# AMD FX 8150 with Microsoft KB2592546 Put Through 'Before and After' Patch Tests



## btarunr (Dec 19, 2011)

To the surprise of many, last week, Microsoft rolled out a patch (KB2592546) for Windows that it claimed would improve performance of systems running AMD processors based on the "Bulldozer" architecture. The patch works by making the OS aware of the way Bulldozer cores are structured, so it could effectively make use of the parallelism at its disposal. Sadly, a couple of days later, it pulled that patch. Meanwhile, SweClockers got enough time to do a "before and after" performance test of the AMD FX-8150 processor, using this patch. 

The results of SweClockers' tests are tabled below. "tidigare" is before, "nytt" is after, and "skillnad" is change. The reviewer put the chip through a wide range of tests, including synthetic CPU-intensive tests (both single and multi-threaded), and real-world gaming performance tests. The results are less than impressive. Perhaps, that's why the patch was redacted. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Over_Lord (Dec 19, 2011)

Lower performance? Oh god help AMD.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 19, 2011)

^might have something to do with the patch being pulled just one of those duh things.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 19, 2011)

Pulling the patch is a good thing, would rather they release the patch when performance is to our expectation.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 19, 2011)

^but performance IS to our expectations! LOL  Just not to our wishful thinking!

Actually, that the results are mixed and not consistent shows that there is something funky with the architecture.  If they were using affinity to keep the code over two neighbour cores whereever possible to get the Turbo-Boost effect to come in, then why would the results sometimes be worse? I assume that the flipside to the turbo boost is the effect of smaller L1 cache and the neighboring cores having to share cache and pipeline rather than letting two cores and their caches work independently. Swings and roundabouts.

I think the "affinity to get Turbo boost" feature ends up being a mistaken performance tweak.  It is also a worthless concept if the next iteration of BD has higher overall clocks and lower Turbo boost.

Poor AMD. Hyping scheduler changes being the solution to all their woes... when it wasnt.

Sounds a bit like the wife... "if, but, you, not my fault..." yadda yadda


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 19, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Perhaps, that's why the patch was redacted.



No perhaps necessary.



> 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.



This is why no site of substance has run these tests; it's not indicative of squat.


----------



## John Doe (Dec 19, 2011)

The problem with this chip is per thread performance, it simply renders slow while sucking too much power. Windows throws loads randomly across cores, yeah, but the cores are there. The CPU has the potential, it just can't deliver it. At times, Phenom chips also suffer from the same case. I mean, a decent quad losing to a dual core at this time and date?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/54?vs=88

In reality though, the quad would trump that dual in BF and such. But they need more per-clock performance. A bit too late now...


----------



## Quantos (Dec 19, 2011)

Well, considering that the patch has been pulled because it could actually hinder performance, I'd say this is a pretty moot benchmark. 

I'll be surprised if the actual patch brings a performance increase, but let's at least wait and see if it does.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

whole thing is MS pulled it because the patch consists of 2 parts, MS released only half of it accidently- whoever the webmaster is of MS website.


----------



## John Doe (Dec 19, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> the patch *[U]performance[/U]* is to our *expectation*.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> http://hardocp.com/images/articles/13201474041PaaGdw9mZ_2_1.gif




John Doe^

That is 1 benchmark on 1 website. The other ARMA 2 benchmarks from "other" sites are not that poor. Common sense can see that is merely a freakishly bizarre result maybe due to a driver or bad configuration which probably has nothing to do with Bulldozer.


----------



## John Doe (Dec 19, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> John Doe^
> 
> You are truely an idiot. That is 1 benchmark on 1 website. The other ARMA 2 benchmarks from "other" sites are not that poor. It's common sense can see that is merely a freakishly bizarre result maybe due to a driver or bad configuration which probably has nothing to do with Bulldozer.



Nope, but you're a fanboy bud. If you go over [H] to see the article, there're other similar cases. The architecture blows end of story. Grow up.


----------



## meirb111 (Dec 19, 2011)

looks like  "a patch" for sales not for performance no patch is going to fix
a bad product


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Nope, but you're a fanboy bud. If you go over [H] to see the article, there're other similar cases. The architecture blows end of story. Grow up.



You have a problem reading. We know the architecture blows in single threaded games - I get that. 

But I'm saying that ONLY Hard OCP shows ARMA 2 performing a min of 9 FPS - which anyone with common sense can see is unrelated to the CPU.  A fucking Athlon X2  from 2006 can get higher mins than 9 FPS. So common sense will say it's an outside influence. Software/configuration/bios etc.

For all we know it could of been driver conflict with the Nvidia card tested.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Nope, but you're a fanboy bud. If you go over [H] to see the article, there're other similar cases. The architecture blows end of story. Grow up.



So anybody that doesn't go exclusively with Nvidia and Intel is a fanboy right? That's all I've gathered from your trolling of all AMD threads. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

This isnt a bad product, and I do recall MS releasing Patches in the past for both Intel and AMD due to new CPU/Motherboard Chipset designs...


----------



## John Doe (Dec 19, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> You have a problem reading. We know the architecture blow in single threaded games - I get that.
> 
> But I'm saying that ONLY Hard OCP shows ARMA 2 performing a min of 9 FPS - which anyone with common sense can see is unrelated to the CPU.



First of all, [H]'s article is extensive and one of the best out there. And if you look at "average", Sandy has almost double the frames. Not just in ARMA, but in some other titles as well. You also have to consider that these (games in test) are well threaded.



Damn_Smooth said:


> So anybody that doesn't go exclusively with Nvidia and Intel is a fanboy right? That's all I've gathered from your trolling of all AMD threads. Thanks for clearing that up.



Trolling? Is that what you get out of it? Take off your AMD shirt buddy, I post facts. And no, it has nothing to do with going with whatever brand. Brand fanboyism is stupid. I suggest people more AMD GPU's than nVidia (due their bang for buck). But not sure you're grown enough to realize that.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

instead of posting others results- post your own

thats all i can say

dont ask me to because im on 8+ year old hardware running win 7 32bit.

besides is the 2700K truly superior to the 2600K or 2500K other than just a model number change? I noticed Intel is to release a 2550K or 2650K shortly...


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> First of all, [H]'s article is extensive and one of the best out there. And if you look at "average", Sandy has almost double the frames. Not just in ARMA, but in some other titles as well. You also have to consider that these (games in test) are well threaded.
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling? Is that what you get out of it? Take off your AMD shirt buddy, I post facts. And no, it has nothing to do with going with whatever brand. Brand fanboyism is stupid. I suggest people more AMD GPU's than nVidia (due their bang for buck). But not sure you're grown enough to realize that.



Your posts are arrogant and aggressive, so yes you are trolling, and it's not the first time neither, to say you haven't really been here long you won't do yourself any favours if this is your general way of communicating with others. You need some people skills, get off your big hard Intel e-peen for a day and step out and get some sunlight instead of jerking off to the internets and acting like your opinion matters, because sorry to burst your bubble, it doesn't. You felt the need to come in here and thread crap when it's not about BD Vs Intel, dare to call me an AMD fanboy? check my specs


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> First of all, [H]'s article is extensive and one of the best out there. And if you look at "average", Sandy has almost double the frames. Not just in ARMA, but in some other titles as well. You also have to consider that these (games in test) are well threaded.



I'm not faulting Hard OCP's article as a whole. I think they are one of the best unbias writers. 

Compare ARMA 2's with Bulldozer result to any other hardware website and you won't see a min of 9FPS.

What I'm saying is the ARMA 2 test is probably a bad run, influenced by a third party factor. eg. You can run 3D Mark 1,000 times eventually a driver, bad cofiguration or some weird fault within Windows will have the result coming up short atleast a few times.


----------



## John Doe (Dec 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> besides is the 2700K truly superior to the 2600K or 2500K other than just a model number change? I noticed Intel is to release a 2550K or 2650K shortly...



http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/processors/intel-core-i7-2700k-flagship-showdown-revie/

http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/processors/intel-core-i7-2700k-flagship-showdown-review/3/



NdMk2o1o said:


> Your posts are arrogant and aggressive, so yes you are trolling, and it's not the first time neither, to say you haven't really been here long you won't do yourself any favours if this is your general way of communicating with others. You need some people skills, get off your big hard Intel e-peen for a day and step out and get some sunlight instead of jerking off to the internets and acting like your opinion matters, because sorry to burst your bubble, it doesn't. You felt the need to come in here and thread crap when it's not about BD Vs Intel, dare to call me an AMD fanboy? check my specs



No, I'm not. You don't understand what "trolling" is. I'm being pushy, not trolling. If I'm being flat out rude, then it'd at best be my arrogance, but not trolling. I actually have been reading here far longer than your join date, so no need to belittle me. As for my Intel e-peen, sorry, not going to bother.

Why do you think I called him a fanboy? Get some reading comprehension.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Trolling? Is that what you get out of it? Take off your AMD shirt buddy, I post facts. And no, it has nothing to do with going with whatever brand. Brand fanboyism is stupid. I suggest people more AMD GPU's than nVidia (due their bang for buck). But not sure you're grown enough to realize that.



You've just proven my point. You call me a fanboy for pointing out that you run into a thread, get proven wrong 90% of the time, and call people fanboys whenever you get proven wrong. All while ignoring the fact that my next CPU upgrade comes in May and doesn't have AMD written on it, and I'm unsure of what will be printed on my next GPU.

They say ignorance is bliss so you must be a very jovial person in real life. 

Anyway, I'm done dragging myself down to your level to grunt in your language. Have fun.


----------



## John Doe (Dec 19, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> You've just proven my point. You call me a fanboy for pointing out that you run into a thread, get proven wrong 90% of the time, and call people fanboys whenever you get proven wrong. All while ignoring the fact that my next CPU upgrade comes in May and doesn't have AMD written on it, and I'm unsure of what will be printed on my next GPU.
> 
> They say ignorance is bliss so you must be a very jovial person in real life.
> 
> Anyway, I'm done dragging myself down to your level to grunt in your language. Have fun.



No, actually, I'm right. The CPU sucks. You're wrong and can't take it due to your love of AMD. I'm not going to comment on those percantages you make up, or my ignorance because you're seeing things red and blue, when they are not.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/processors/intel-core-i7-2700k-flagship-showdown-revie/
> 
> http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/processors/intel-core-i7-2700k-flagship-showdown-review/3/
> 
> ...



Troll: a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages.. 

Now Mr "I post facts" where does Intel Vs BD come into play in this thread? so yes, you are trolling, posting off topic benches for what reason? then you go shouting fanboy, do me a favour, there's only one fanboy in this thread. Your posts have been reported, I suggest you wind it in unless you want to end up banned here like you have been from the EVGA forums and god knows where else.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

I just read up on it- seems only stock the 2700K leads by .3 points higher but overclocked the same- not much diff at all.

I guess you got it because of the higher stock clock which means not having to overclock it as far- to extent.

Im wondering if your P67 is holding your Model back vs the Z68 Series.

So How much did you drop on it vs a 2600K if I may ask?



John Doe said:


> http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/processors/intel-core-i7-2700k-flagship-showdown-revie/
> 
> http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/processors/intel-core-i7-2700k-flagship-showdown-review/3/
> 
> ...


----------



## John Doe (Dec 19, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Troll: a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages..
> 
> Now Mr "I post facts" where does Intel Vs BD come into play in this thread? so yes, you are trolling, posting off topic benches for what reason? then you go shouting fanboy, do me a favour, there's only one fanboy in this thread. Your posts have been reported, I suggest you wind it in unless you want to end up banned here like you have been from the EVGA forums and god knows where else.



He took it into the discussion, not me. The benches I posted were to provide info, nothing else. I already explained why I got banned over eVGA, so I'm not going to get into it again. Let's just say I'm not a silly eVGA fanboy.



eidairaman1 said:


> I guess you got it because of the higher stock clock which means not having to overclock it as far- to extent.
> 
> Im wondering if your P67 is holding your Model back vs the Z68 Series.
> 
> So How much did you drop on it vs a 2600K if I may ask?



2700K's have the best batch, not just stock clock. Well P67 is the same as Z68 with the exception of onboard SSD. It cost $40 more.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

So Im assuming the 2550/2650 would be a new stepping/new batch, where as the 2700 K are just a rare batch of 2600Ks.  I guess your guaranteed it runs at 3.5GHz vs a 2600 or 2500K. Overclocking is always a mixed bag.


Im not sure where the 8150 is going but I truly suspect the Product isnt as bad as everyone thinks it is- I really think it was just a direct move of the opteron to the desktop market- its probably the fact the CPU isnt working hardly to pass its tasks through- only time will tell and that of Piledriver arch...

On Another Note- as a Computer enthusiast- I built a Phenom 2 BE 555 machine for my bro, Unlocked the CPU to B55/955 using stock cooler. Amazed at how fast it boots, shuts down and loads programs and how smooth it operates in videos and audio with a 6770 video card- my bro just recently upgrade the driver because the driver itself asked if he wanted to, so now he is on the Cat 11.11/ 11.12 vs the 11.9 driver i installed initially


At Work Im helping my boss on building a machine by providing 1155/ 2011 or AM3+ parts- as of looking at reviews and specs etc- fit his budget like my brothers machine- so far the AsRock boards look the best for robustness and capability at overclocking (doubt he will overclock tbh)


----------



## cdawall (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> First of all, [H]'s article is extensive and one of the best out there. And if you look at "average", Sandy has almost double the frames. Not just in ARMA, but in some other titles as well. You also have to consider that these (games in test) are well threaded.



I would choose someone other than [H] who has gotten trouble in the past for being heavily Intel/Nvidia biased and making the benchmarks read as such.


----------



## Frick (Dec 19, 2011)

This.. This is a bit ouchy.


----------



## John Doe (Dec 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> So Im assuming the 2550/2650 would be a new stepping/new batch, where as the 2700 K are just a rare batch of 2600Ks.  I guess your guaranteed it runs at 3.5GHz vs a 2600 or 2500K. Overclocking is always a mixed bag.



Yeah, they _might_ have improved their batch but I'm starting to think they're doing it on purpose, because the early 2600K's OC'ed better than the later ones. They might just keep the good 2500/2600k's to re-release them under a different name...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Yeah, they _might_ have improved their batch but I'm starting to think they're doing it on purpose, because the early 2600K's OC'ed better than the later ones. They might just keep the good 2500/2600k's to re-release them under a different name...



Seems to be the way of the beast- reminds me of what AMD did to the XP 3200 after the Athlon 64s came out- locked the multiplier down...

But both companies have done that to phase out models, eventually the 2550K and 2650K will appear and the 00 models will phase out then a 2800/2750 K appears along side the 2*50 series etc.


----------



## John Doe (Dec 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Seems to be the way of the beast- reminds me of what AMD did to the XP 3200 after the Athlon 64s came out- locked the multiplier down...



Way off topic, the locked ones had green PCB, right? The earlier dated ones were red IIRC.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Way off topic, the locked ones had green PCB, right? The earlier dated ones were red IIRC.



You couldnt tell by the color of the package- it was in the stepping code- if it was week 39 or higher in 2003 the CPU was multiplier locked.

Ive seen Green, Yellow and Brown Packages that were before week 39, just depended on where the chip was made, the Brown ones were Germany. Biggest guarantee of the Athlon XPs not being locked were the stepping code before week 39 or the Athlon XP-M, Highest I can go is 2.2GHz with the XP-M. Others that have been lucky have pushed the farthest at 3.0GHz.


----------



## NC37 (Dec 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> You couldnt tell by the color of the package- it was in the stepping code- if it was week 39 or higher in 2003 the CPU was multiplier locked.
> 
> Ive seen Green, Yellow and Brown Packages that were before week 39, just depended on where the chip was made, the Brown ones were Germany. Biggest guarantee of the Athlon XPs not being locked were the stepping code before week 39 or the Athlon XP-M, Highest I can go is 2.2GHz with the XP-M. Others that have been lucky have pushed the farthest at 3.0GHz.



Board limited on the XP-M?

I had a mobile 2500+ that would only clock to 2.25Ghz because of a board limitation. I know it clocked higher because the guy I got it from confirmed it past 2.8.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

NC37 said:


> Board limited on the XP-M?
> 
> I had a mobile 2500+ that would only clock to 2.25Ghz because of a board limitation. I know it clocked higher because the guy I got it from confirmed it past 2.8.



That I couldnt tell tbh, cuz I have a DFI NF 2 Ultra-B

My first was a MSI K7N2 Delta-L


----------



## Kenshai (Dec 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> besides is the 2700K truly superior to the 2600K or 2500K other than just a model number change? I noticed Intel is to release a 2550K or 2650K shortly...




Both companies do this, I recall the top end Phenom 2 getting 100 mhz bumps consistently through its product line to "remain competitive". Release a slightly higher clocked version for at a slightly higher price point. Yes the performance between the two will be very similar the same way overclocking an extra 100 mhz would be the exact same thing. 

Look at Phenom II X4 955 at 3.2ghz all the way up to 980 at 3.7 ghz in 100 mhz increments.

Most enthusiasts understand that the only thing changing here is the default multiplier, thus increasing temperatures and clock speed.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

And Youre telling me this why when i already know AMD had been doing it



Kenshai said:


> Both companies do this, I recall the top end Phenom 2 getting 100 mhz bumps consistently through its product line to "remain competitive". Release a slightly higher clocked version for at a slightly higher price point. Yes the performance between the two will be very similar the same way overclocking an extra 100 mhz would be the exact same thing.
> 
> Look at Phenom II X4 955 at 3.2ghz all the way up to 980 at 3.7 ghz in 100 mhz increments.
> 
> Most enthusiasts understand that the only thing changing here is the default multiplier, thus increasing temperatures and clock speed.


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 19, 2011)

Last time i heard it was suppose to come in 2 updates. Using just first one actually hurts the performance.


----------



## Kenshai (Dec 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> And Youre telling me this why when i already know AMD had been doing it



Because you questioned whether the newer intel model numbers were superior. It's the same thing in the AMD line, are they actually superior? Expect this same thing to happen in all releases, as its competition that drives the new models out.


----------



## repman244 (Dec 19, 2011)

This will probably be a nice performance boost for those who have an FX.

Also, those who are saying that BD is good enough or that it isn't bad. Well its a bad chip, so many years of R&D went into it and in the end they ended up slower than Stars. And please don't start throwing those 2-3 benchamarks where it's faster than the 2600K or 2500K, it has double the amount of cores and uses much more power for that. Also an 8 core Phenom II would demolish it in anything, but such a chip will obviously never exist.
Of course in the end what matters is the price for the performance, be it a chip with 16 cores or 2 cores.


About this update, I saw some people with 2600k at the AT reporting that it gave them a boost in cinebench, someone should test it and see if this is true.


----------



## AsRock (Dec 19, 2011)

Maybe they should make  a patch for the chip that has 800m transistors less lol.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 19, 2011)

repman244 said:


> This will probably be a nice performance boost for those who have an FX.
> 
> Also, those who are saying that BD is good enough or that it isn't bad. Well its a bad chip, so many years of R&D went into it and in the end they ended up slower than Stars. And please don't start throwing those 2-3 benchamarks where it's faster than the 2600K or 2500K, it has double the amount of cores and uses much more power for that. Also an 8 core Phenom II would demolish it in anything, but such a chip will obviously never exist.
> Of course in the end what matters is the price for the performance, be it a chip with 16 cores or 2 cores.
> ...



Um it doesnt have "double the amount of cores". Also the patch that was dropped was undone and third if BD goes 200 or less it would be an awesome chip for the price. I really don't know where you get your facts from.


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 19, 2011)

Off topic.



John Doe said:


> Trolling? Is that what you get out of it? Take off your AMD shirt buddy,* I post facts.* And no, it has nothing to do with going with whatever brand. Brand fanboyism is stupid. I suggest people more AMD GPU's than nVidia (due their bang for buck). But not sure you're grown enough to realize that.



Not so sure buddy.  When Btarunr posted an article from Donanimhaber that AMD were releasing the 79 series on the 9th you mocked the site.  You argued with Btarunr about his sources and you said:



John Doe said:


> *All the author of DomainHamber does is to make up crap*. That site is a joke. Why would they, from Silicon Valley, CA, send their most important info to *some junk site from a 3rd World country? They never get any info. They just stir it up.*



Btarunr posted this:


btarunr said:


> Yes, at least insofar as where you were going with DonanimHaber is concered, you are one of those who proclaim: "My ignorance is as worthy as your intellect". Therefore, you don't deserve a discussion on DonanimHaber's credibility. Rather it's the otherway round, DonanimHaber doesn't need your stamp of approval.



You posted back:


John Doe said:


> You first insulted me by saying I don't know shit. And know you're calling me dufus and ignorant? Way to go buddy. Way to go. I'm pretty damn sure you know that site has no inside sources. *They're making it all up on their own. They always did*. But you aren't going to come up and admit you're wrong. You aren't in a position to do that, are you?



Hmm.

So you'll probably say Donanimhaber were just lucky or that you didnt mean that they didnt have any info.  You'll stick to your guns and say they only make shit up despite the fact the talked about an early Jan release date and lo and behold, other sites confimed this and then the date got moved even closer.

Why dont you apologise to Btarunr for being so rude to him?

That would be the civilised thing to do.


----------



## repman244 (Dec 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Um it doesnt have "double the amount of cores". Also the patch that was dropped was undone and third if BD goes 200 or less it would be an awesome chip for the price. I really don't know where you get your facts from.



I know that the patch is not done I haven't said anything about it being done...

8 cores vs 4:  it's double...and I don't care what you call them. An application that uses only one core will take that one core it doesn't care if it's some semi core.
Also I didn't say anything about the price of BD itself, I agree if priced correctly it's really a nice CPU, but I was looking at the architecture itself and I don't see it as efficient or good...for now that is. I hope that Piledriver delivers and shows what BD was meant to be.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 19, 2011)

repman244 said:


> I know that the patch is not done I haven't said anything about it being done...
> 
> 8 cores vs 4:  it's double...and I don't care what you call them. An application that uses only one core will take that one core it doesn't care if it's some semi core.
> Also I didn't say anything about the price of BD itself, I agree if priced correctly it's really a nice CPU, but I was looking at the architecture itself and I don't see it as efficient or good...for now that is. I hope that Piledriver delivers and shows what BD was meant to be.



Its not a true 8 core.


----------



## repman244 (Dec 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its not a true 8 core.



Like I said, applications don't care what it is. Neither do I, all I see is low single thread performance, it doesn't help me if I know what actually is in the CPU.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 19, 2011)

repman244 said:


> And please don't start throwing those 2-3 benchamarks where it's faster than the 2600K or 2500K, it has double the amount of cores and uses much more power for that.





repman244 said:


> Also an 8 core Phenom II would demolish it in anything, but such a chip will obviously never exist. Of course in the end what matters is the price for the performance, be it a chip with 16 cores or 2 cores.



Arguably, according to AMD's early marketing Bulldozer FX 8150 is really a 4 core proccessor, with 4 hardware HT 

Why they decided to market it as an 8 core afterwards?? Only the peope in the board room knows. But they shot themselves in the foot with it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 19, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Like I said, applications don't care what it is. Neither do I, all I see is low single thread performance, it doesn't help me if I know what actually is in the CPU.



Well its your right to be wrong. Carry on.



Dent1 said:


> Arguably, according to AMD's early marketing Bulldozer FX 8150 is really a 4 core proccessor, with 4 hardware HT



Yes, yes but lets not have facts get in the way of the Bulldozer bashing.


----------



## repman244 (Dec 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well its your right to be wrong. Carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes but lets not have facts get in the way of the Bulldozer bashing.



I'm not the application so I don't know how can I be wrong, or at least tell me where I'm wrong.

Even if you do call it a 4 module chip or 4 core chip with some sort of HT, it does not make a difference. It still lacks in the single thread applications, of course it does shine in heavy multithread.


----------



## trickson (Dec 19, 2011)

Well I am sure AMD will have this fixed for you AMD users soon . Pulling the Hot Fix is a good thing as the performance is not there and working on it is the main thing now . But it would be nice for AMD to actually put out a chip that works with out a hot fix .


----------



## DrPepper (Dec 19, 2011)

Can't really draw a conclusion based on a patch that was leaked then pulled. I'll wait till they release the finished product before making judgements, however I doubt there is a magic software fix for this.


----------



## trickson (Dec 19, 2011)

DrPepper said:


> Can't really draw a conclusion based on a patch that was leaked then pulled. I'll wait till they release the finished product before making judgements, however I doubt there is a magic software fix for this.



I think it would be far better for AMD to put out products that work with out all the hot fix fuss . Just kind of makes one mad at them for putting out crap . We waited for years for BD and got this crap ? Come on !


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

The ones who are thread bashing sound like broken records, we all know the FX series aren't the best; they certainly aren't crap though.  Stop beating a dead horse and help people who actually need their machines fixed.  Or are y'all not intelligent enough to act like men and not a bunch of boys?


----------



## trickson (Dec 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> The ones who are thread bashing sound like broken records, we all know the FX series aren't the best; they certainly aren't crap though.  Stop beating a dead horse and help people who actually need their machines fixed.  Or are y'all not intelligent enough to act like men and not a bunch of boys?



Wouldn't it have been better for AMD to put out a chip that worked in the first place ?  
But I guess you are right . I do think that AMD will get it all sorted out soon and every one with a BD will be happy . SOON ! Just have to wait till they get it together is all . Pulling a bad patch that lowered performance was a good thing IMHO .


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

In the past both companies have had MS release patches/drivers to make the OS function properly with the newer CPU/mobo architecture being released.  I also realize the design of the CPU is more of a direct conversion from the Opteron than a tweaked Opteron. So we shall see what Piledriver and the next FX is about.


----------



## trickson (Dec 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> In the past both companies have had MS release patches/drivers to make the OS function properly with the newer CPU/mobo architecture being released.  I also realize the design of the CPU is more of a direct conversion from the Opteron than a tweaked Opteron. So we shall see what Piledriver and the next FX is about.



Yeah it does happen . I just hope AMD gets this all worked out soon .


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2011)

Rest assured they will, I mean supposedly the 2900XT was a debacle and they recovered from that in a big way


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Grow up.


 youve come on here to shit on AMD and thats all, and not to learn anything or advise anyone and he should grow up, funny guy

it does seem to be the same people continuously on here, in every AMD thread ,essentially just repeatedly sayin "AMD's shit haha" , they should just copy and paste that then repost it as and when

and this is the only relevant comment



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Quote:
> 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.
> 
> This is why no site of substance has run these tests; it's not indicative of squat.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Dec 19, 2011)

+1 We all know mr Doe is a troll,every thread he post's in turns into something like this. Thats why he hides behind his proxy.


----------



## Poisonsnak (Dec 19, 2011)

I think the patch is supposed to have this kind of effect:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865/2

when you're running between 2 and 6 threads on an 8-module bulldozer CPU, it seems to be best to spread them out as much as you can (mask 55 in the graphs) as opposing to having 2 threads on 1 module and 1 module sitting idle.

Take it with a grain of salt though, they may be cherry-picked benchmarks


----------



## WarraWarra (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> http://hardocp.com/images/articles/13201474041PaaGdw9mZ_2_1.gif



If that link is accurate then my i7-2860QM laptop cpu would outperform the AMD FX-8150 as well as your i7-2500k.
O well desktops have better graphics cards.  

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html


----------



## qubit (Dec 19, 2011)

btarunr said:


> The results are less than impressive. Perhaps, that's why the patch was redacted.



Indeed it was why. MS explained that the patch is supposed to be in two parts and that running the incomplete patch can actually decrease performance, so to me, those benchies don't mean much as they stand. Of course, it's gonna be very interesting to see how well the full patch works and how differently it works from what SweClockers posted.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 19, 2011)

qubit said:


> Indeed it was why. MS explained that the patch is supposed to be in two parts and that running the incomplete patch can actually decrease performance, so to me, those benchies don't mean much as they stand. Of course, it's gonna be very interesting to see how well the full patch works and how differently it works from what SweClockers posted.



I would hope it brings the BD cpu up to scratch with a theoretical Phenom II x 8 ( well except at floating point, but gpus/apus will do all the floating point math eventually) 

I don't expect actual proper improvements until piledriver.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 19, 2011)

Well I'm extremely happy with MY BD chip and super excited at the thought of a Windows Patch exclusively designed to boost BD chips even further. 

I had a feeling that the first patch would get botched. Things of that nature always get pulled or have some sort of fault upon first release that requires patching. 



I await patiently.


----------



## qubit (Dec 19, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> I would hope it brings the BD cpu up to scratch with a theoretical Phenom II x 8 ( well except at floating point, but gpus/apus will do all the floating point math eventually)
> 
> I don't expect actual proper improvements until piledriver.



Yeah, it might deliver 10% or so (speculation) but still better than nothing and as these chips overclock well, 10% of that boosted performance can be noticeable.



AphexDreamer said:


> I await patiently.



I await impatiently!  I really wanna see what this can do and it's quite a cliffhanger.


----------



## AsRock (Dec 19, 2011)

John Doe said:


> http://hardocp.com/images/articles/13201474041PaaGdw9mZ_2_1.gif



Why is the view distance so low ?. just asking as i play domination on arma 2 map around 4.5k and OA map 4.9k with 4AA.

There is all so the point that VBS1 (even in it's heavily modified state) is one of the worsted games to do benchmarks with


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 19, 2011)

qubit said:


> I await impatiently!  I really wanna see what this can do and it's quite a cliffhanger.


 
Yeah lol but we don't want any more rushed releases from MS that could further decrease performance either  

They just had to tease us with an improper release.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 19, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> Well I'm extremely happy with MY BD chip and super excited at the thought of a Windows Patch exclusively designed to boost BD chips even further.
> 
> I had a feeling that the first patch would get botched. Things of that nature always get pulled or have some sort of fault upon first release that requires patching.
> 
> ...



Yeah I'm pretty happy with it as well, at the speed I have it it's the equivalent of my 1055t @ 3.9 ghz at most tasks, but tasks that take advantage of the new instructions/architecture the BD chip is faster.

( decided to step down to 4.3ghz as it can be done on stock volts even with this rubbish bios I'm using)  


If I had better cooling I could easily clock this chip to 5ghz and beyond so will be equivalent to a 4.5ghz 6 core phenom at most tasks 

It's not bad when you bare in mind that it's supposed to have higher clocks.


----------



## xenocide (Dec 20, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Yeah I'm pretty happy with it as well, at the speed I have it it's the *equivalent of my 1055t @ 3.9 ghz at most tasks*, but tasks that take advantage of the new instructions/architecture the BD chip is faster.



That is my major issue with BD.  It's only as good as Thuban, and is usually slower clock-for-clock.  I was hoping at least for the per-thread performance of Phenom II, but that didn't happen.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 20, 2011)

*Kinda sad really*

Amd aint a baf co. bd aint...needs work . These public ...punking of amd aint helping though. Love the gpus but spirite was wrpng. Image do count for something.  Even if bd is fixed tommorrow...the jokes will continue.  Amd..so advanced that by the time u figure out how to use  it properly....its,obsolete.  Now microsoft inadvertly punks them.... Though year


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 20, 2011)

xenocide said:


> That is my major issue with BD.  It's only as good as Thuban, and is usually slower clock-for-clock.  I was hoping at least for the per-thread performance of Phenom II, but that didn't happen.



If this patch works as rumoured ( + 10% ) then it will be like Phenom x 8.

Cept it over clocks 1ghz more 

It really isn't all that bad, it's £30 more for an fx8120 over a 1100t here.

It's definitely worth the £30 difference for me anyway, and that's before any patches.

I mean some programs do really suck on it, but in general it's pretty nice.

+ I like to run lots of programs at once because hitting the close button/cancel button is to much effort.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 20, 2011)

xenocide said:


> That is my major issue with BD.  It's only as good as Thuban, and is usually slower clock-for-clock.  I was hoping at least for the per-thread performance of Phenom II, but that didn't happen.


AMD has a lot of work ahead of themselves. Definitely something is wrong with Bulldozer and how the OS schedules due to the nature of AMD’s CPU modular concept. 
IMO, I can see this 2-part patch giving today’s Bulldozer a 10% on average performance boost.
Piledriver getting another 20% to 30% performance boost over Bulldozer.
Excavator getting another 10% to 15% performance boost over Piledriver.


----------



## xenocide (Dec 20, 2011)

Super XP said:


> AMD has a lot of work ahead of themselves. Definitely something is wrong with Bulldozer and how the OS schedules due to the nature of AMD’s CPU modular concept.
> IMO, I can see this 2-part patch giving today’s Bulldozer a 10% on average performance boost.
> Piledriver getting another 20% to 30% performance boost over Bulldozer.
> Excavator getting another 10% to 15% performance boost over Piledriver.



I think you're deluding yourself by expecting 10% on average.  I saw some Linux Benchmarks and W8 Benchmarks with a "fixed" scheduler, and it was MAYBE a 5% gain in some situations, and in other upowards of a 5% loss in performance.  This patch may offer a slight performance gain, but I don't expect it to really change much.


----------



## trickson (Dec 20, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Amd aint a baf co. bd aint...needs work . These public ...punking of amd aint helping though. Love the gpus but spirite was wrpng. Image do count for something.  Even if bd is fixed tommorrow...the jokes will continue.  Amd..so advanced that by the time u figure out how to use  it properly....its,obsolete.  Now microsoft inadvertly punks them.... Though year



Can you say this in English please ? AMD screwed up plane and simple . Sucks to ! We waited 4 years for this ? A launch filled with fluff and when it got into the hands of the consumers it was a total mess . We find out all kinds of things like they did not even know the transistor count ? and that it is out performed by it's older line the Phenom ! REALLY ??? Really you need another hot fix for another CPU line AGAIN AMD ??? WTH ? They put more work and more R&D into there GPU line than there CPU line !


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 20, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I think you're deluding yourself by expecting 10% on average.  I saw some Linux Benchmarks and W8 Benchmarks with a "fixed" scheduler, and it was MAYBE a 5% gain in some situations, and in other upowards of a 5% loss in performance.  This patch may offer a slight performance gain, but I don't expect it to really change much.



Wait if you have a fixed scheduler why don't you share it man?


----------



## trickson (Dec 20, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Wait if you have a fixed scheduler why don't you share it man?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 20, 2011)

trickson said:


> Can you say this in English please ? AMD screwed up plane and simple . Sucks to ! We waited 4 years for this ? A launch filled with fluff and when it got into the hands of the consumers it was a total mess . We find out all kinds of things like they did not even know the transistor count ? and that it is out performed by it's older line the Phenom ! REALLY ??? Really you need another hot fix for another CPU line AGAIN AMD ??? WTH ? They put more work and more R&D into there GPU line than there CPU line !



Just throwing it out there Intel has released just as many if not more chips with issues. They had there own TLB bug, P4, bad chipsets, not to mention itanium's fiasco. There is nothing wrong with a hot fix again Intel had had there own batches of them. As of right Bulldozer is the best selling CPU's in AMD's lineup. If they were that shitty everyone would save there couple of bucks and get a Thuban. Get off your Intel high horse and look at the big picture. P4's hyperthreading sucked, but not a single person out there complaining about it on current Intel chips. This is AMD's first new design since K8 which was still heavily K7 based. You might remember Intel's current design is still an end result of a P3. Give AMD a generation to work some kinks out. Hell look at the APU performance jump clock for clock they are doing something right.


----------



## seronx (Dec 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its not a true 8 core.



If you are talking about Bulldozer it is a true eight core...

Stop defending it...It has 8 Weak Cores...that have 33% less execution throughput than the competition core

Sandy Bridge has 3 ALUs and 3 AGUs per core(Threads compete for those 3 ALUs and 3 AGUs in Hyperthreading)
Bulldozer has 2 ALUs and 2 AGUs per core(Threads don't compete because there is TWO CORES!)

It's not really hard to notice that it has less execution resources not a longer pipeline

It takes 3 Cycles to do six 64bit executions for Bulldozer where it takes 2 cycles to do six 64bit executions for Sandy Bridge
Bulldozer though with all cores can do sixteen 64bit ALUs calcs. and do sixteen 64bit AGUs calcs. while Sandy Bridge can do twelve 64bit ALUs calcs. and twelve 64bit AGUs calcs.(with hyperthreading same old twelve 64bit ALUs calcs. and twelve 64bit AGUs calcs. no increase sillies)

Bulldozer is meant for Servers that need scalability with thread count...and Bulldozer does scale with thread count


----------



## cdawall (Dec 20, 2011)

seronx said:


> If you are talking about Bulldozer it is a true eight core...









I count 4 modules (cores)


seronx said:


> Stop defending it...It has 8 Weak Cores...that have 33% less execution throughput than the competition core



It also performs similar to the previous generation with the same 3ALU/3AGU as Intel. It has 8 differently structured cores.


seronx said:


> Sandy Bridge has 3 ALUs and 3 AGUs per core(Threads compete for those 3 ALUs and 3 AGUs in Hyperthreading)
> Bulldozer has 2 ALUs and 2 AGUs per core(Threads don't compete because there is TWO CORES!)



The threads don't compete all hyperthreading does is allow another set of instructions to be sent down the pipeline. It was originally a band-aid for Intel's long pipelined netburst based chips. AMD's new design gave you 2 separate threads something Hyperthreading can never do. 


seronx said:


> It's not really hard to notice that it has less execution resources not a longer pipeline



Whats either of those have to do with anything. It is still a "short" pipeline CPU in comparison to P4. Due to design it is not comparable to Intel in execution resources. 


seronx said:


> It takes 3 Cycles to do six 64bit executions for Bulldozer where it takes 2 cycles to do six 64bit executions for Sandy Bridge
> Bulldozer though with all cores can do sixteen 64bit ALUs calcs. and do sixteen 64bit AGUs calcs. while Sandy Bridge can do twelve 64bit ALUs calcs. and twelve 64bit AGUs calcs.(with hyperthreading same old twelve 64bit ALUs calcs. and twelve 64bit AGUs calcs. no increase sillies)



Again AMD's K7-K10h chips all offered the same 3/3 setup of calcs and did not offer an improvement except with K7/K8 vs netburst. Core 2 Duo and up when Intel went back to 3/3 were the first competitive offerings. The main reason netburst failed in Intel's eyes was a lack of clock scaling. Original design was said to scale to 8ghz and at that speed its long pipelines and 2/2 design would have held a performance edge.


seronx said:


> Bulldozer is meant for Servers that need scalability with thread count...and Bulldozer does scale with thread count



Yup Bulldozer does what it was designed for and in heavily multithreaded apps it holds its own. With future chips offering a more refined design it will likely smoke some multithreading benchmarks. Especially since they already have proven it clocks higher.


----------



## xenocide (Dec 20, 2011)

cdawall said:


> Yup Bulldozer does what it was designed for and in heavily multithreaded apps it holds its own. With future chips offering a more refined design it will likely smoke some multithreading benchmarks. Especially since they already have proven it clocks higher.



http://arstechnica.com/business/new...chmarks-are-here-and-theyre-a-catastrophe.ars


----------



## cdawall (Dec 20, 2011)

xenocide said:


> http://arstechnica.com/business/new...chmarks-are-here-and-theyre-a-catastrophe.ars



According to your source Bulldozer does hold its own. Nowhere in my statement did I call it best. I said it did as it was designed heavy multithreading it is the bulldozer's bread and butter. Price for performance makes no difference to the vast majority of the companies running these style chips. The AMD box at the time of that writing outperformed the Intel and K10h based boxes. It doesn't matter if it had more ram, better hard drives or more cores. The point is the system was designed to do exactly that in a server environment and it succeeded in industry standard benchmarks. CEO's don't look at anandtech they look at the sheet of paper HP hands them that says quite clearly while at a higher cost performance per unit is higher. Less units at higher performance means less space.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 20, 2011)

Looking at this picture






BD doesnt look like a smart design. Really, why would you have L3 cache the same size as L2? L3 is slower than L2... but if it is the same size... what benefit does it add? Only prefetching algorithms aka "netburst"ing opcode and data.  It isnt acting as a cache, but as a prefetcher. In which case, it doesnt need to be 2GB... it might at well just be 64K.

Redesign BD right away! A quick win would be to take L3 down to 64K... saving die space and power and making fab cost and end price much cheaper.  I bet performance would be within 3% mark.  Double L1 if not quadruple and performance would be up 10% and still on lower die footprint and power consumption.

And get the processor to operate symmetrically rather than asymmetrically. All this nonsense about affinity locking 2 threads and getting a "turbo boost" effect. Kill it. Separate those cores with a little space saved from cutting L3.  And kill turbo boost but raise all clocks to their max. Cooling will be better now they are spaced and there isnt heat from L3.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 20, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Looking at this picture
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/111220/bulldozer-overlay.jpg
> 
> ...



Each module can only use its 2MB L2 cache however the module could use the entire 8MB L3 if it needed.


As for the argument early the bulldozer die when analyzed the way AMD designed it has 4 ALU and 4 AGU per module. You would consider each module as a core. You cannot consider individual "cores" within the modules cores since they share the early pipelines. They are called integer cores. Each integer core carries a 4 way 16kB L1 data cache and a 64kB instruction cache. In a nutshell its two halves to a single brain, independent and codependent at the same time.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 20, 2011)

I wonder what the latency is between the different banks of L3.  With decent memory controllers and DDR3, the relative performance gain of L3 cache is getting lower and lower... perhaps time to drop L3 and beef up L1/L2 and separate those pipelines.


----------



## seronx (Dec 20, 2011)

cdawall said:


> I count 4 modules (cores)



Those are 8 cores just looking at that you wouldn't notice the repeated alu/agu subsets and the dedicated datapaths each one have



			
				abinstein said:
			
		

> You CLAIM a core is <whatever you claimed> but unfortunately what you claimed is not true.
> 
> What has always been the meaning of a "core" is the circuit used for the management of a thread and its memory context. This usually includes the datapath, control, and bus. This usually excludes the caches and accelerators (incl. FPU).
> 
> ...





cdawall said:


> The threads don't compete all hyperthreading does is allow another set of instructions to be sent down the pipeline. It was originally a band-aid for Intel's long pipelined netburst based chips. AMD's new design gave you 2 separate threads something Hyperthreading can never do.



Hyperthreading competes for the execution resources....



cdawall said:


> Each module can only use its 2MB L2 cache however the module could use the entire 8MB L3 if it needed.



The 8MB of L3 is used mostly for big prefetches and it used by all modules and by all cores



cdawall said:


> As for the argument early the bulldozer die when analyzed the way AMD designed it has 4 ALU and 4 AGU per module. You would consider each module as a core. You cannot consider individual "cores" within the modules cores since they share the early pipelines. They are called integer cores. Each integer core carries a 4 way 16kB L1 data cache and a 64kB instruction cache. In a nutshell its two halves to a single brain, independent and codependent at the same time.



No the design was that the 2 AGLUs were able to execute non-memory workloads(With the later versions being able to having all EX/AGLUs be AGLUs that can be able to output 4 Adds, 4 Subtracts, 4 Multiply, 4 Divide, 4 Memory ops per cycle in any order as long as it outputted four and this is per core)....Each module has two cores. You can consider the individual cores in the module cores since they have dedicated datapaths, instruction buses, data buses, and control units...

Don't impose your definition of what a core is if you are 100% wrong!


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 20, 2011)

Simply mind blowing how a single cjop can cause such a fusd


----------



## erocker (Dec 20, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Simply mind blowing how a single cjop can cause such a fusd



I think you keyboard is broken.


----------



## devguy (Dec 20, 2011)

erocker said:


> I think you keyboard is broken.



No, I'm pretty sure he's gyt it rufht.  Why make a fusd?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 20, 2011)

erocker said:


> I think you keyboard is broken.



Speed posting  on new fangled smart phone  screen needs calibration


----------



## cdawall (Dec 21, 2011)

seronx said:


> Those are 8 cores just looking at that you wouldn't notice the repeated alu/agu subsets and the dedicated datapaths each one have



They don't have entirely seperate datapaths. The initial pipelines are shared between the integer cores. 






seronx said:


> Hyperthreading competes for the execution resources....



These share the instruction set per module not core, and share all of the other resources. 




seronx said:


> The 8MB of L3 is used mostly for big prefetches and it used by all modules and by all cores



Which is what was already said.




seronx said:


> No the design was that the 2 AGLUs were able to execute non-memory workloads(With the later versions being able to having all EX/AGLUs be AGLUs that can be able to output 4 Adds, 4 Subtracts, 4 Multiply, 4 Divide, 4 Memory ops per cycle in any order as long as it outputted four and this is per core)....Each module has two cores. You can consider the individual cores in the module cores since they have dedicated datapaths, instruction buses, data buses, and control units...



So each module acts as one core? giving 4 ALU/4 AGU per cycle. Thats exactly what I just said. Each module has dedicated datapaths, instruction buses, data buses and control units.






All shared within the module not within the integer core. The integer cores are not independant of the modules if they were it would be a true 8 core unit. No different than a Phenom X8 of sorts. This is not that. The integer cores share everything except a 16kB L1.



seronx said:


> Don't impose your definition of what a core is if you are 100% wrong!



There are two definitions of a core and bulldozer fis neither.


----------



## seronx (Dec 21, 2011)

cdawall said:


> So each module acts as one core? giving 4 ALU/4 AGU per cycle. Thats exactly what I just said. Each module has dedicated datapaths, instruction buses, data buses and control units.




Each core has 2 EXALUs and 2 AGLUs the original specification is that there was going to be 4 AGLUs but that was a rumour made by Dresdenboy

Again each core has dedicated datapaths, instruction buses, data buses, and control units..

2 DATAPATHS, 2 IBUSES, 2DBUSES, 2ConUNITS => 2 CORES NOTHING IS SHARED

IT IS EIGHT CORES!

TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS PLACE BULLDOZER of the OROCHI DIE AT EIGHT CORES








			
				abinstein said:
			
		

> You CLAIM a core is <whatever you claimed> but unfortunately what you claimed is not true.
> 
> What has always been the meaning of a "core" is the circuit used for the management of a thread and its memory context. This usually includes the datapath, control, and bus. This usually excludes the caches and accelerators (incl. FPU).
> 
> ...



There are TWO Integer DATAPATHS, 2 CONTROL UNITS, 2 INSTRUCTION BUSES, 2 DATA BUSES GET IT IN YOUR GODDAMN BONEHEAD OF YOURS THAT THIS IS TWO CORES

Accept the facts and move on cdawall I am tired of your idiocy


----------



## brandonwh64 (Dec 21, 2011)

*Reads through this thread and shakes head*

You guys are relentless on debating...


----------



## cdawall (Dec 21, 2011)

seronx said:


> Each core has 2 EXALUs and 2 AGLUs the original specification is that there was going to be 4 AGLUs but that was a rumour made by Dresdenboy
> 
> Again each core has dedicated datapaths, instruction buses, data buses, and control units..
> 
> ...



Lets go through your image specifically. Having separate datapaths means nothing when there is still only a single unit. 2 roads to the same place if you will.






The module is not actually split into 2 cores that is the idea behind Bulldozer fit more into the package. In the image I split it for simplicity the _only_ section physically separate for the cores is the actual integer calculation sections with their cache. Everything else is shared again separate paths to the same place don't make the place anymore split. The cores would still have to share. Any communications outside of the module go core->module->IO not core->IO once again making the dependent of the module itself further making them not into a true core as is normal for a K10 or SB style CPU. This is a new design with separate *integer* cores within modules. They are _not_ the same cores as anything else to this point utilizes. While an 8150 has 8 *integer* cores it does not have 8 separate processing modules like a Phenom X8 would.


----------



## xenocide (Dec 21, 2011)

I've been making that argument since before it launched and nobody seemed to care.  Thank you for perfectly detailing what I couldn't.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 21, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I've been making that argument since before it launched and nobody seemed to care.  Thank you for perfectly detailing what I couldn't.



It took me about 3 hours of reading a looking at different architectural designs to figure out how to finally phrase it.  Thanks AMD for making shit more difficult again


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 21, 2011)

Um......like I said. Its not an 8 core.

BTW thanks for detailing it cdawall. Really. I honestly didn't have the time and you did a better job then I could have. (Internet high five!) Bulldozer is only a fail to people who rested all of thier childhood expectations on a piece of silicon to enhance their mortality OR Intel fanboys who have small manhood's. Anyone with a brain can see what its design is for. Sometimes you don't get what you want, you get what you need.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 21, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I think you're deluding yourself by expecting 10% on average.  I saw some Linux Benchmarks and W8 Benchmarks with a "fixed" scheduler, and it was MAYBE a 5% gain in some situations, and in other upowards of a 5% loss in performance.  This patch may offer a slight performance gain, but I don't expect it to really change much.


Think about this, you have a scheduling issue, something that obviously needs to get fixed. I don't think 10% on average is unreasonable.
The same can be said in a busy doctor's office or in a hospital, if you don't schedule appointments properly, you end up running into patient bottlenecks.
We will know the facts soon enough in Q1 2012, and hopefully this 2 part patch will help efficiency within the Bulldozer and make it close to the way it was meant to run and perform.


----------

