moving the characer from her place, rotated the camera until I got the lowest FPS. Again, change is very small... it's there, though... I ran it twice, then let the screen rest, moved here and there... those are the best results.
CONFIG:
BEFORE:
AFTER:
Again, I kept track of fps fluctuation and all and I can say, without fear of being wrong, that there is a difference. It is, however, still minimal. Do NOT expect miracles, or enough change to make a game go from unplayable to playable.
SAINTS ROW the 3rd:
Wow… here there is a BIG difference. The game plays much better after the patch. It's more fluid, no stuttering…
To take this picture, I ran around and found a spot where my fps would suffer more… somewhere easy to mark. I then proceed to wait for 5 minutes or so, taking pics whenever my fps was the lowest. Really, there's nothing more to say here than… GREAT!
Even being aware there's a problem with AMD drivers and low FPS, it's perfectly playable now (it wasn't before, at least for me). Here I saw the magic happening
EDIT: low graphics card usage is more of a crossfire thing atm, I think. From steam forums:
But there is still hope since volition posted a new thread on the official SR3 PC forums stating:
"Our team is well aware of the issues some users are seeing with regard to performance when meeting our minimum / recommended PC specs. Since the official release date of Saints Row: The Third, we've been working on optimizations to the game, which included a small patch on November 24th. We've also been in talks with AMD and Nvidia to look for ways to increase performance across the board both before, and after the game has been released, and we hope to have either a driver update, a game patch, or a combination of both in the near future to correct these issues. "
Hopefully it will be fixed eventually.
BEFORE:
AFTER:
EDIT:
SERIOUS SAM 3:
Also solid improvements. Settings are everything on ultra, 1080p. I got the spot where I found my fdps took the greatest hit, just in the beginning of the game. Saved… then loaded and took pics without moving. The pics were taken during the period of 2-3 minutes, whenever it hit a lower grade I'd SC it. As with saints row, the game now uses my xfire config better, allowing for greater fps:
BEFORE:
AFTER:
CRYSIS 1: The king of benches, I suppose... or it used to be. No matter, let's see how our patch deals with this one:
Palpable difference. Up to now, All games show some gain, no matter how small. Good news huh? =D
EDIT: 12/16/2011
WINRAR: Here folks... I have to give the news... worse results with the patch. I ran this test twice, but I don't know if I did it correctly. I just made it up.... so please patience with the noob.
I ran winrar on a x264.mp4 file of 1.18g. I let the compression reach exactly 80%, paused and took a pic. This is my best results in 2 passes:
As you can see, it's clearly better withou the patch.
So, there it is, 1st official bad news
7ZIP: as requested, here's the benchmark. Same archive used with winRAR. 2 passes each, paused at 85%. No difference at all. I'm keeping the 7zip to use with my patch, thank you very much =D
Looks like MS pulled the plug on the patch. I'll keep it, because gaming in where I need the most performance. Guess it's each own's call.
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/12/16/microsoft-releases-amd-bulldozer-patch-by-mistake2c-incomplete-download.aspx (Thanks radaja for the link)
X264HD benchs: To do this, I used a fresh boot each time.
x264 HD BENCHMARK 3.0 RESULTS WITHOUT PATCH
Please do not compare it with older versions of the benchmark!
Please copy/paste everything below the line to to report your data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Results for x264.exe r1342
encoded 1442 frames, 88.17 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 89.51 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 89.01 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 87.98 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.70 fps, 3966.07 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.41 fps, 3947.72 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.64 fps, 3959.38 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.81 fps, 3952.28 kb/s
x264 HD BENCHMARK 3.0 RESULTS WITH PATCH
Please do not compare it with older versions of the benchmark!
Please copy/paste everything below the line to to report your data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Results for x264.exe r1342
encoded 1442 frames, 91.44 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 91.67 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 90.46 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 90.63 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 43.90 fps, 3961.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.56 fps, 3960.99 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.59 fps, 3961.46 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 44.60 fps, 3958.33 kb/s
Not sure what to make of this. This bench was made as a request from a user.
CONCLUSION (edited_:
Great for gaming. It's a free patch, and the results go from barely seen to solid gains. For those of you who have a BD, it's a bloody MUST.
EDIT: It's a tradeoff. Some things turned out slower, like winRAR.
For those of you who don't have a BD… well, it's a cool patch, but shouldn't be enough of an impact to make a decision of getting one or not, I believe.
Pax,
Alex.
