Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Quote:
AMD Bulldozer architecture design was somewhat different from than in the current mainstream X86, it's neither CMP (Chip MultiProcessors) nor SMT (Simultaneous Multithreading), but CMT (Cluster Multithreading) design. The architecture is innovative, however, innovation always comes with cost, let's not speak of the performance capability, the coordination between software and application is a tricky issue.

The existing operating system still can't adapt to AMD's CMT architecture, thread scheduler prevents CPU from deliver desired performance, which causes performance decreasement, and therefore, many people hope that new hotfix will make some different on this issue.
AMD FX-8150 + KB2645594 hotfix test
Quote:
Directing at function of two hotfixes, we designed two processes. Firstly we installed KB2645594 independently, in order to avoid performance decreasement due to C6 power state, we turned off C6, CNQ and TC, the test was conducted at 3.6GHz standard frequency.
kb2645594.png


AMD FX-8150 + KB2645594 + KB2646060 hotfix test
Quote:
The second test was to keep CPU run in default state, enable energy-saving and TC, we installed KB2645594 firstly, and then KB2646060, which was commonly-used by most people, what would the result be?
allhotfix.png


Via
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,764 Posts
thanks for the post. Glad 4 thread performance was up, funny how 8 "core" was down by small margins though, I would say its within margin of error but its very consistent throughout the tests.

I just wish there was more gaming results, either way the games they showed were supposed to be heavy cpu dependent games right? I was hoping for more gains
Quote:
Originally Posted by raclimja View Post

Lol
Yeah....dont worry not all AMD users worship Bulldozer, its just some of us are stuck on amd and want to make the most of our expensive motherboards lol...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
They continue to make malicious benchmarks. Do they know how much improve the speed of the memory ram Fx` performance. They go on with the 1600 mgz speed memory; the speed must be least 1860. I own a fx an the procesor run better from better speed. the first bernchmarks were made with apm on. We know how much throttle from it. I think they knew that. but they didnt care.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,607 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorance2000 View Post

They continue to make malicious benchmarks. Do they know how much improve the speed of the memory ram Fx` performance. They go on with the 1600 mgz speed memory; the speed must be least 1860. I own a fx an the procesor run better from better speed. the first bernchmarks were made with apm on. We know how much throttle from it. I think they knew that. but they didnt care.
I'd be interested in seeing proof. I've not seen any benchmarks highlighting memory frequency scaling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
Now I've read everything.

Yes. Every website on the internet is intentionally paid off by the evil zionist nwo killuminati head council run by Nvidia & Intel. Despite many AMD biased websites posting benchmarks that are no different than any other review, it's ALL MALICIOUS TO HARM AMD!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,307 Posts
lol. called it. this update wasnt going to increase performance on piledriver at all. in fact all bulldozer does is bulldoze literal crap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
So, this is to be the level of discourse on OCN these days?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 66racer View Post

thanks for the post. Glad 4 thread performance was up, funny how 8 "core" was down by small margins though, I would say its within margin of error but its very consistent throughout the tests.
I just wish there was more gaming results, either way the games they showed were supposed to be heavy cpu dependent games right? I was hoping for more gains
Yeah....dont worry not all AMD users worship Bulldozer, its just some of us are stuck on amd and want to make the most of our expensive motherboards lol...
When titles like Crysis 2 and Left for Dead 2 are seeing around a 10% performance increase, it would be nice to have a broader range of CPU bound, and GPU bound games being tested. Some increases in higher minimums, lightly threaded use, smoother performance, and better multi-GPU use are all welcome.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,796 Posts
The Bulldozer patch was targeted to improve core parking and how task scheduler issues.

Core parking problems occurred when certain cores were parked prematurely reducing performance. There is a performance penalty every time a core is parked and unparked during a task.

Task scheduler fix changed how threads were assigned to cores. It is more efficient for bulldozer after the fix. Now power consumption should be lower for lightly threaded tasks by putting threads on the same module first before moving on to the next module. This allows the Turbo core (dynamic overclocking) to occur properly.

309

These fixes will not really improve performance for fully loaded 8 threads. Edit: Also because of the more limited scope of scenarios, it was never going to give massive performance improvements across the board.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,004 Posts
Basically it improves performance when using less than 8 cores.

Interesting.

Now bring me a test that loads four threads at 50%. No, not two threads spread along 4 cores. I want 4 different threads running the same workload at 50%.

And let's see how much this improves their ability to share resources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,687 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

Basically it improves performance when using less than 8 cores.
Interesting.
Because its a less than 8 core processor. I think this proves its a 4 core, 8 threads.

Case and point. If you have a Gulftown and open the windows task manager how many threads do you see? 12 Why because we all know for a fact Gulftown is a 6 core processor w/ HT.

Gulftown is not a 12 core processor.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,178 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFPS View Post

Because its a less than 8 core processor. I think this proves its a 4 core, 8 threads.
Case and point. If you have a Gulftown and open the windows task manager how many threads do you see? 12 Why because we all know for a fact Gulftown is a 6 core processor w/ HT.
Gulftown is not a 12 core processor.
I see there is still a little bit of grease and fur left from this horse.

Bulldozer doesn't really fit into the old classifications. It is a four module, eight thread CPU.

One module does not equal one core, but one module does not equal two cores as well.

It does have eight physical cores so AMD marketing isn't lying...but each pair of cores has to share a FPU so there isn't any way that it can function as a truly eight core CPU. No more than my CPU can if I turn on HT. Though the two processes are extremely different and each have their own pros and cons.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,030 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy View Post

Correct.
But when these products eventually materialize and are genuinely not upto the pre launch hype, including official amd slides. then i see nothing to get jelly about..
Then why are you "jolly" and so concerned..? Can you not live by your own creed..?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,535 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by srsparky32 View Post

lol. called it. this update wasnt going to increase performance on piledriver at all. in fact all bulldozer does is bulldoze literal crap.
well you called wrong cause piledriver isnt out yet. If only you knew what you were talking about then maybe you might call right once in a while.

This is a test on Bulldozer not piledriver. Obviously. Piledriver doesnt come out till trinity and thats apu. The piledriver cpu doesnt come out till Q4 2012. So basically you called nothing cause windows 8 will be out before piledriver which its scheduler is a whole lot more complex for Bulldozer architecture than win 7 and its patches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,103 Posts
I see Netburst is living up to its name.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,535 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayoftheGreek View Post

No, Chewy had it right.
So you guys think that no one cares about bulldozer because this thread has only been out for 9 hours and since everyone is not on this site the same time you guys are and making posts taht you come to this conclusion? What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. Most members of ocn have yet to see this thread. This is my first time seeing it and i come on here all the time. You obviously have no idea whats going on. Hence, no one takes your comments seriously .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm View Post

I see there is still a little bit of grease and fur left from this horse.
Bulldozer doesn't really fit into the old classifications. It is a four module, eight thread CPU.
One module does not equal one core, but one module does not equal two cores as well.
It does have eight physical cores so AMD marketing isn't lying...but each pair of cores has to share a FPU so there isn't any way that it can function as a truly eight core CPU. No more than my CPU can if I turn on HT. Though the two processes are extremely different and each have their own pros and cons.
This is exactly correct. This is what a lot of people dont understand or just cant comprehend. They also dont understand that Bulldozer is the first of its kind and has no optimizations whatsoever. this architecture has barely seen the day of light and yet everyone expects it to jump through hoops right out the gate. Perfection takes practice and practice takes time. These guys with your already optimized cpus comparing a new born architecture and just saying it completely sucks only makes them not look smart. Its like comparing IQ of a college student to an infant and saying the infant is stupid. No one can really say how Bulldozer architecture is until it has been optimized and the scheduler has been optimized which we'll see in windows 8. Wait until then to make your lame comments about how your daddy is better than someone elses daddy. Its like a day care in here trying to teach little kids how things work and get all whinny and throw a fit when they dont get there way. Pentium and phenom were the same when they were first released. The arch wasnt optimized but once they were they turned out to be great cpus. Dont be so quick to judge a book by its cover especially when its in rough draft form. Wait until all the mistakes are fixed and all the optimizations and revisions are made and the final copy is complete before you say it sucks. What will you say if/when the revised bulldozers start coming and they blow away SB or IB? What then? Then you either hide cause your too afraid to take the consequences or you just trun around and say that "I never said bulldozer sucks." Give it a break already. You guys act like you want AMD to fail when in fact if AMD succeeds, you get to benefit from it with better prices and/or better products. So instead of always stating how much you think AMD is worse than Intel, start cheering for them and if they come through, it turns around and you get to reap the benefits. Also, no one really cares about "your" opinions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikezachlowe2004 View Post

So you guys think that no one cares about bulldozer because this thread has only been out for 9 hours and since everyone is not on this site the same time you guys are and making posts taht you come to this conclusion?
yeah. i just saw this thread 10 minutes ago. i generally ignore them and keep going. however, im happy with my new toy. it may not be the fastest but im happy with my gaming and [email protected] experience. i'd never return my processor for an intel processor. ive spent the last 10-15 years going for intel solutions. change is good and new technology is good.
thumb.gif
 

·
Frequency is Megabytes
Joined
·
2,997 Posts
You guys will want to wait for Bulldozer 20h-2Fh if you want any real improvement

Bulldozer 10h-1Fh only adds improved Branch Predictor and TLB Entries and a longer Store Queue and removes 4 cores and replaces them with a VLIW4 GPU

Bulldozer 20h-2Fh adds everything above minus the GPU + one more compute unit and Quad-channel and allows execution of Mov(and more) instructions in the AGLUs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seronx View Post

You guys will want to wait for Bulldozer 20h-2Fh if you want any real improvement
Bulldozer 10h-1Fh only adds improved Branch Predictor and TLB Entries and a longer Store Queue and removes 4 cores and replaces them with a VLIW4 GPU
Bulldozer 20h-2Fh adds everything above minus the GPU + one more compute unit and Quad-channel and allows execution of Mov(and more) instructions in the AGLUs
What are you talking about? 20-2Fh = Piledriver?
 
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
Top