Originally Posted by Sumatra
Video encoding rendering. Anything heavily cpu reliant. This cpu will fall short.
Originally Posted by Sumatra
People excusing AMD saying softwaer patches and other things are going to improve performance is rediculous. Its like Toyota building a car that doesnt run right and saying to hold out until new parts software/technology is avalable.
Originally Posted by L D4WG
What? Windows cannot fully utilize Bulldozer?
What on earth does that mean? Its too new for Windows..? What?
It's a wonder how this notion that new architectures haven't benefited from receiving proper application, and OS-level support, continues to come up in these discussions.
While no informed person would reasonably argue that miraculous improvements can come from a Windows patch alone, there are numerous instances of software updates, CPU steppings, fabrication and BIOS/microcode improvements having positive results in performance.
AMD, Intel, and others have had somewhat similar problems in the past. It helps if you know certain bits of history; both factual
technical issues, and perceived
FIX: Systems that have Intel Hyper-Threading technology installed and later disabled may not enter the ACPI C1 processor idle sleep state
Hyper-Threading considered harmful
Enabling Hyperthreading in Windows XP
Link to P4 Hyperthreading patch for XP
Windows 7 Optimized for HyperThreading
Hyper Threading Implications and Setup on Microsoft Operating Systems
Windows Support for Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel HyperThreading: Problems You Should Know
If the operating system's thread scheduler is unaware of hyper-threading it will treat all four processors as being the same. If only two threads are eligible to run it might choose to schedule those threads on the two logical processors that happen to belong to one of the physical processors; that processor would become extremely busy while the other would be idle, leading to poorer performance than is possible with better scheduling. This problem can be avoided by improving the scheduler to treat logical processors differently from physical processors; in a sense, this is a limited form of the scheduler changes that are required for NUMA systems.
When the first HT processors were released it was difficult for some users to decide whether to enable it, because many of them were still using operating systems that were not optimized for hyper-threading technology (e.g. Windows 2000), Also, since most computers had previously had single-threaded processors, few programs were able to take advantage of the feature on their own.
In 2006, hyper-threading was criticised for being energy-inefficient. For example, specialist low-power CPU design company ARM has stated simultaneous multithreading (SMT) can use up to 46% more power than dual-core designs. Furthermore, they claim SMT increases cache thrashing by 42%, whereas dual core results in a 37% decrease. Intel has disputed this claim, stating that hyper-threading is highly efficient because it simply uses resources that would otherwise be idle. In 2010, ARM has stated that it will include simultaneous multithreading in its chips in the future.
Those are only a few quickly thrown together links. I'm sure there are more thorough ones, on this and other instances.