# AMD 'Bulldozer' gets an Update from Microsoft.



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 15, 2011)

Today Windows updater may have brought "Bulldozer" users a little surprise. A hotfix that increases the AMD flagship processors performance. As this "hotfix" is bleeding edge news any benchmarks have yet to be seen but this confirms Windows 7 was in fact hampering "Bulldozer" from performing at 100% in all prior benches. What percentage it was previously performing at has yet to be determined. Here is a small snippet from the Hotfix release notes.



> This article introduces an update that optimizes the performance of AMD Bulldozer CPUs that are used by Windows 7-based or Windows Server 2008 R2-based computers. Currently, the performance of AMD Bulldozer CPUs is slower than expected. This behavior occurs because the threading logic in Windows 7 and in Windows Server 2008 R2 is not optimized to use the Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) scheduling feature. This feature was introduced in the Bulldozer family of AMD CPUs.



You can download the Hotfix here.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Kreij (Dec 15, 2011)

Good news for BD owners !


----------



## HossHuge (Dec 15, 2011)

Bring on the reviews AGAIN!!


----------



## BlackOmega (Dec 15, 2011)

Link to the actual article?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 15, 2011)

Looking forward to seeing some REAL benches. I just hope its not a 5% jump or something small.



BlackOmega said:


> Link to the actual article?



Sometimes.......just sometimes WE ARE THE ARTICLE YO!


----------



## DigitalUK (Dec 15, 2011)

even if it was 5% its better than nothing, at least it shuts up those who said the patch was BS.

great news, someone get the benchmarks on.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Dec 15, 2011)

Someone with a bulldozer chip do a before and after benchmark and see what you get?


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 15, 2011)

We should be able to get some numbers pretty dang fast here on TPU, plenty of people here have FX's. I sold my Bulldozer rig already so I can't provide numbers unfortunately.


----------



## Kreij (Dec 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Sometimes.......just sometimes WE ARE THE ARTICLE YO!



A couple times on GPU I beat the "big boys" to a story. It's not easy. Well done.

On topic : Come on BD owners ... benchies !!


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

Can't see download link D:


----------



## bear jesus (Dec 15, 2011)

I look forward to seeing what difference it makes.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 15, 2011)

I would really love to see some benchmarks of how this performs.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

Just yesterday I was saying this didnt exist, I need to learn to stfu, hat eating time.

I only have novabench on my PC.

What tests you wanna see done? mind no graphics stuff as Im running on a 3850 crossfire setup right now and no overclocking results as im on stock till my new water pump come in.

I have the hotfix just not installed it yet


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

Right think I got it now so will install, anyone want to send me links to benches to run, already have cinebench.


----------



## HossHuge (Dec 15, 2011)

Graphics and overclocking don't matter.  We want to see a before hotfix and after hotfix.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 15, 2011)

Shit! I sold my BD to Paulieg... I hope he can run it and show me some numbers... I have some before numbers but need the numbers after the hot fix.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

Downloading PCmark vantage 10 min to go


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 15, 2011)

Please post some benchies before and after if you can! txs


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

So far I'm getting lower scores.

Great hot fix Microsoft!


----------



## Fatal1ty39 (Dec 15, 2011)

link for the HOTFIX

KB Article Number(s): 2592546
Language: All (Global)
Platform: x64
Location: (http://hotfixv4.microsoft.com/Windo...2/Fix381038/7600/free/440338_intl_x64_zip.exe)


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Dec 15, 2011)

I'm interested to see an in depth article to see if it actually does anything. Less than 5% takes the piss.


----------



## riska (Dec 15, 2011)

It helps nothing this hotfix

Look at post 2 there is a before and after pic

http://www.octeamdenmark.com/forums/nyheder/9028-microsoft-klar-med-hotfix-til-bulldozer.html


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

riska said:


> It helps nothing this hotfix
> 
> Look at post 3 there is a before and after pic
> 
> http://www.octeamdenmark.com/forums/nyheder/9028-microsoft-klar-med-hotfix-til-bulldozer.html



I swear that's the second post 



If anything they've got a performance hit look at the small box that's some kind of memory test/compression test ? 

Same performance hit here.

Bloody hell did microsoft even test these?


----------



## MGF Derp (Dec 15, 2011)

riska said:


> It helps nothing this hotfix
> 
> Look at post 3 there is a before and after pic
> 
> http://www.octeamdenmark.com/forums/nyheder/9028-microsoft-klar-med-hotfix-til-bulldozer.html



wPrime went down .4 sec, thats an improvement. And it looks like the after tests were 4C and the before were 8C. Not knowing how multithreaded cinebench is but if the scores are the same with 4C off and it is highly multithreaded wouldn't that be considered an improvement?


----------



## Jeffredo (Dec 15, 2011)

Looking forward to a professional review site (in English) to test it.


----------



## dezz (Dec 15, 2011)

This fix is for improving less-threaded application performance (like f.ex. games)!
No wonder it has no effect on CineBench@8 threads.


----------



## riska (Dec 15, 2011)

Yeah i now but wy have my winrar score nearly halved


----------



## nt300 (Dec 15, 2011)

Sorry but I thought you guys aready know this?



> For example, in testing by AMD with the AMD FX-8150, we are seeing up to 10% uplift on a number of games with the Windows 8 Developer Preview compared to Windows® 7. Of course, results do vary.
> We are also working with *Microsoft on a scheduler update for Windows 7 that will be available soon.*


*Tuesday , November 29, 2011*
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/29/hardocp_readers_ask_amd_bulldozer_questions/2

Good news for our Bulldozer Pals


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 15, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Sorry but I thought you guys aready know this?
> 
> 
> *Tuesday , November 29, 2011*
> ...



"Available soon" is not what this is about. Its about the patch actually coming out. But thank you for the link!


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 15, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Sorry but I thought you guys aready know this?
> 
> 
> *Tuesday , November 29, 2011*
> ...



Yeah, that was two weeks ago, and now the patch is here. The patch itself was released yesterday.



dezz said:


> This fix is for improving less-threaded application performance (like f.ex. games)!
> No wonder it has no effect on CineBench@8 threads.



I'm not surprised that multi-threaded apps son't show much if any benefit. As far as I understand it, the behavior noticed in the FX Overclocknig thread here on TPU, with not all cores scaling up in frequency, is Bulldozer's default behavior. This behavior, without the scheduler update, had some threads running on the lower-speed cores instead of forcing them on the high-speed threads, affecting end results. The patch should have apps like games, that are not using the CPU fully, running on the faster cores when possible.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

must be something wrong with my install, ran my benchmarks, applied hotfix and windows crashed hard, safemode, and restore fixed it , redownloaded hot fix same again.

Before anyone asks, Retail copy win 7 x64 ultimate, fully updated.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 15, 2011)

As for this new performance increase I suspect its only for situational issues.


----------



## MegaMan (Dec 15, 2011)

I will install after it has been fully tested.


----------



## devguy (Dec 15, 2011)

Better for games?


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

Right so my multithreaded performance has gone down, how ever I've had a 7.6% increase in cinebench single core performance.

Will try more benchmarks.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

riska said:


> Yeah i now but wy have my winrar score nearly halved



And what was  the score after?


----------



## _JP_ (Dec 15, 2011)

By this time, AMD could have made a driver like they did for the Athlon 64 x2, when Windows XP SP2, at the time, couldn't use the two cores effectively.



Spoiler: >mfw I noticed themailman wrote this news post.










He's in the news business now? 


Not questioning your news writing skills big guy! 
Actually, thank you for the heads up!


----------



## qubit (Dec 15, 2011)

So it looks like the mythical Windows speedboost for BD was real after all. If the boost is something worthwhile, then this is excellent news all round, as Intel is gonna get some much needed competition - it doesn't matter which brand one prefers to buy.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Sometimes.......just sometimes WE ARE THE ARTICLE YO!



+1 and welcome back.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 15, 2011)

qubit said:


> So it looks like the mythical Windows speedboost for BD was real after all. If the boost is something worthwhile, then this is excellent news all round, as Intel is gonna get some much needed competition - it doesn't matter which brand one prefers to buy.
> 
> 
> 
> +1 and welcome back.



It was never mythical. Some people just love to post negativity and don't have a real grasp on the facts.

And thank you.


----------



## PolRoger (Dec 15, 2011)

I seem to be getting the ~same/similar score for Cinebench 11.5 (multi cpu) after updating to the hotfix.

Orange is after updating the hot fix... Blue is before:


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

PolRoger said:


> I seem to be getting the ~same/similar score for Cinebench 11.5 (multi cpu) after updating to the hotfix.
> 
> Orange is after updating the hot fix... Blue is before:
> http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv315/PolRoger/AMD FX/Cinebench11546GHzW7hotfixforBD.png



Can you try running cinebench on four threads ?

This patch fixes scheduling ( I.E when using 4 threads it will use one core per module rather tahn the first two modules)


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> It was never mythical. Some people just love to post negativity and don't have a real grasp on the facts.
> 
> And thank you.



When I frist heard about it I dismissed it, "some group had found it was a scheduler issue, found a fix that improved some benchmarks by upto 10%"

No more details were given, sounded a little mythical to me.

I will find out myself and share but need to get my install fixed as it keeps crashing out on the update.

The desktop is almost done re installing and then...updates then later tonight I will post as many benchmarks as I can find.


----------



## shb- (Dec 15, 2011)

This changes almost nothing. You cant affect buldys weak IPC. Yes, multithreaded apps will benefit from this, but most important thing remains - with 4 threads active, buldy wont beat similarly clocked X4 phenom. So these are good news for server farm owners and other pros, gamers wont feel a thing.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 15, 2011)

roll on the 21st i was ponderin a 960T but this'll swing me in the 8120's direction , good news by the way, a very good first show their MM


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

If anyone does spot any noticeable improvements please let me know.

Turbo still doesn't work properly. With my set up.


----------



## PolRoger (Dec 15, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Can you try running cinebench on four threads ?
> 
> This patch fixes scheduling ( I.E when using 4 threads it will use one core per module rather tahn the first two modules)



I could... but I don't have any Cinebench runs saved from before the hot fix (4 threads) to compare it with?


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

PolRoger said:


> I could... but I don't have any Cinebench runs saved from before the hot fix (4 threads) to compare it with?



Ahhh not to worry then, but yeah this shouldn't really affect things that use 8 threads ( although it has, and negatively for me) will mostly improve single/dual/tri and quad threaded applications.

Or general system smoothness.


----------



## Zubasa (Dec 15, 2011)

shb- said:


> This changes almost nothing. You cant affect buldys weak IPC. Yes, multithreaded apps will benefit from this, but most important thing remains - with 4 threads active, buldy wont beat similarly clocked X4 phenom. So these are good news for server farm owners and other pros, gamers wont feel a thing.


You don't seems to understand what this patch is about. 
This patch increase exactly what gamers care about, which is lightly thread performance.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

Right I've rerun cinebench a whole bunch of times now (8 threads)

And I have definitely lost performance since this patch, it's only a 1.1% difference but that's a difference of 

7.35 prepatch to 7.21 after patch.

Could disappoint bench markers.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 15, 2011)

qubit said:


> *So it looks like the mythical Windows speedboost for BD was real after all.* If the boost is something worthwhile, then this is excellent news all round, as Intel is gonna get some much needed competition - it doesn't matter which brand one prefers to buy.
> 
> +1 and welcome back.


You can all thank me for spreading this wonderful rumour which I knew was true, but many did not believe me including the Knight Rider Moderator 

Anyhow expect a 12% to 20% CPU usage increase via Skyrim, though not sure about performance yet until I get my H100 back from the shop.


----------



## erocker (Dec 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> You can all thank me for spreading this wonderful rumour which I knew was true, but many did not believe me including the Knight Rider Moderator
> 
> Anyhow expect a 12% to 20% CPU usage increase via Skyrim, though not sure about performance yet until I get my H100 back from the shop.



Lol, show me results.  Update or not, I'll still take the less expensive, yet more powerful, yet less power consuming chip over BD.

Hopefully this patch will at least help those who are suffering from random, unwarranted BSOD's.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

erocker said:


> Lol, show me results.  Update or not, I'll still take the less expensive, yet more powerful, yet less power consuming chip over BD.



Trying Skyrim now, will let you know.


So far though, I'm not impressed at all


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> You can all thank me for spreading this wonderful rumour which I knew was true, but many did not believe me including the Knight Rider Moderator
> 
> Anyhow expect a 12% to 20% CPU usage increase via Skyrim, though not sure about performance yet until I get my H100 back from the shop.



 no offence dude but any tard that thinks a completely new architecture of cpu shouldnt need optimisations wasnt reading the right stuff for the last few years, its obviouse like the fact that the 7xxx gpus and kepler will require optimisation in os and many other scenarios and trinity Apus again will require optimisations.


----------



## Benetanegia (Dec 15, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> no offence dude but any tard that thinks a completely new architecture of cpu shouldnt need optimisations wasnt reading the right stuff for the last few years, its obviouse like the fact that the 7xxx gpus and kepler will require optimisation in os and many other scenarios and trinity Apus again will require optimisations.



For me, it's still not an excuse at all, not at all, at all...

GPUs need optimisations both on games patches and drivers because you have 20 different GPUs per brand and you have 100's of games. It's *1* CPU and *1* OS. You have to have it sorted out before launch, no f* excuses. 

5+ years in development, 2-3 delays. You'd think that they should have worked with MS for the "next" OS don't you? I do. Win 7 has been in development for a far shorted period than BD. If Win 7 did not have a proper scheduler who's mistake is that? Hell considering the delays Vista had to use the fixed scheduler, not Win 7, let alone 8.

EDIT: If yu think I'm kind of angry. Of course I am. It didn't take too long to release this fix after launch, so it does not seem like it was to difficult which makes all of the above 100 times worse. Now let's see if it does improve anything. I hope so. Does not look like it does improve much from what I read on this thread.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 15, 2011)

I saw a .228 sec better timing in Wprime than without the hotfix.

Bloody! Brilliant!
Didn't know what else to test that was quick


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 15, 2011)

Try the benchmark built into WinRAR. However, you must run it three times, one right after each other, letting each test run for about 10 seconds or so(just after the result appears).

With WinRAR, I found the results don't change much, if at all, after the third test run.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 15, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> For me, it's still not an excuse at all, not at all, at all...



are you jokeing or some thing i dont disagree with what your saying and why your mad but its the exact same excuse as Every other game dev uses on game day 1 and recently theirs been some ridiculouse Optimisations done ala adding dx11 etc , im just saying that yeh its shit they half finish stuff, then sell it  but everyones doing that even intel x79 dosnt look half as good as it once did they made the cuts early on tho  ,, it happens


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 15, 2011)

Does anyone know *exactly *what has been changed in the scheduler? Because if it is core affinity to improve Level 1 and Level 2 caching, then we might see EQUAL GAINS on an Intel CPU.  Assuming of course, MS hasn't just gifted the improved scheduler to AMD hardware only.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 15, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Does anyone know exactly what has been changed in the scheduler? Because if it is core affinity to improve Level 1 and Level 2 caching, then we might see EQUAL GAINS on an Intel CPU. Assuming of course, MS hasn't just gifted the improved scheduler to AMD hardware only





so you think microsoft havent yet sussed hyperthreading?? its been a while, be nice if your right, but i cant see it


----------



## Benetanegia (Dec 15, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> are you jokeing or some thing i dont disagree with what your saying and why your mad but its the exact same excuse as Every other game dev uses on game day 1 and recently theirs been some ridiculouse Optimisations done ala adding dx11 etc , im just saying that yeh its shit they half finish stuff, then sell it  but everyones doing that even intel x79 dosnt look half as good as it once did they made the cuts early on tho  ,, it happens



No I'm not joking. CPU and GPU is not the same thing at all. On GPUs it's completely excusable, first of all because the life cycle is 1 year, and because the best you can do is work with a bunch of game developers to try and optimize beforehand, for 20 different GPU models, for 2-3 different architectures that are made obsolete every 12 months. You also have to thread for hundreds or thousands of threads, and you have to thread and optimize for a fairly hetereogeneous computig model. Pixel shaders are not equal to vertex sahders which are not equal to texture units which are not equal to raster units, you get it.

20 GPU models, 100's games, 1000's threads, 1-2 years max to work with game developers, realistically 3 months.

vs

1 CPU, couple of OS, 8 threads, 5+ years development time for both the CPU and the OS... NO EXCUSES.


----------



## happita (Dec 15, 2011)

This update doesn't matter to me or the other people who have waited for BD to come out but decided to go another route because of the lackluster performance. Even if its a MIRACLE 10% extra performance give or take, I'm still happy with my Sandy Bridge purchase.


----------



## robal (Dec 15, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Does anyone know *exactly *what has been changed in the scheduler? Because if it is core affinity to improve Level 1 and Level 2 caching, then we might see EQUAL GAINS on an Intel CPU.  Assuming of course, MS hasn't just gifted the improved scheduler to AMD hardware only.



All that this patch does is just make Windows try use a 'core' from idle BD modules first, rather than 'core' of BM module doing hard work already.

Intel's HyperThreading get same treatment by Windows kernel out of the box.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> so you think microsoft havent yet sussed hyperthreading?? its been a while, be nice if your right, but i cant see it



Not sure what you mean, but the way I read it seems you think AMDs module system works like intels hyper threading.

Hyper threading is ( VERY simplified explanation) HW based thread scheduling, it still only executes 1 thread at a time per core.

Say for example you had a single core with hyper-threading what would be happening is hyper-threading schedules the threads in such a way that it bounces between the two of them, like putting the threads in a nice orderly que.

Where as AMDS approach it can actually execute both threads at once.


This is why everyone got their pants wet at it as it was supposed to be 25-30% increase in transistors for 80% of the performance or so.

But well basically they didn't achieve it, vs the original phenom II x 4 they done pretty well

But compared to the thurban they done really badly by simply adding two extra cores they would of hit the same 1.2 billion transistors you'll find in bulldozer.

Basically if bulldozer was never delayed it would of done quite well and been a very impressive chip.

How ever I've NO idea why they didn't adjust the design, must of already committed to much to the design.


----------



## hellrazor (Dec 15, 2011)

PolRoger said:


> I seem to be getting the ~same/similar score for Cinebench 11.5 (multi cpu) after updating to the hotfix.
> 
> Orange is after updating the hot fix... Blue is before:
> http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv315/PolRoger/AMD FX/Cinebench11546GHzW7hotfixforBD.png



The new one says it's running on 4 cores?


----------



## arthurs (Dec 15, 2011)

Well I can confirme improvements with this fix on FX6100@4000  in the x264 HD BENCHMARK 4.0  and  luxmark 1.0  

For  x264 HD BENCHMARK 4.0

before fix

Results for x264.exe r1913 
========================== 

Pass 1 
------ 
encoded 1442 frames, 114.26 fps, 3913.30 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 114.40 fps, 3913.30 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 113.70 fps, 3913.30 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 112.87 fps, 3913.30 kb/s

Pass 2 
------ 
encoded 1442 frames, 28.00 fps, 3959.17 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 27.92 fps, 3958.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 28.02 fps, 3959.86 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 27.93 fps, 3960.67 kb/s


After fix

Results for x264.exe r1913 
========================== 

Pass 1 
------ 
encoded 1442 frames, 119.43 fps, 3913.30 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 119.27 fps, 3913.30 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 118.96 fps, 3913.30 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 121.78 fps, 3913.30 kb/s

Pass 2 
------ 
encoded 1442 frames, 31.42 fps, 3958.43 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 31.49 fps, 3958.93 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 31.53 fps, 3959.72 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 31.56 fps, 3959.45 kb/s

-------------------------------------------------

Luxmark 1.0 64bit   Native CPU

Before 



After



Luxmark 1.0 64bit   OpenCL CPU

Before


After




Somehow it is working 5%-10% faster
Ö


----------



## faramir (Dec 15, 2011)

robal said:


> All that this patch does is just make Windows try use a 'core' from idle BD modules first, rather than 'core' of BM module doing hard work already.
> 
> Intel's HyperThreading get same treatment by Windows kernel out of the box.



precisely. This is why it is utterly pointless that people out there compare 8 thread before and after performance when they should be comparing minimum-of-2-and-up-to-4 thread performance to see whether there is any difference or not.

Oh and I find it curious that nobody mentioned the fact that M$ (and possibly AMD) now consider their Bulldozer module thingy a variant of SMT ("HyperThreading in Intel lingo) whereas they were OHNOOMFGDUDEtotally8corzZ before. Had they toned down their marketing bullshit prior to launch, the dissapointment would have been a lot smaller (it doesn't perform that bad for a 4C HT chip which needs its first generation quirks ironed out).


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

Right since I was doing a re-install to get the hotfix to work I thought I would go one further and test without the service pack as well as with and with SP1 and hot fix:

Test rig: (all stock)
FX-8120
Asus M5A990 Evo
12 gig DDR3@ 1600MHz
3850 crossfire
OCZ vertex plus latest FW (3.55)
1010w OCZ gameXtreme
Windows 7 Ultimate Retail x64

Results:
PC mark vantage:
No service pack: 11501
With SP1:  11462
With SP1 And hotfix: 11250

Cinebench R11.5:
No service pack: 5.11
With SP1: 5.7
With SP1 and hotfix:  5.11

NovaBench:
No service pack: 1021
With SP1: 941
With SP1 and hotfix: 967

Winrar:
No service pack: 2571
With SP1: 3881
With SP1 and hotfix: 2730



Back to no service pack for me I think.  Screen shots were taken for proof if ya wanna see them.


----------



## reverze (Dec 15, 2011)

would like to see some game benchmarks please


----------



## Super XP (Dec 15, 2011)

erocker said:


> Lol, show me results.  Update or not, I'll still take the less expensive, yet more powerful, yet less power consuming chip over BD.
> 
> Hopefully this patch will at least help those who are suffering from random, unwarranted BSOD's.


BSOD, I havent had one unless I really try and push her way up.


theoneandonlymrk said:


> no offence dude but any tard that thinks a completely new architecture of cpu shouldnt need optimisations wasnt reading the right stuff for the last few years, its obviouse like the fact that the 7xxx gpus and kepler will require optimisation in os and many other scenarios and trinity Apus again will require optimisations.


Yes I fully agree, new designs need optimisations 100%, I've been preaching all along that Bulldozer requires them Big Time, and hopefully in time AMD will get it right for Piledriver. So your point is? And no offence taken because you must have gotten me confused. I never said new designs need NO opts.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

reverze said:


> would like to see some game benchmarks please



No point unless its a threaded game, I dont have any. You might get some folks to test BF3 but Im telling you +/- 1% would be my bet

Come to think of it my bets have been crap of late.



Super XP said:


> hopefully in time AMD will get it right for Piledriver.



Not going to hold my breath.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

JustaTinkerer said:


> No point unless its a threaded game, I dont have any. You might get some folks to test BF3 but Im telling you +/- 1% would be my bet
> 
> Come to think of it my bets have been crap of late.



Considering most games these days use at-least 2 cores in theory you should see an improvement in a lot of games.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Considering most games these days use at-least 2 cores in theory you should see an improvement in a lot of games.



After looking at my results my point stands, though in theory you should.

EDIT: I paid for both winrar and PC mark just to know, I am a heartbeat off buying batman :ac to test.


----------



## Benetanegia (Dec 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> BSOD, I havent had one unless I really try and push her way up.



I don't know if there's really many people getting BSODs, but I definitely think erocker knows what he's talking about. 

Anyway I'm just commenting to say how useless a comment like that really is and because I've seen you making similar comments plenty of times, here and on Fudzilla a couple of times iirc (or someone with the same nick anyway, but I dobt it). 

Just because you have no problems does not mean problems don't exist.

I've never been robbed, or attacked so crime surely does not exist?
I don't have cancer or AIDS, hence they don't exist? They are not a problem that needs to be fixed?

So tell me, should I go and post that I don't have AIDS in every related thread on the entire internet, so as to make clear... what?


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 15, 2011)

robal said:


> All that this patch does is just make Windows try use a 'core' from idle BD modules first, rather than 'core' of BM module doing hard work already.
> 
> Intel's HyperThreading get same treatment by Windows kernel out of the box.


I'm not sure that's right. I though this scheduler patch worked on "keeping affinity" rather than just randomly dishing out across cores.



			
				Microsoft said:
			
		

> This article introduces an update that optimizes the performance of AMD Bulldozer CPUs that are used by Windows 7-based or Windows Server 2008 R2-based computers. Currently, the performance of AMD Bulldozer CPUs is slower than expected. This behavior occurs because the threading logic in Windows 7 and in Windows Server 2008 R2 is not optimized to use the Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) scheduling feature. This feature was introduced in the Bulldozer family of AMD CPUs.


----------



## antuk15 (Dec 15, 2011)

It's still slower then Phenom 2 and still way way way Behind Sandy Bridge even with hot fix, It does not make BD any less of an uber failure.


----------



## devguy (Dec 15, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> I'm not sure that's right. I though this scheduler patch worked on "keeping affinity" rather than just randomly dishing out across cores.









I think this is where they're going with the scheduler.  Now, that terrible sub-optimal case doesn't always happen, but it can happen.   This patch will try and severely reduce the occurrence of such scheduling, and hopefully schedule as few modules as possible to engage turbo core.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 15, 2011)

antuk15 said:


> It's still slower then Phenom 2 and still way way way Behind Sandy Bridge even with hot fix, It does not make BD any less of an uber failure.



And you base this off of.......


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 15, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Not sure what you mean, but the way I read it seems you think AMDs module system works like intels hyper threading.



no i ment that this patch imho wont alter intel cpu performance as its allready been optimised for sorry vague



Benetanegia said:


> No I'm not joking. CPU and GPU is not the same thing at all. On GPUs it's completely excusable, first of all because the life cycle is 1 year, and because the best you can do is work with a bunch of game developers to try and optimize beforehand, for 20 different GPU models, for 2-3 different architectures that are made obsolete every 12 months. You also have to thread for hundreds or thousands of threads, and you have to thread and optimize for a fairly hetereogeneous computig model. Pixel shaders are not equal to vertex sahders which are not equal to texture units which are not equal to raster units, you get it.
> 
> 20 GPU models, 100's games, 1000's threads, 1-2 years max to work with game developers, realistically 3 months.
> 
> ...




i mentioned GPU's Game devs and essentially anyone making anything pc  , you heard gpu and i ment they ALL release then optimise stuff, ALL simples


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 15, 2011)

devguy said:


> http://cdn.overclock.net/2/24/24210663_FX-Scheduling.jpeg
> 
> I think this is where they're going with the scheduler.  Now, that terrible sub-optimal case doesn't always happen, but it can happen.   This patch will try and severely reduce the occurrence of such scheduling, and hopefully schedule as few modules as possible to engage turbo core.



Wow. If this is true, then this is NOT an optimisation for BD microarchitecture, but rather a HACK to keep the Turbo Core boost on my maximising "core parking". NOP NOP NOP!



theoneandonlymrk said:


> no i ment that this patch imho wont alter intel cpu performance as its allready been optimised for sorry vague


Is the scheduler already "parking" Intel cores?! If so, this is terrible, IMO. It is deliberately trying to force-OFF multithreading just to optimise the "single core multiplier" turbo. How do we break out of that box. This is NOT good IMO and will discourage rather than encourage threading of applications and games.

A small boost now, but in the long run, it knocks back development and use of multithread engines, and therefore performance.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

I see a BD bashing starting here, look its a good processor wrongly marketed ....my noob friend love the fact I have 8 cores and 2 of them have i5-2500k. Its all in the eye of the beholder.

I do wish I had went intel again but alas I didnt, That being said my last full time CPU was a PD, hell of an upgrade


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 15, 2011)

im gettin one, it and its mobo, fit my use and wallet fine


----------



## Super XP (Dec 15, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Anyway I'm just commenting to say how useless a comment like that really is and because I've seen you making similar comments plenty of times, here and on Fudzilla a couple of times iirc (or someone with the same nick anyway, but I dobt it).
> 
> Just because you have no problems does not mean problems don't exist.


With all due respect, personally I haven’t run into a BSOD without pushing the OC way upwards on all 8-cores. I haven’t had enough time to play with it, but currently running my FX-8120 at 4.40 GHz gives me absolutely no BSOD. I used to get them with a Crosshair V beta bios and I believe that may have been due to my 16GB ram. Anyhow, not sure where you are taking this but I have not suggested that Bulldozer has no issues. Every single PC and its hardware/software play an overall factor in BSOD. Sure it could be the Bulldozer CPU for some and it could be something entirely different with others.


Completely Bonkers said:


> A small boost now, but in the long run, it knocks back development and use of multithread engines, and therefore performance.


Absolutely not, I don't think this knocks back developement. This is the very first so called optimization from both AMD and MS. I am sure there will be a dump load more to come in the near future and so on.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Dec 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> With all due respect, personally I haven’t run into a BSOD without pushing the OC way upwards on all 8-cores. I haven’t had enough time to play with it, but currently running my FX-8120 at 4.40 GHz gives me absolutely no BSOD. I used to get them with a Crosshair V beta bios and I believe that may have been due to my 16GB ram. Anyhow, not sure where you are taking this but I have not suggested that Bulldozer has no issues. Every single PC and its hardware/software play an overall factor in BSOD. Sure it could be the Bulldozer CPU for some and it could be something entirely different with others.
> 
> Absolutely not, I don't think this knocks back developement. This is the very first so called optimization from both AMD and MS. I am sure there will be a dump load more to come in the near future and so on.



Don't tell them that you're scoring the same as a 2600k clock for clock, you'll get flamed. 

I have an OCed 8120, as well. No crashes whatsoever. It's rock solid.

Blaming AMD for shitty bioses is ridiculous.


----------



## Benetanegia (Dec 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> With all due respect, personally I haven’t run into a BSOD without pushing the OC way upwards on all 8-cores. I haven’t had enough time to play with it, but currently running my FX-8120 at 4.40 GHz gives me absolutely no BSOD. I used to get them with a Crosshair V beta bios and I believe that may have been due to my 16GB ram. Anyhow, not sure where you are taking this but I have not suggested that Bulldozer has no issues. Every single PC and its hardware/software play an overall factor in BSOD. Sure it could be the Bulldozer CPU for some and it could be something entirely different with others.



You completely missed the point. It's irrelevant if you have BSODs or not. You are ony 1 person out of the hundreds of thousands using those chips, and hence your experience with it is completely irrelevant and serves no purpose. Nine out of 10 people could post they have no problem and it would be irrelevant too, because even 1 out of 10 people having continuous BSODs is a serious problem. Not saying that's the rate of BSODs or someting, like I said I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure Erocker knows what he is talking about.

Next time, just don't post something like that and you won't get a reply from me. If you don't post that you DO have a problem we can safely assume you have none.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 15, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> You completely missed the point. It's irrelevant if you have BSODs or not. You are ony 1 person out of the hundreds of thousands using those chips, and hence your experience with it is completely irrelevant and serves no purpose. Nine out of 10 people could post they have no problem and it would be irrelevant too, because even 1 out of 10 people having continuous BSODs is a serious problem. Not saying that's the rate of BSODs or someting, like I said I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure Erocker knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Next time, just don't post something like that and you won't get a reply from me. If you don't post that you DO have a problem we can safely assume you have none.



All hardware can cause a BSOD given the right circumstances. Your argument is irrelevant.


----------



## Benetanegia (Dec 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> All hardware can cause a BSOD given the right circumstances. Your argument is irrelevant.



You insist on the attitude of "I have no problem, problem does not exist."

From the many comments that Erocker has made about it, I get that the BSODs are ocurring at a much higher rate than normal.

But to add some spice, NO not all hardware causes BSODs. I have a SB and never had a BSOD and prior to that I had a Core2 and never had a BSOD. And before that I had an AMD64 X2 and never had a BSOD. What is this BSOD thing we are talking about anyway? It does not exist clearly.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> You completely missed the point. It's irrelevant if you have BSODs or not. You are ony 1 person out of the hundreds of thousands using those chips, and hence your experience with it is completely irrelevant and serves no purpose. Nine out of 10 people could post they have no problem and it would be irrelevant too, because even 1 out of 10 people having continuous BSODs is a serious problem. Not saying that's the rate of BSODs or someting, like I said I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure Erocker knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Next time, just don't post something like that and you won't get a reply from me. If you don't post that you DO have a problem we can safely assume you have none.




LOL, irrelevant much.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 15, 2011)

TheGuruStud said:


> Don't tell them that you're scoring the same as a 2600k clock for clock, you'll get flamed.
> 
> I have an OCed 8120, as well. No crashes whatsoever. It's rock solid.
> 
> Blaming AMD for shitty bioses is ridiculous.


Why not? I am scoring the same 
No really I wouldn't do such a thing, we know Bulldozer wins in 5 or 6 benchmarks out of what 100


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

OMG, for onde I was right BD bashing thread.



> from the posts Erocker has made about it, I get that the BSODs are ocurring at a much higher rate than normal.



For who, yet another "never BSOD" here


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 15, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> You insist on the attitude of "I have no problem, problem does not exist."
> 
> From the many comments that Erocker has made about it, I get that the BSODs are ocurring at a much higher rate than normal.
> 
> But to add some spice, NO not all hardware causes BSODs. I have a SB and never had a BSOD and prior to that I had a Core2 and never had a BSOD. And before that I had an AMD64 X2 and never had a BSOD. What is this BSOD thing we are talking about anyway? It does not exist clearly.



Erocker took his chip to 5ghz. So like I said.....





> *All hardware can cause a BSOD given the right circumstances*


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Erocker took his chip to 5ghz.



And it BSOD out on him, must be a fault with BD, lol


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 15, 2011)

Get back to the topic people (before this gets locked). Post some moar results BD owners.


----------



## erocker (Dec 15, 2011)

JustaTinkerer said:


> OMG, for onde I was right BD bashing thread.
> 
> 
> 
> For who, yet another "never BSOD" here



I had a couple which I had to manually fix by disabling some event timers. There has been articles on this, reviewers and end-users have been getting them. I'm not bashing Bulldozer, I'm calling it how it is based upon my experience with it along with other user's experience with it.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 15, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> You insist on the attitude of "I have no problem, problem does not exist."
> 
> From the many comments that Erocker has made about it, I get that the BSODs are ocurring at a much higher rate than normal.
> 
> But to add some spice, NO not all hardware causes BSODs. I have a SB and never had a BSOD and prior to that I had a Core2 and never had a BSOD. And before that I had an AMD64 X2 and never had a BSOD. What is this BSOD thing we are talking about anyway? It does not exist clearly.


In my opinion, anybody suffering from BSOD's via a Bulldozer setup, I blame the Motherboard's BIOS. Like I said before, I had BSOD's with a beta bios, thank goodness ASUS came out with a improved stability for memory and compatability bios update which solved my issue.

What bios was Erocker using? The beta version is useless IMO.


----------



## erocker (Dec 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> What bios was Erocker using? The beta version is useless IMO.



All of them.


----------



## Benetanegia (Dec 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Erocker took his chip to 5ghz. So like I said.....



Say whatever you want. Be a zealot, devil's advocate whatever you want is good, plus you are a news poster now, congrats!

I have just googled Bulldozer BSOD and it has nothing to do with overclocking, plus it's pretty widespread and happens under many different conditions and apps. It seems something clearly related to how threads are handled, so hopefully this patch fixes it.

I'm out.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 15, 2011)

erocker said:


> All of them.


Thanks, I will update to the newer 1003 and report back with results.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

erocker said:


> I had a couple which I had to manually fix by disabling some event timers. There has been articles on this, reviewers and end-users have been getting them. I'm not bashing Bulldozer, I'm calling it how it is based upon my experience with it along with other user's experience with it.



Didn't mean it for you, I don't know you from Adam but you seem grounded, its what others see from your results/experience and taking it for "must be BD is that bad"

I read your results/posts, didnt stop me doing it myself.

Water block promised tomorrow, i have a chill system, lets see for myself.

EDIT: water pump not block.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 15, 2011)

Just to play devils advocate, I'm one of the guys that does get random BSODS and random crashes.*

Not whilst gaming or anything like that.

But rendering/benching/stress testing can cause it.

Voltage doesn't matter to much either obviously lower voltages cause it more often though 

But increasing my voltages above what they are at the moment does not increase stability.


* The reason I call them random is because sometimes I can stress test all day with no problems, other times intel burn test will crash the pc after only 3 runs.

Same with prime mostly it lasts for ages occasionally it will just crash.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 15, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Say whatever you want. Be a zealot, devil's advocate whatever you want is good, plus you are a news poster now, congrats!
> 
> I have just googled Bulldozer BSOD and it has nothing to do with overclocking, plus it's pretty widespread and happens under many different conditions and apps. It seems something clearly related to how threads are handled, so hopefully this patch fixes it.
> 
> I'm out.



Ah man don't take it that way. I know many BD users that have been problem free. Any issue they had was software or setting related. I don't blame BD for this. BD is a real change from 10 years of a standard architecture. Shits gonna happen. But to blame BD is kinda lame IMO.

Thanks for the comments about me being a news poster. But don't let that hold ya back. PLEASE. I've got thick skin and as long as you dont make it personal no problem will come from me. I welcome debate and opinion! You can ask any mod on here even before I was staff I rarley reported anyone unless they were just being a jerk which I have NEVER known you to be.


----------



## devguy (Dec 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> In my opinion, anybody suffering from BSOD's via a Bulldozer setup, I blame the Motherboard's BIOS. Like I said before, I had BSOD's with a beta bios, thank goodness ASUS came out with a improved stability for memory and compatability bios update which solved my issue.
> 
> What bios was Erocker using? The beta version is useless IMO.



Yeah, I noticed that Asus just in this past week has released BIOSes for 9xx chipset boards that is supposed to fix the BSODs that appear when playing Source engine games (I know, weird right?).  There's also some tweaks to memory stability mentioned.  Initial reactions seem positive over at XS forums.  I'll give BIOS 902 a whirl on my Thuban and see if I notice any differences (but I doubt it).


----------



## dezz (Dec 15, 2011)

devguy said:


> This patch will try and severely reduce the occurrence of such scheduling, and hopefully schedule as few modules as possible to engage turbo core.


I hope it's NOT doing that (at least not only that), because there are much more gains from spreading f.ex. 4 threads on 4 modules (so utilizing one core per module) than from the Turbo Core! The former is up to 26% at the same clock, the latter is only 5-10%.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 15, 2011)

User Results
Some solid results in the games tested.  Also take note that the dual GPU solution's usage increased as well.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 15, 2011)

> http://www.overclock.net/t/1185039/the-1st-windows-7-scheduler-patch-results-are-in-have-fun



Some folks wanna test before sp1 for me I got better results.

Need to see all the action before making your mind up, check my results on page 3. The hotfix from what I see is not so hot.

Need to say, I have said I wanna test Batman :AC im £1.50  off being able to download it and test.
Hell I will re-install for a test/ no sp/with SP/ with SP and hotfix


----------



## devguy (Dec 15, 2011)

dezz said:


> I hope it's NOT doing that (at least not only that), because there are much more gains from spreading f.ex. 4 threads on 4 modules (so utilizing one core per module) than from the Turbo Core! The former is up to 26% at the same clock, the latter is only 5-10%.



Well, yes and no.  If the threads are related to a process (and could benefit from the sharing of the L2 cache), then it's best they are put onto the same module (threads 1a and 1b).  If they have no (or next to no) relation, then they should be put on separate modules (thread 1 and thread 2).


----------



## dezz (Dec 16, 2011)

devguy said:


> Well, yes and no.  If the threads are related to a process (and could benefit from the sharing of the L2 cache), then it's best they are put onto the same module (threads 1a and 1b).  If they have no (or next to no) relation, then they should be put on separate modules (thread 1 and thread 2).


Well, in theory. Tests show that what I've wrote is true even in case of threads of the same process. There are perhaps special cases where the benefits of sharing the cache is overweighting the impact of sharing of other resources, but I'm yet to see one.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 16, 2011)

After playing for quite a while. skyrim doesn't seem to get any benefit from this patch XD

Well it may get an extra frame or two but nothing noticeable


----------



## Fx (Dec 16, 2011)

JustaTinkerer said:


> Just yesterday I was saying this didnt exist, I need to learn to stfu, hat eating time.
> 
> I only have novabench on my PC.
> 
> ...



lol, well lets just wait and see. you might not have to whip your pair out to man up if it is only an average 5% increase


----------



## Over_Lord (Dec 16, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> Bring on the reviews AGAIN!!



Re-reviews. Hoping for the best.


----------



## Thefumigator (Dec 16, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> User Results
> Some solid results in the games tested.  Also take note that the dual GPU solution's usage increased as well.




taken from the link:



> CONCLUSION:
> 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.
> 
> 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.


----------



## ShogoXT (Dec 16, 2011)

They seemed to have taken down the patch from the Microsoft website. Perhaps they need to adjust it?


----------



## n0tiert (Dec 16, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> All hardware can cause a BSOD given the right circumstances. Your argument is irrelevant.



true !


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Dec 16, 2011)

ShogoXT said:


> They seemed to have taken down the patch from the Microsoft website. Perhaps they need to adjust it?



It seems that way.  Spewin I didn't get it in time.  Maybe someone can post it up if it isn't back on MS in a couple of days.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 16, 2011)

I got the exe for win 7 x64 if ya want it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?tevs1bgkyfc4gp0 thats the .exe, I can put it up as a RAR if anyone wants


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Dec 16, 2011)

yes pls. Can you zip it and rename it to .txt file and email to me.  

Cheers


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Dec 16, 2011)

ignore my last post, didn't see your one above that.    cheers


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 16, 2011)

Np


----------



## Super XP (Dec 16, 2011)

devguy said:


> Yeah, I noticed that Asus just in this past week has released BIOSes for 9xx chipset boards that is supposed to fix the BSODs that appear when playing Source engine games (I know, weird right?).  There's also some tweaks to memory stability mentioned.  Initial reactions seem positive over at XS forums.  I'll give BIOS 902 a whirl on my Thuban and see if I notice any differences (but I doubt it).


The new 1003 bios is also out and newer.


----------



## devguy (Dec 16, 2011)

Super XP said:


> The new 1003 bios is also out and newer.



For Crosshair V, yes, but not for M5A97 Evo.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 16, 2011)

Cant find a 1003 for the M5A99X EVO either.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 16, 2011)

> Update: Microsoft has apparently pulled the patch from its download servers for unspecified reasons.  We'll try to post another update when we find out more.
> 
> Update II - 10:55AM: We've spoken with an industry source familiar with this situation, and it appears the release of this hotfix was either inadvertent, premature, or both. There is indeed a Bulldozer threading patch for Windows in the works, but it should come in two parts, not just one. The patch that was briefly released is only one portion of the total solution, and it may very well reduce performance if used on its own. We're hearing the full Windows update for Bulldozer performance optimization is scheduled for release in Q1 of 2012. For now, Bulldozer owners, the best thing to do is to sit tight and wait.



http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22179

Explains why it's a mixed bag for so many people.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 16, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22179
> 
> Explains why it's a mixed bag for so many people.



Reckon it's worth uninstalling then?


----------



## Super XP (Dec 16, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Reckon it's worth uninstalling then?


Are you getting an increase in performance with games? Most sites are reporting an increase in performance while others no improvement. I plan on installing the patch out of curiousity.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 16, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Are you getting an increase in performance with games? Most sites are reporting an increase in performance while others no improvement. I plan on installing the patch out of curiousity.



Nope, only thing I got an improvement on was single threaded cinebench, in fact all my multi core benches have lower scores.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 16, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Nope, only thing I got an improvement on was single threaded cinebench, in fact all my multi core benches have lower scores.


Wow and games like L4D1/2 and Skyrim are multi-core based


----------



## Daimus (Dec 16, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Nope, only thing I got an improvement on was single threaded cinebench, in fact all my multi core benches have lower scores.



i got the same running Cinebench. It seems this patch does not much FPS in the games, the difference is placed in accuracy.
i saw performance increase only running x264 benchmark.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 16, 2011)

anyone gona start jumping on MS's head now then(hang on stupid? theirs linux fanboys too)

yet another fiasco though, whos running these firms at all have the chimps taken over or something.

im on the edge of not buying anything here and just waitin till the jan sales, i would deff do that but my stand in pc, no game and i mean No game



Benetanegia said:


> But to add some spice, NO not all hardware causes BSODs. I have a SB and never had a BSOD and prior to that I had a Core2 and never had a BSOD. And before that I had an AMD64 X2 and never had a BSOD. What is this BSOD thing we are talking about anyway? It does not exist clearly.



come on man really never a bsod i have allways gone legit on os and didnt allways oc but ive allways seen a few bsod on every pc ive touched ie mams cousins etc etc either your fibbin or your not pushing hard enough, are you Just typein on it?

or do i have magic crash hands


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 16, 2011)

http://www.guru3d.com/news/amd-bulldozer-hotfix-from-microsoft/


many benches shown before and after sorry for dp , sort of bump


----------



## 15th Warlock (Dec 16, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> http://www.guru3d.com/news/amd-bulldozer-hotfix-from-microsoft/
> 
> 
> many benches shown before and after sorry for dp , sort of bump




1% in applications and synthetic benchmarks, less than one percent in games... Granted they only tested a few games, results don't seem too promising though; well, will wait for the big boys to post their results 

I've said before, and will say it once again, there's no sense in beating a dead horse, let's wait for AMD to release pile driver and improve the architecture, a software patch won't fix the performance of a proc that was 5 years in development...


----------



## Benetanegia (Dec 16, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> come on man really never a bsod i have allways gone legit on os and didnt allways oc but ive allways seen a few bsod on every pc ive touched ie mams cousins etc etc either your fibbin or your not pushing hard enough, are you Just typein on it?
> 
> or do i have magic crash hands



I'm sure that if you try really hard you will eventually understand sarcasm. Sheldon Cooper did it after all... (sort of)

EDIT: Never had a random BSOD with those 3 CPUs tho. And no I don't push them hard at all. 3.2 Ghz on the Core2 up from 2.4 Ghz, 2.8 Ghz on the A64 X2 up from 2.4 Ghz, and 4.2 on the SB, but I'm back to stock because really I don't need more and I rather have an ultra quiet and cool PC.

I've had many BSODs with previous CPUs, like P4, A64, Athlon XP, Sempron, Athlon Thunderbrid, PentiumII, K6-2, Pentium etc etc. But I it's more due to the OS. With XP I had very few already. With Win 7 in the 3 CPUs mentioned first, no BSOD, none at all.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 16, 2011)

lucky you my  pc world appears somewhat faulty now then as i can make any pc bsod with a little or lot of oc and i like to be just behind that bsod edge



everyone i know and Fix the pc for have a free 20-30% boost stable tho  as i like peace







0 most 20 now as i like peace                  <----wagwan my Iexplorer taken an arrow to the knee its movein stuff as i type now


----------



## Super XP (Dec 17, 2011)

15th Warlock said:


> 1% in applications and synthetic benchmarks, less than one percent in games... Granted they only tested a few games, results don't seem too promising though; well, will wait for the big boys to post their results
> 
> *I've said before, and will say it once again, there's no sense in beating a dead horse, let's wait for AMD to release pile driver and improve the architecture, a software patch won't fix the performance of a proc that was 5 years in development...*


I have to disagree in a way, yes hopefully Piledriver get's tweaked to death when it gets released in Q3 2012. Anyhow you have the Windows 7 OS that does not fully understand Bulldozer and how the modules work. Obviously it's not going to perform properly. And yes a Patch can resolve this issue and perhaps give it a performance boost. Nothing dramatic, but something a little better than what see today. The fact Microsoft is talking about this is proof alone that this scheduling issue is a big problem.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Dec 17, 2011)

I don't know why anyone would release a CPU that is not fully understood by the most common OS it's going to be used with.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Dec 17, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I have to disagree in a way, yes hopefully Piledriver get's tweaked to death when it gets released in Q3 2012. Anyhow you have the Windows 7 OS that does not fully understand Bulldozer and how the modules work. Obviously it's not going to perform properly. And yes a Patch can resolve this issue and perhaps give it a performance boost. Nothing dramatic, but something a little better than what see today. The fact Microsoft is talking about this is proof alone that this scheduling issue is a big problem.



Yes, you're right, there's an issue with the way Win7 schedules tasks on BD, and what better proof than this hotfix, unfortunately though, chances are we won't see a big improvement during BD's lifetime in Win7 systems, Win8 might be another story, and I think we need to move on and wait hopefuly for Piledriver to deliver, like Phenom II did, the only problem I see with this scenario is that the competition is not going to just wait for this to happen


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 17, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I have to disagree in a way, yes hopefully Piledriver get's tweaked to death when it gets released in Q3 2012. Anyhow you have the Windows 7 OS that does not fully understand Bulldozer and how the modules work. Obviously it's not going to perform properly. And yes a Patch can resolve this issue and perhaps give it a performance boost. Nothing dramatic, but something a little better than what see today. The fact Microsoft is talking about this is proof alone that this scheduling issue is a big problem.



But my question is should Microsoft(and other OS developers) have to redesign their schedulers to work properly with Bulldozer's Module design when the schedulers work perfectly with a proper multi-core design? Or should AMD just make a proper multi-core processor?


----------



## DigitalUK (Dec 17, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> But my question is should Microsoft(and other OS developers) have to redesign their schedulers to work properly with Bulldozer's Module design when the schedulers work perfectly with a proper multi-core design? Or should AMD just make a proper multi-core processor?



when AMD released the worlds first dual core no software used it, windows had to be patched to use it, when AMD added x64 we needed 64bit OS, same sort of thing with P4 HTT. Bulldozer is a completely new arc and AMD should be given due respect for trying something new. microsoft should never have released this patch and instead put out a statement saying yes there is a problem with win7 scheduler and an update is coming soon. makes you wonder just how well win8 preview scheduler is running with BD.

what is really strange is how M$ and AMD seem in no real hurry to fix the issue.


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 17, 2011)

> Update: Microsoft has apparently pulled the patch from its download servers for unspecified reasons.  We'll try to post another update when we find out more.
> 
> Update II - 10:55AM: We've spoken with an industry source familiar with this situation, and it appears the release of this hotfix was either inadvertent, premature, or both. There is indeed a Bulldozer threading patch for Windows in the works, but it should come in two parts, not just one. The patch that was briefly released is only one portion of the total solution, and it may very well reduce performance if used on its own. We're hearing the full Windows update for Bulldozer performance optimization is scheduled for release in Q1 of 2012. For now, Bulldozer owners, the best thing to do is to sit tight and wait.



Or has this been mentioned here already?


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 17, 2011)

> AMD and Microsoft are continually working to improve hardware and software for our shared customers. As part of our joint work to optimize the performance of “Bulldozer” architecture-based AMD processors we collaborating on a scheduler update to the Windows 7 code-base. *The code associated with this KB is incomplete and should not be used.*



hummm...


----------



## hhumas (Dec 18, 2011)

Good news for BD owners ~~~


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 18, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I have to disagree in a way, yes hopefully Piledriver get's tweaked to death when it gets released in Q3 2012. Anyhow you have the Windows 7 OS that does not fully understand Bulldozer and how the modules work. Obviously it's not going to perform properly. And yes a Patch can resolve this issue and perhaps give it a performance boost. Nothing dramatic, but something a little better than what see today. The fact Microsoft is talking about this is proof alone that this scheduling issue is a big problem.



Don't expect it to be magic when the fix comes properly though man.

In the absolutely best case scenario it will bring the IPC back up to phenom II levels.

It still won't touch intel.

The only times it will get a big boost is where it absolutely isn't working as an 8 core cpu.

But TBH that isn't all that often.


----------

