# New Windows 7 Bulldozer Patches Available.



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 11, 2012)

Very quietly Microsoft has released two new patches available for the Bulldozer platform. According to the AMD blog these patches seem to offer little more then a 10% boost but the do improve over all performance. This is what Adam Kozak a product marketing manager at AMD had to say,

"Some of you may remember that AMD FX processors use a unique dual-core module architecture codenamed "Bulldozer", which current versions of Windows 7 were not specifically architected to utilize. In essence, for those with an AMD FX-8150 Processor, for example, Windows 7 sees the eight available cores and randomly assigns threads to them.

In initial testing of the upcoming Windows 8 operating system, we've seen performance improvements of up to 10% in some applications, when compared to Windows 7. This is because the system correctly recognizes the AMD FX processor architecture and cores. Thanks to close collaboration between Microsoft and AMD, Microsoft recently completed back-porting some of the Windows 8 scheduler code for AMD FX processors into a hotfix for Windows 7."

Here are the directions given by Adam Kozak,
So if you have an AMD FX processor, here's what you can do to update your version of Windows 7:

1) Download the scheduler update (KB2645594) and install. This will tell the scheduler that your AMD FX processor contains dual-core modules (in fact this is similar to the SMT path that the other guys use). In essence, threads 1-4 now get assigned to their own module first.

2) Download the core parking scheduler update (KB2646060) and install. This will prevent Windows 7 shutting down unused cores prematurely when there are threads to be assigned (there's a performance penalty parking and then un-parking a core).

The best possible cases for improvement are applications that use ½ cores in your AMD FX processor. In our testing using the AMD FX-8150 processor, we found the best improvement in wPrime, Left 4 Dead 2, and Lost Planet. Below you'll find links to the patches:

Patch 1
Patch 2

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 11, 2012)

10% is not even close to be called good, its still a bad
product


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 11, 2012)

The FX-8150 is not a bad product. It is a new design and it has some quirks. Glad to see they are working to resolve these quirks.

I hope these updates the task scheduler fixes the issue I have with Deus Ex.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jan 11, 2012)

So, does this pay dividends?


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 11, 2012)

Was wondering when this would come out, not like I need it but I bet whoever owns a derpdozer wants to test it out ^_^


----------



## Disruptor4 (Jan 11, 2012)

So who is willing to do an extensive test to see if or what kinda of improvements there are.


----------



## techtard (Jan 11, 2012)

Bring on the benches. 

As for this product being a failure, it isn't. For your everyday user, the new FX chips will get the job done.
The only failure was fanboys pumping this chip up as the second coming of Athlon, the Intel slaying super processor.
Didn't live up to the hype, but it's a decent chip with a full-featured modern platform.

But, if you are a gamer and want the absolute best FPS, get an i5-2500k.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jan 11, 2012)

I see no download in the provided links. I must be blind.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 12, 2012)

techtard said:


> Bring on the benches.
> 
> As for this product being a failure, it isn't. For your everyday user, the new FX chips will get the job done.
> The only failure was fanboys pumping this chip up as the second coming of Athlon, the Intel slaying super processor.
> ...



Fixed


----------



## OneCool (Jan 12, 2012)

It all comes down to Intel having hyperthreading and AMD dont (because they cant patients,copyright blah blah).This CPU was to designed to fight that and its not fairing so well on its first go round.


----------



## johnspack (Jan 12, 2012)

I was amd only since my amd286-20 oced...   so disappointed. No further comment.....


----------



## D4S4 (Jan 12, 2012)

omfg here we go again... :shadedshu


----------



## suraswami (Jan 12, 2012)

D4S4 said:


> omfg here we go again... :shadedshu



Thats an AMD curse, any thread you post that says somewhere the word 'AMD', intel sh*****s unload their p**p.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jan 12, 2012)

LINK PLEASE! This news is to new for google.
.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 12, 2012)

D4S4 said:


> omfg here we go again... :shadedshu



Pretty sure the last time they released one, they retracted it and said they did so because it was a 2 part patch that they would be releasing at a later time. Yet it seems surprising to you that the 2 part patch is now here... mind boggling


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 12, 2012)




----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 12, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> LINK PLEASE! This news is to new for google.
> .



Yup. Just like last time we are the first to break the story.


----------



## D4S4 (Jan 12, 2012)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Pretty sure the last time they released one, they retracted it and said they did so because it was a 2 part patch that they would be releasing at a later time. Yet it seems surprising to you that the 2 part patch is now here... mind boggling



i'm just getting tired of all the BD bs threads, that's all.

not that i'm saying the bulldozer or the patches are bullshit, what people write and how many pages the thread has is.


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 12, 2012)

thats kinda sad, thats why people say WINTEL = windows with intel
windows should support both


----------



## happita (Jan 12, 2012)

techtard said:


> Bring on the benches.
> 
> As for this product being a failure, it isn't. For your everyday user, the new FX chips will get the job done.
> The only failure was fanboys pumping this chip up as the second coming of Athlon, the Intel slaying super processor.
> ...



Fixed again.


----------



## Regeneration (Jan 12, 2012)

Got both updates mirrored here.


----------



## Tweety (Jan 12, 2012)

Windows CPU  score went from 7.4 to 7.5... for free


----------



## NielsCnossen (Jan 12, 2012)

*Nice windows score!*

I got 7.6 with a Phenom II 1055T


----------



## Tweety (Jan 12, 2012)

7.5 now for an FX6100@4.25Ghz...


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 12, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> techtard said:
> 
> 
> > Bring on the benches.
> ...



Really fixed.


----------



## seronx (Jan 12, 2012)

Guys this was a prerelease again you need to wait for the third patch which will increase performance by 400% in workloads that involve quantum unreality


----------



## qubit (Jan 12, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> LINK PLEASE! This news is to new for google.
> .



You're not seeing a direct link, because being a hotfix, it needs to be specifically requested from Microsoft - you have to click the link at the top of their hotfix page, called "View and request hotfix downloads". You then have to click Yes to an agreement  and it then takes you to a page where you can request the hotfix, by giving them your email address and answering the captcha.

What a bother.

Alternatively, just grab it off Regeneration's link, which you've seen.

10% improvement might be quite disappointing, but still, it's better than nothing.


----------



## neko77025 (Jan 12, 2012)

trickson said:


> WOW a .1% increase ! Now you can play Crysis


its way more then just .1%  7.9 is max so ... .1 is alot 




NielsCnossen said:


> I got 7.6 with a Phenom II 1055T


you refresh your score any time soon .. as new stuff somes out old stuff goes down.




On another note I am seeing some improvements but nothing big.
have 8150 @ 4400mhz


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Jan 12, 2012)

I see 10% in all most nothing...10% must be the "but its up to " number.

I am re-installing and testing as Idid with the 1st part of the patch....novabench was 11% improvement BTW, just on messing about testing.

Lost 13% on PC mark right enough....a re-install and test will tell me more but truth be told it feels no faster, benchmarks mean little in the real world....will bench a few converting files and some winrar....real world stuff....I would do it now but re-installing is a pest




trickson said:


> I think BD is the Bigger Disappointment .
> 
> I get 7.5 on both CPU and RAM I don't see any thing extreme about it .



I get 7.7 on processor ...in fact 7.7 through the board until my SSD gives me 7.3.....raid0 soon right enough.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Jan 12, 2012)

How can you say such things....after my re-install I will be looking @ a 18.7 WEI, its not hard to see how great this patch will be.

If you have 8 cores working flawlessly together is must be better than sliced bread, Tricky me old son this patch is like a cure it all ....just wait, intels benchmarks are blown away by such a patch.

I mean it must be who can argue with hope.

My WEI is stock BTW, @ 5 GHz is gets 7.9, it would be more but AMD didnt want to frighten the intel lads.

PS anyone want to buy a super powerful FX 8120..... its almost as good as intel but without the "being good" part.
Cant argue with patches improving just about nothing, will swap for a cute micro pig and a plate of ham sandwiches.


----------



## mtosev (Jan 12, 2012)

Tweety said:


> Windows CPU  score went from 7.4 to 7.5... for free


my i7 930 has the same score and it's almost 2 years old


----------



## erek (Jan 12, 2012)

both files @ http://www.ngohq.com/news/21092-amd-bulldozer-performance-hotfixes-for-windows-7-a.html


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Jan 12, 2012)

erek said:


> both files @ http://www.ngohq.com/news/21092-amd-bulldozer-performance-hotfixes-for-windows-7-a.html



Direct links to a download...will thank you as soon as I can.....I have them but its worth thanking you


----------



## mdbrotha03 (Jan 12, 2012)

mtosev said:


> my i7 930 has the same score and it's almost 2 years old


I'm getting 7.6.


----------



## qubit (Jan 12, 2012)

Heck, I'm getting 9 on my old E8500 and a cheap graphics card!


----------



## HillBeast (Jan 12, 2012)

mtosev said:


> my i7 930 has the same score and it's almost 2 years old



I get 7.6 on my 930 @ 3.66GHz. And it's not 2 years old, we should consider when Nehalem came out (2008), so a 4 year old CPU is still trading blows with a '8-core' CPU. Bulldozer is still a massive fail. It's worse than Netburst.


----------



## seronx (Jan 12, 2012)

HillBeast said:


> I get 7.6 on my 930 @ 3.66GHz. And it's not 2 years old, we should consider when Nehalem came out (2008), so a 4 year old CPU is still trading blows with a '8-core' CPU. Bulldozer is still a massive fail. It's worse than Netburst.



Well you have to understand Bulldozer was going to come out on 45nm....All 8-cores nothing disabled

and it shows somewhat....

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2011q4/cpu2006-20111121-19030.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2011q1/cpu2006-20110211-14447.html

O6238 @ 2.6GHz(2.9GHz ACTC) 24C/24T:  *SPECint_Rate: 414, 365(Base)*
X5690 @ 3.467GHz 12C/24T: SPECint_Rate: 419, 389(Base)

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2011q4/cpu2006-20111121-19042.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2011q1/cpu2006-20110211-14445.html

O6238: SPECfp_Rate: *340, 318(Base)*
X5690: SPECfp_Rate: 272, 265(Base)

In these benchmarks, this is comparing Interlagos 24C vs Westmere 24T both on 32nm(I can't compare Sandy Bridge-E to Interlagos yet because there is no Sandy Bridge-E 2P LGA2011 yet)

What happened was GlobalFoundries cut the plug for 45nm HKMG SOI and started rushing for 32nm HKMG SOI eSiGe


----------



## Super XP (Jan 12, 2012)

We have a failure to communicate.
A for this 2 part patch, boosting L4D2 is all good.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 12, 2012)

Can it play Starcraft 2? Or any other game that isn't GPU limited? And how are those minimum FPS doing?

Just kidding, I already know the answer. I would've put this board to use already if it could.


----------



## johnspack (Jan 12, 2012)

I miss my K6-2 450......


----------



## xBruce88x (Jan 12, 2012)

... i miss my k6-2 500 i had OC to 550. 768mb ram... a couple voodoo IIs... good times. also miss my athlon xp 2500.


----------



## mtosev (Jan 12, 2012)

HillBeast said:


> I get 7.6 on my 930 @ 3.66GHz. And it's not 2 years old, we should consider when Nehalem came out (2008), so a 4 year old CPU is still trading blows with a '8-core' CPU. Bulldozer is still a massive fail. It's worse than Netburst.


just i know that the first lga1366 cpus came out in late 2008. we had lots of cpus i7 920, 920 D0, 930, 940, 950, 965, 980, 990my cpu isn't oced so that must be why i get a score of 7.5


----------



## Covert_Death (Jan 12, 2012)

trickson said:


> I know one game it would choke on . Battlefield 3 ! That would kill the BD ..  They will need 4 patches for the 2 patch patch to get the patch to work on BF3 !



lol i doubt that, my pII 955 runs BF3 on ultra. i think the BD would handle it too.


----------



## n0tiert (Jan 12, 2012)

all i can say about the AMD FX-8150, it runs all current Programs / Games (max / ultra) fine, and if a patch could fix some compatible issues to the OS / thread handling thats also fine to me ........

dunno why all you guys bitchn about, now i can run "......."


----------



## Frick (Jan 12, 2012)

The only benchmarks I run was the ones included in AIDA64 Extreme (1.85.1600) and there was no real difference there. Numbers attached if anyone is interested.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 12, 2012)

trickson said:


> I know one game it would choke on . Battlefield 3 ! That would kill the BD ..  They will need 4 patches for the 2 patch patch to get the patch to work on BF3 !



It actually handles BF3 fine. BF3 is GPU limited.


----------



## qubit (Jan 12, 2012)

Frick said:


> The only benchmarks I run was the ones included in AIDA64 Extreme (1.85.1600) and there was no real difference there. Numbers attached if anyone is interested.



The patch makes no difference as far as your benchmarks.


----------



## imitation (Jan 12, 2012)

trickson said:


> WOW a .1% increase ! Now you can play Crysis



First of all, 7.4 to 7.5 is not .1%. Secondly, the Windows score is non-linear. To gain 1 (one) point, you 50% more performance, according to Microsoft.
So the score indicates 0-10% more performance. Not too shabby for a patch!


----------



## omagic (Jan 12, 2012)

Well i only had time to check Crysis CPU Benchmark
Before 47 fps
After  56 fps

So quite nice boost. Ill try some more games after the work

FX-8120 8GB RAM HD6870
1680x1050 all maxed


----------



## mtosev (Jan 12, 2012)

imitation said:


> First of all, 7.4 to 7.5 is not .1%. Secondly, the Windows score is non-linear. To gain 1 (one) point, you 50% more performance, according to Microsoft.
> So the score indicates 0-10% more performance. Not too shabby for a patch!


too bad for amd. intels cpus are still faster and cost less. amd screwed up good


----------



## cyberloner (Jan 12, 2012)

just incase who need the fix http://www.cybermania.ws/new-windows-7-bulldozer-patches-available/


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 12, 2012)

trickson said:


> I know one game it would choke on . Battlefield 3 ! That would kill the BD ..  They will need 4 patches for the 2 patch patch to get the patch to work on BF3 !



urrm actually Bulldozer outperforms the i-series in Battlefield 3. Thanks for spreading false AMD gossip.


----------



## Millennium (Jan 12, 2012)

please someone install this backported windows 8 stuff in their *intel* windows 7 pc and let us know any change thanks :]

well this is a hardcore enthusiast site after all!


----------



## xaira (Jan 12, 2012)

and on a hardcore enthusiast site everyone checks wei.........really?

can someone load cinebench please

if its better in wprime then it should seriously translate beneficially to cinebench


----------



## screamer980 (Jan 12, 2012)

xaira said:


> and on a hardcore enthusiast site everyone checks wei.........really?
> 
> can someone load cinebench please
> 
> if its better in wprime then it should seriously translate beneficially to cinebench



Here's my result. Before Patch 7.15. After 7.23

PROOF

MY RIG.


----------



## niko084 (Jan 12, 2012)

Guys get over it..

Bulldozer a disappointment? Sure to some, not to others.
Is it outright a bad useless terrible chip? No, get a life.

10% from an OS patch?
Not too bad.

Glad to see this, hopefully they can draw a bit more out of it. I recently build a system with a fx8150, I can't say I was blown away by how incredibly slow it is.

Non the less nobody can argue it's not a step in the right direction that I think we can all be happy to see as losing AMD would put Intel in a position we don't want them in.

I would also like to bring into the light being this is NOT a true 8 core cpu...
*Disabling Core Parking* in windows for my i7 yielded much smoother game play in quite a few games when I left HT enabled, I haven't checked to see if this was an issue with the Bulldozers yet but if someone wants to give it a shot lets hear if it helps


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 12, 2012)

Got the same 7.6% increase in cinebench single core as the leaked patch, this time with no hit to multicore performance : ]


----------



## screamer980 (Jan 12, 2012)

Here is a comparison. 
So it's just dissapointing.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jan 12, 2012)

Just wanted to chime in since I've had/have Agena, Thuban, Nehalem, Lynnfield, Sandy Bridge, and Bulldozer built rigs.

To all the people coming in this thread, bashing the Bulldozer architecture and its performance results,... go kick rocks. You're biased, ill-knowledge "_advice_" is unwanted and basically useless. There is nothing wrong with the Bulldozer platform, its not supposed to be an Intel killer. It is what it is; an alternative to Sandy Bridge with a different use in mind. Anyone who knows anything about the Bulldozer architecture knows what it's real intention was/is. 

The moral of this patch release is, it's good to see Microsoft work with AMD to increase performance for a unique processor like Bulldozer. It's nice to see a software giant like Microsoft with with AMD to increase performance, especially when it helps improve upon performance of Bulldozer. Win/Win.

You Intel fan boys need to build multiple bridges, and when you're done complaining as you build, you'll eventually get over it. 

Fact is, all of you Intel fans want a *AMD* 7970 for your precious Intel rig. There's no denying that. 
So... another moral, learn to appreciate (and respect) all brands and what they produce, unless you want to pay $500 for a low grade CPU from Intel down the road.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 12, 2012)

screamer980 said:


> Here is a comparison.
> So it's just dissapointing.



Those people are idiots, wasted a bunch of time benching multi-core stuff, it's not designed to improve it!


----------



## screamer980 (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm not a dissapointed AMD-User.
Performance of my Sys is still fine. It's just the kind of AMD is dealing with the situation, makes me angry. Bulldozer is what it is. They should never praised it as an eight core CPU.
And the hole FX-rebirth thing just wakes expectations, they could never satisfy. And they knew that. And teasing with patches, which should deliver up to 10% performance increase doesn't help either. Cause as the results here  show clearly none increase. Except Resident Evil. But who plays only Resident Evil.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 12, 2012)

screamer980 said:


> I'm not a dissapointed AMD-User.
> Performance of my Sys is still fine. It's just the kind of AMD is dealing with the situation, makes me angry. Bulldozer is what it is. They should never praised it as an eight core CPU.
> And the hole FX-rebirth thing just wakes expectations, they could never satisfy. And they knew that. And teasing with patches, which should deliver up to 10% performance increase doesn't help either. Cause as the results here  show clearly none increase. Except Resident Evil. But who plays only Resident Evil.



The patch does not provide 10% improvement in everything. It provides 10% improve in low thread count programs (aka running only 1 or 2 threads). The test results on your post is BS because he tested 8 threads and 4 threads which are both NOT what the patches are improving. The results in those guys test is mutt, pointless, serve no purpose, doesn't test what was improved, etc. etc.


----------



## c_heater (Jan 12, 2012)

something strange happened to me after the patches.
i have a 965be oc to 3.9g.
no change just using windows index bs (still 7.5).
but my ssd went from 7.7 to 7.9.
just thought i would pass this along


----------



## c_heater (Jan 12, 2012)

and now another odd thing.
i limited my oc to 3.9g because of temp (air).
before the patch, using prime95, i got as high as 60c.
now im at 52c.
only been running for 1/2 hour, but if it holds, i think i will tweak to cpu again.
maybe my idea of using amd chipset, amd gpu and amd processor wasnt so lame after all.


----------



## Static~Charge (Jan 12, 2012)

Tweety said:


> Windows CPU  score went from 7.4 to 7.5... for free





trickson said:


> WOW a .1% increase ! Now you can play Crysis



0.1 / 7.4 = 0.0135 * 100 = 1.35% increase. Learn to do some basic math before your next bout of "posting diarrhea"....

And for the record, I don't give a rat's ass what processor you have: you use whatever you need to get the job done. All this "my processor is better that your processor" crap is just so much forum wanking.


----------



## c_heater (Jan 12, 2012)

damn.
after a hour it went up to 54c.
time to tweak the cpu.


----------



## erocker (Jan 12, 2012)

Stay on topic, behave, post in a civil and respectable manner. If some of you cannot do this, I will be happy to hand out more infractions/warnings.


Thank you.


----------



## Jiraiya (Jan 12, 2012)

average

games







Application 






http://www.hardware.fr/news/12089/amd-fx-patchs-windows-7-dispos.html


----------



## c_heater (Jan 12, 2012)

no prob here son of trick.
what im using now was going to be intel, but 130 for cpu, 130 board, 130 for ssd, allowed me to splurge on the case and memory.
and if amd sorts out their latest and greatest, my board has the bios for bd.
maybe with microsquirts efforts i will get 2 extra years from this latest build.
who knows.

maybe this patch improves/hoses non-amd.
i have a i5 laptop with intel gpu.
i rairley use it and have nothing i cant loose on it.
other than the time to re-set it up.
i smell experiments.
in 24 hrs i may know a little more.
but right now the wife sez go to bed.
and i think shes right this time.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 12, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> The FX-8150 is not a bad product. It is a new design and it has some quirks. Glad to see they are working to resolve these quirks.
> 
> I hope these updates the task scheduler fixes the issue I have with Deus Ex.


Not to pick on you as I just started to read this thread. The 8150 is a piece of shit cpu, heck the whole FX line up is a joke that shouldn't have even been launched to the public till they got it working as expected. I owned one, tested it, sold it and never looked back thank god! My 1090T stomped the shit outta the FX @ stock speed. The fx only pulled ahead of the stock X6 around 4.7-4.8ish GHz..and sucked wattage as a cheap whore would suck! These Quirks are more then just that, and I pity anybody that owns one of these chips and think a MS patch is magically going to turn it into a monster... In toll it really is a monster... A fucking wattage monster that needs to be but outa it's misery and redone period! FX guys stop fooling your selfes, these chips are junk and sorry to sound harsh but its the reality. I was a long term AMD fan boy for some time, but not any more.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 12, 2012)

fullinfusion said:


> Not to pick on you as I just started to read this thread. The 8150 is a piece of shit cpu, heck the whole FX line up is a joke that shouldn't have even been launched to the public till they got it working as expected. I owned one, tested it, sold it and never looked back thank god! My 1090T stomped the shit outta the FX @ stock speed. The fx only pulled ahead of the stock X6 around 4.7-4.8ish GHz..and sucked wattage as a cheap whore would suck! These Quirks are more then just that, and I pity anybody that owns one of these chips and think a MS patch is magically going to turn it into a monster... In toll it really is a monster... A fucking wattage monster that needs to be but outa it's misery and redone period! FX guys stop fooling your selfes, these chips are junk and sorry to sound harsh but its the reality. I was a long term AMD fan boy for some time, but not any more.



I suspect After Piledriver is launched the Intial FX Lineup will be phased out.

All i can really say is be careful 1155 users, you may very well be on borrowed time like 1366/1156 users...


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 12, 2012)

eidairaman1 delete my post please as I noted why I deleted it... and the 1155 owners are to fear what Pile driver? I highly doubt that. Didnt amd say the PD was going to be 10% faster then BD? Im sure I seen it some where in here.



GG AMD! hope that 10% translates into something better.


----------



## erocker (Jan 12, 2012)

fullinfusion said:


> Deleted my opinion as the Man is handing out Infractions...
> 
> GG AMD! hope that 10% translates into something better.



Um.. You're free to post your opinion, I and other members were getting sick of one individual spamming this thread with uninteligent, belligerent fanboy talk and turning this thread into their own personal circus.. It's not needed, TPU is better than that. You're post is acceptable.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 12, 2012)

erocker said:


> Um.. You're free to post your opinion, I and other members were getting sick of one individual spamming this thread with uninteligent, belligerent fanboy talk. It's not needed, TPU is better than that.


Thanks Erocker, I was just covering my ass. Look what happened to aussi man Mussles after going to the ATI-AMD site a while back and getting banned over a honest question with an answer, BANNED!!!
Cheers to the staff at TPU 

EDIT: @Static~Charge
Trickson is just that a trickster, no different then Mailman (#1 Troller at times lol jk). It's all fun and good reading. Cut the man some slack as he's a good guy


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 12, 2012)

fullinfusion said:


> eidairaman1 delete my post please as I noted why I deleted it... and the 1155 owners are to fear what Pile driver? I highly doubt that. Didnt amd say the PD was going to be 10% faster then BD? Im sure I seen it some where in here.
> 
> 
> 
> GG AMD! hope that 10% translates into something better.



I wasnt talkin about Piledriver doing any damage, just the forced upgrades which left 1366/1156 users without any CPU upgrades.

Sorry If I confused you...


----------



## c_heater (Jan 12, 2012)

i would say when bd gets cheap, beware of used chips.
but there will be a batch that "should" ROCK, when new and not abused.
my board may not be much good past the next revisions of fx, but if i pay attension to tpu and other class sites, some smart azz is going to nail down the right lot numbers.
damn wife.
batteries are low.
gotta go


4/1


----------



## Tweety (Jan 12, 2012)

mtosev said:


> my i7 930 has the same score and it's almost 2 years old



I upgraded from an X3 720BE. Which got 7.1 @3.5GHz. BD is pretty good with memory, those scores went right up, 7.9 now.

I'm very pleased with my purchase.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 12, 2012)

Both these files are now available on our downloads section. Find them on Today's Downloads (frontpage).


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Jan 13, 2012)

AMD's new FX 8-core series are not bad. In fact, they are power houses. The reason why they still fall behind in some places, is  due to Microsoft's lacking ability to write multithreading code to fully utilize all 8 cores. So in essence, all of you flaming the FX chips, it is a software issue, not a poor hardware design, but a set of coding that has been overlooked by Microsoft.


----------



## largon (Jan 13, 2012)

*Bluefox1115*, 
Strange, benchmarks disagree with that. 
Must be something wrong with them. So all the reviews _shorely_ are null and void.


----------



## n0tiert (Jan 13, 2012)

My Futuremark 3DMark11 test on FX-8150 / 6990

before:







and after using the patches:






as you can see , it slightly raised the PhysX score a bit and the Total score is arround 50 points higher


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 13, 2012)

Those 50 points are well within the "median" for 3D Mark I could get that kind of deviation just running the test twice in a row(if not more). There is nothing really to show in that test other than perhaps the slightly higher PhysX score...


----------



## n0tiert (Jan 13, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> Those 50 points are well within the "median" for 3D Mark I could get that kind of deviation just running the test twice in a row(if not more). There is nothing really to show in that test other than perhaps the slightly higher PhysX score...




yeeeah come back and show me your score


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 13, 2012)

n0tiert said:


> yeeeah come back and show me your score



50 points is NOTHING in 3Dmark. I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you over scores I am just telling you 50 points could be gained or lost just in how long it's been since the last time you rebooted...Like I said run it twice in a row and you can gain or lose that much.

 My point is that doesn't show anything significant to do with the Hotfix.


----------



## screamer980 (Jan 13, 2012)

Here are some more Results.

Sometimes a bit better after the patch. But also often slightly worse.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 13, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> 50 points is NOTHING in 3Dmark. I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you over scores I am just telling you 50 points could be gained or lost just in how long it's been since the last time you rebooted...Like I said run it twice in a row and you can gain or lose that much.
> 
> My point is that doesn't show anything significant to do with the Hotfix.


Funny, mabey its just your system that varies so much from run to run but I can tell ya from my experience using amd or Intel the difference is a matter of only a couple of points different!  not fluctuating by 50points lol


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 13, 2012)

fullinfusion said:


> Funny, mabey its just your system that varies so much from run to run but I can tell ya from my experience using amd or Intel the difference is a matter of only a couple of points different!  not fluctuating by 50points lol



Well for example(and an extreme one) I actually ran 06 yesterday so I could get a comparison for a friend who just got a new GFX card. I happened to be running Steam in the background and well it cost me 737 points off my "normal" scores. Scores can fluctuate quite a bit with even the most minor of changes. Run it a couple of times in a row and tell me you get the same score? I have always considered 100 points +/- a more than normal variation.

Normal(and not even my highest just the latest)
http://3dmark.com/3dm06/16006564

With Steam running in the background
http://3dmark.com/3dm06/16385362


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 13, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> Well for example(and an extreme one) I actually ran 06 yesterday so I could get a comparison for a friend who just got a new GFX card. I happened to be running Steam in the background and well it cost me 737 points off my "normal" scores. Scores can fluctuate quite a bit with even the most minor of changes. Run it a couple of times in a row and tell me you get the same score? I have always considered 100 points +/- a more than normal variation.


If I gotta run tests all day to prove to you Im only getting a couple point difference Ill slap ya!
When benching Im sure the user unlike you are opening up steam and other programs. Think about it?


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 13, 2012)

^ good morning shit disturber


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

fullinfusion said:


> ^ good morning shit disturber



I am only saying what is right I agree with what this person said . and you call me names ? I deleted my post .


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> I am only saying what is right I agree with what this person said . and you call me names ? I deleted my post .


now look who  cant take a good morning joke... Man wake up and be happy its FRYDAY


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

screamer980 said:


> Here are some more Results.
> 
> Sometimes a bit better after the patch. But also often slightly worse.





fullinfusion said:


> now look who  cant take a good morning joke... Man wake up and be happy its FRYDAY



I just think that this is more like it . 3Dmark11 is just not at all the best indicator of a CPU patch .


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 13, 2012)

fullinfusion said:


> If I gotta run tests all day to prove to you Im only getting a couple point difference Ill slap ya!
> When benching Im sure the user unlike you are opening up steam and other programs. Think about it?



Well of course, under normal circumstances I would and always run any bench from a clean reboot. I'm just making the point it takes very little to effect scores. 50 points IMHO is not really any kind of gain to be attributed to anything.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 13, 2012)

Hmmmm Resident evil 5 bench maby?


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

fullinfusion said:


> Hmmmm Resident evil 5 bench maby?



LOL .


----------



## x86overclock (Jan 19, 2012)

OneCool said:


> It all comes down to Intel having hyperthreading and AMD dont (because they cant patients,copyright blah blah).This CPU was to designed to fight that and its not fairing so well on its first go round.



Actually BD has multi threading, 2 dual 64 bit core dies with 4 threads each and multi threading is more stable under heavy work loads than hyper threading is. AMD was just simply misleading by slapping the FX name on the chips and they are basing all of their new chips on this architecture. Why?...you may ask, because this architecture is much more cost efficient for them to make and they can claim twice the amount of cores than they actually have and charge twice as much for the chips. People like you and me know better about the lack of performance of these chips have especially compared to their older chips, but your average everyday consumer has no idea,they hear or see 8 cores advertised and they think they are getting the best bang for the buck when they see the Intel quads going for the same price or slightly higher. Since AMD is continuing with this architecture it would be wise of them to purchase as much stock as they can in Intel,that way when they can't sell anymore of these horrid chips they can still make money on Intel consumers and prior AMD Fanboys that got smart and switched to Intel.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 19, 2012)

This thread puts me to sleep... Really nothing more to discuss bout the patches.


----------



## erek (Jan 19, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> This thread puts me to sleep... Really nothing more to discuss bout the patches.



i beg to differ.

scope this out @ http://vr-zone.com/articles/before-...amd-opteron-interlagos-6274-server/14572.html  (just released article as of today)


----------



## x86overclock (Jan 21, 2012)

I am upset because AMD is putting this architecture on all of their processors, by fall we will AMD will have the PhenomIIx8,they have discontinued all of their 45nm former architecture processors to use this cost efficient/ poor performance architecture. They should of atleast kept their former PhenomII quad and hex cores atleast those were FASTER THAN ALL OF THE INTEL CORE2 PROCESSORS!


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 21, 2012)

x86overclock said:


> I am upset because AMD is putting this architecture on all of their processors, by fall we will AMD will have the PhenomIIx8,they have discontinued all of their 45nm former architecture processors to use this cost efficient/ poor performance architecture. They should of atleast kept their former PhenomII quad and hex cores atleast those were FASTER THAN ALL OF THE INTEL CORE2 PROCESSORS!



The Architecture will improve don't worry

Pile-driver will put it above Phenom performance clock for clock ( if it doesn't then that will be a fail ) 

I don't think AMD are aiming to get close to intels IPC performance though, aiming to fit a crap ton of cores in a single package for cheap.


----------



## clncain (Mar 28, 2012)

*Amd fx 4170*

fx4170-8gig ram-asus crosshaire v5 win7-64bit,when first installed windows it scored two lower than before7.5-7.3, have installed the two patches still the same score 7.3 no improvement at all,we can only hope they get it right before christmas…


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 28, 2012)

clncain said:


> fx4170-8gig ram-asus crosshaire v5 win7-64bit,when first installed windows it scored two lower than before7.5-7.3, have installed the two patches still the same score 7.3 no improvement at all,we can only hope they get it right before christmas…



I wouldn't trust the Windows experience score as a good measure of performance.


----------



## clncain (Mar 28, 2012)

so what is the best way to see if the cpu is running like it says on the box


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 28, 2012)

clncain said:


> so what is the best way to see if the cpu is running like it says on the box



What do you mean? CPUs don't have benchmarks on the box. 

You could use CPU-Z or ThrottleStop to find out what your CPU is clocked at. Maybe WPrime for a performance comparison? This doesn't help though because it sounds like you already installed the patches. Generally speaking, the performance benefits aren't typically noticeable by a human user and only benefits in specific cases.


----------



## clncain (Mar 28, 2012)

we need to benchmark the cpu so all can see what it performs at and where you can compaire your system


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 28, 2012)

I don't see a "Windows Patch" fixing bulldozer. It will take a whole new CPU structure to do that.


----------

