|
| AMD Bulldozer Performance Hotfixes for Windows 7 | |
Microsoft has released two updates that optimize the performance of AMD Bulldozer CPUs on Windows 7-based or Windows Server 2008 R2-based computers. KB2645594 (install this first)
The CPU scheduling techniques that are used by Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are not optimized for the AMD Bulldozer module architecture. Therefore, multithreaded workloads may not be optimally distributed on computers that have one of these processors installed in a lightly-threaded environment. This may result in decreased system performance for some applications. When this update is installed, the scheduler will be aware that your Bulldozer processor contains dual-core modules. In essence, threads 1-4 now get assigned to their own module first. KB2646060 (should only be installed after KB2645594)
The CPU Power Policies that are used by Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are not optimized for the dual core AMD Bulldozer module architecture. This can result in decreased system performance with multithreaded workloads in lightly-threaded environments. When this update is installed, Bulldozer modules will be less likely to achieve the C6 power state. This potentially results in increased power consumption in more lightly-threaded environments. Download: KB2645594 Download: KB2646060
Last edited by Regeneration; January 12th, 2012 at 12:32 AM.
| | | | 31 Comments | | | | | Dont even Botter, the damn fix only increases performance up to 1-2% in the BEST scenario with multi threaded applications.
As Squall pointed... FAIL. | | | | Aren't they available via windows update yet?
After reading description of these updates i think it is not so sure what is the problem for real. This is new architecture, very distinctive when we compare it to all previous cpus of both sides: amd and intel. I can say: yes, amd failed by making something innovative and not elaborating it to be as good in performance as customers expected, but it is a bit of microsoft's guilt of not releasing proper updates on time of cpus release date.
I hope amd will elaborate their new architecture and next cpus based upon this will be very powerful and energy-saving if they will i'm almost sure these future cpus will beat up few another generations of intel's cpus. |
Last edited by SpectatorX; January 12th, 2012 at 08:09 AM..
| Quote | | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLobo  Dont even Botter, the damn fix only increases performance up to 1-2% in the BEST scenario with multi threaded applications.
As Squall pointed... FAIL. | 1-2% is not the best case scenario. The best case scenario is with 1/2 of the cores being used, gaining up to about 10% | | | | Well, if they survive this fiasco. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered 1-2% is not the best case scenario. The best case scenario is with 1/2 of the cores being used, gaining up to about 10% | so they are only 20% slower than the equivalent Intel processor instead of 30  | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart so they are only 20% slower than the equivalent Intel processor instead of 30 | That depends when and where. Recompiled software often runs comparably on SB and BD... in some cases BD can even be faster. That of course doesn't matter much for typical user as he has no means to recompile sources  | | | | When the benchmarks arrive, i doubt it can even hit 2% increase in most apps... AMD Claims up to 10% increase not that it is a constant 10% everywhere, as AMD claims:
*Our testing shows that not every application realizes a performance boost. In fact, heavily threaded apps (those designed to use all 8 cores), get little or no uplift from this hotfix – they are already maxing out the processor. In other cases, the uplift averages out to a 1-2 percent uplift. *
Source here: http://blogs.amd.com/play/2012/01/11...AMD+at+Play%29
I tried the beta, i know it was not finished and most games i tried to bench I THINK i did gain half a frame... but it could just have been my imagination.
Oh gee 1/2fps more raw performance! you know how that half a frame can do a difference in gaming...
Gona try these new patches and see if there is actually any performance increase, i think its just not worth the time installing them but we will see. |
Last edited by DarkLobo; January 12th, 2012 at 04:24 PM..
| Quote | | | | | You shouldnt be testing a cpu on games, most games dont make alot of use of the cpu. | | | | Actually you SHOULD be using this patch WITH up to 4 single threaded apps (like 4 SuperPI each on different module) or apps with up to 4 heavy work threads (and again - each thread on different module - which is the function of first KB). Then you can look for differences and gains. This patch doesn't increase performance with multithreaded apps such as cinebench, 7zip, 3dmark cpu tests etc! It targets situation when there are <= 1/2 of cores in use and dispatches load across all modules (up to the point when all modules are "half full") instead of saturating one module (so filling both integer cores) before loading another. | | | | | | Fail or not, I will get an FX as my next processor or one of the FX successors (Piledriver). | | | | does anyone in this thread own one of these cpu's? | | | | One of my brothers has a FX 8120 on his PC and i did tried the patch when it was first released but i didnt see any increase in performance.
I may just try this new patches. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by blindartist You shouldnt be testing a cpu on games, most games dont make alot of use of the cpu. | all games use cpu heavily, whether it be a single core (or load balanced across several) | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by megaD2000plus Fail or not, I will get an FX as my next processor or one of the FX successors (Piledriver). | You also buy apple products as too, so your opinion is invalid. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart all games use cpu heavily, whether it be a single core (or load balanced across several) | Define "heavily". | | | | usage totalling atleast 100% of a single core, that results in reduced process time for other api's. | | | | So it means what I thought it means and in that case I disagree with the previous statement completely. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by mkey So it means what I thought it means and in that case I disagree with the previous statement completely. | i disagree with your breathing, but you don't see me denying you of it. | | | | Well, I'm not denying you of your idiotic comments either, just do what you do best. | | | | I really hope AMD get their shit together and release good processors because Intel he's going to kill us with their prices.
My i7 2600K cost more now than 4 months ago ffs! | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart all games use cpu heavily, whether it be a single core (or load balanced across several) | and if you have a dual core CPU that might matter but as it stands I dont have a single game that breaks 60%(most hover 20-30%) on any individual core, unless your hitting 100% across all used cores your not gonna get much of an indication of performance changes. | | | | Saddly, according to this: http://www.techpowerup.com/158623/AM...provement.html
The peformance gains are olmost nowhere to be seen... its just sad, i really love AMD and this setup is AMD only... i really want AMD to be competitive but clearly they are not being even competition... it SUCKS because i hate Intel/nVidia huge prices which i cannot afford.
My first 4 setups before this one where all Intel with nVidia, i decided to try AMD for the price and i thought at that time it was a good choice, but they got rid of AM3 socket and PhenomII AM3 CPUs... BAD MOVE... AMD just left me in the dust with no option to upgrade this setup. | | | | Well they did state they will no longer be competing with intel and instead focusing on the mobile market in some braindead strategy to...lose the rest of their customers? i dunno
But fret not, its still a good system, dont let benchmarks and shit get to your head, if it performs well and does what you need then who gives a shit about numbers? If gaming is your main concern that a better video card would do you far more good then a cpu.
Oh and depending on what board you have there may be an AM3+ bios update, MSI updated several of their AM3 boards to run am3+. | | | | ASRock is one of the brands that was supporting Bios to allow AM3+ CPUs, saddly my mobo is just one of those few who DONT: http://www.asrock.com/MB/download.as...XH/128M&o=BIOS
I got 1.90 and i had so much hope that they release a bios for my mobo, its been olmost 2 years and no bios update.
Wouldnt have a problem if i could still get any of the PhenomII cpus, some are fast like the 980 or the 1100T, but they are no where to be found in stores anymore aand as far i know AMD wont be shipping anymore of those... i could order one from the US in NewEgg but that would cost too much. |
Last edited by DarkLobo; January 14th, 2012 at 03:11 AM..
| Quote | | | | | Yea I know what you mean, my board got left out of the AM3 bios update too but really I dont care, have the best cpu I can put in it and it will do me for a good 4 years before I even consider upgrading.
Dont get sucked into the numbers game, shit will drive you nuts and empty your bank account, even if you buy the best thing in a few months it will look like crap again if you get sucked into the game, all taht matters is that it does what you need it to do and your happy with the way it performs, numbers are for chumps.
In the words of King Crimson:
You have to be happy with what you have
To be happy with what you have
You have to be happy with what you have to happy with | | | | @Darklobo - yeah, they tested fix for <= half cores loaded with apps which load all cores(like cinebench, AIDA) - what improvements would YOU expect there to be?
Again - it improves only situations where normally there are eg. M0C0+M0C1+M1C2+M1C3 used with usage like that: M0C0+M1C2+M2C4+M3C6 (where M stands for module numer and C for core number) so instead of running 4 threaded app on 2 modules (with shared L2, decoder, fpu) it runs that app on all 4 modules (which takes more electricity but... each thread has one module for itself - so all L2, L1D, fpu and x86 decode stage). This fix just DO NOTHING when all 8 cores are in use.
I'll just wait for tests which confirm (or not) improvements in situations where the fix should kick in (so for example older dual threaded games). | | | | Well if i remember correctly AMD statement about Bulldozer was that the Task Scheduler was making AMD FX underperform overall by a margin of 10% compared to Win8. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis..._FX_Chips.html
I dont remember AMD saying that under certain circumstances the FX series was underperforming, they totally blame it on Windows7 Task Scheduler that supposedly was holding FX series Architecture.
Dont we all remember that this was one of the reasons AMD PR team got fired? well... appart from the other statement that Bulldozer had 2 Billion Transistors... and then we knew it was actually 1.2 Billion Transistors.
It does not really matter, something went wrong in their architecture i think i read a note about AMD blaming GF for something, this was the reason why they move back to TSMC. I think AMD was trying to hit the default Clock beyond 4Ghz which would had make FX series much more competitive, and somehow GF fuck it up.
Still i would have preffer AMD to release a 28/22nm PhenomII on AM3 with much higher clock and more L2/L3 Cache than Bulldozer CPUs, heck they should had even wait a little longer to make FX the way they wanted. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart You also buy apple products as too, so your opinion is invalid. | Your brain is invalid, you idiot! How do you know I buy Apple products? I'm not using any Apple product.
I'm writing this post on a Linux driven Tablet computer (WeTab - http://wetab.mobi/en/). It's more or less the opposite of an Apple product. I bet you didn't even hear of it. |
Last edited by megaD2000plus; January 14th, 2012 at 06:47 PM..
| Quote | | | | | Come on folks, enough with the insults. Squall come on, we've been through this already. | |
|
Copyright © NGOHQ.com - All rights reserved
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium
without written permission of the site's owners is prohibited.
Powered by vBulletin from vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO
|
| |
