# AMD FX-8150 Tested with Latest Windows Hotfixes, Still No Improvement



## btarunr (Jan 13, 2012)

German tech website TweakPC did a before-after comparison of applying Microsoft's recently-released KB2645594 + KB2646060 Windows updates, which intend to improve performance of systems running AMD FX processors, by improving the way in which the OS deals with Bulldozer cores, using a top-of-the-line FX-8150 processor. The reviewer put FX-8150 through synthetic tests such as AIDA64 (CPU benchmarks, FPU benchmarks), Cinebench 11.5, MaxxPi (multi-threaded PI calculations), WPrime, Twofish AES, 3DMark (Vantage and 11), ComputeMark; and some real-world tests such as WinRAR, Resident Evil 5, and Battleforge. Barring Resident Evil 5, where the patched FX-8150 produced 4% higher performance and WinRAR, where it produced 3% higher performance, there were no significant performance gains noticed. The review can be accessed at the source.



 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 13, 2012)

So you really can't make a turd a rose. Who would've figured?


----------



## mtosev (Jan 13, 2012)

more fail for amd. scrap bulldozer and start working on a new cpu.


----------



## LDNL (Jan 13, 2012)

Why wont they just put this horse down and focus more on the next best thing so they wont f it up aswell.


----------



## Suhidu (Jan 13, 2012)

The patch does what it was supposed to do. It was never meant to speed up all applications a significant percent in benchmark scenarios, but it does remove a core-scheduling handicap of BD.


----------



## Sihastru (Jan 13, 2012)

Well, that's because that's not what the hotfixes... hmmm... fix.

You will *not* see an improvement when all 8 threads are used, you will *not* see a _great_ improvement when 4 threads are used (but there should be some, for cases when the modules were not loaded correctly, although most of the times they were), and you will *not* see an improvement when just 1 thread is used.

People read the title of the previous article, they saw that *"10%"*, and automatically assumed that it would _automagically_ make the CPU faster. That's not the case. There are just a few situations where the hotfixes will work.


----------



## NC37 (Jan 13, 2012)

lol, my 945 beats an FX in the 4T Cinebench...ha!


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 13, 2012)

Resident Evil 5 ? That's like testing a Ferrari on a construction site... I'm not saying this CPU has certain problems but i don't think they could pick any worse game to set an example...


----------



## entropy13 (Jan 13, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> Resident Evil 5 ? That's like testing a Ferrari on a construction site...



There's a 4% improvement in the game. So if your analogy holds through, testing a Ferrari on a construction site would also entail some improvement?


----------



## seronx (Jan 13, 2012)

NC37 said:


> lol, my 945 beats an FX in the 4T Cinebench...ha!



Well no duh SSE2 performance dropped with Bulldozer







But don't expect it to do better in real world applications that use SSE4.1 which your CPU can't really do for feasible performance gain

It will be fixed with Vishera or by 40h-4Fh Steamroller the SSE2 performance


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 13, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> There's a 4% improvement in the game. So if your analogy holds through, testing a Ferrari on a construction site would also entail some improvement?



It did gain tiny bit on those few meters of brand new asphalt. In most cases the perfromance even degraded. Like it would when using Ferrari on a construction site... not exactly impressed.


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 13, 2012)

a song for amd :

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good   

Oh Lord please don't let me be misunderstood"


----------



## qubit (Jan 13, 2012)

Oh well. Makes you wonder why Microsoft bothered, doesn't it?


----------



## air_ii (Jan 13, 2012)

mtosev said:


> more fail for amd. scrap bulldozer and start working on a new cpu.



While BD may not be what everyone wanted it to be, maybe further iterations of the architecture will bring improvements. Maybe there is a potential in the architecture. Look what became of R600 -> RV770.


----------



## mtosev (Jan 13, 2012)

air_ii said:


> While BD may not be what everyone wanted it to be, maybe further iterations of the architecture will bring improvements. Maybe there is a potential in the architecture. Look what became of R600 -> RV770.


by the time they get it right intel will still be ahead of amd. at least AMD err... ATI knows how to make graphic cards


----------



## qubit (Jan 13, 2012)

air_ii said:


> While BD may not be what everyone wanted it to be, maybe further iterations of the architecture will bring improvements. Maybe there is a potential in the architecture. Look what became of R600 -> RV770.



That wasn't a framerate performance improvement (not much). It simply made the chip smaller and use less power.


----------



## laszlo (Jan 13, 2012)

mtosev said:


> more fail for amd. scrap bulldozer and start working on a new cpu.



why fail? there are improvements and they are free;maybe we'll see a better patch which more improvements


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 13, 2012)

What people have to remember is, they only tested  a few applications and games. This review is a very small sample and does not reflect the patch as a whole. If people look back at the other Bulldozer "patch" thread you would see that members in this very forum are reporting upto 7% performance increase. So it's really application dependant, and no review can cater for every application.


Below are quotes from another thread, trusted people from this community whom are saying the patch DID improve things. 



omagic said:


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





Tweety said:


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






screamer980 said:


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





pantherx12 said:


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







n0tiert said:


> My Futuremark 3DMark11 test on FX-8150 / 6990
> 
> as you can see , it slightly raised the PhysX score a bit and the Total score is arround 50 points higher



Link: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2514812#post2514812


----------



## moonlord (Jan 13, 2012)

"there were no significant performance gains noticed" Well.. i know that , those hotfixes are a waste of time. Bad investment


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 13, 2012)

moonlord said:


> "there were no significant performance gains noticed" Well.. i know that , those hotfixes are a waste of time. Bad investment



Read my post above.


----------



## moonlord (Jan 13, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Read my post above.



My WEI is still 7.7, maybe this patch improves other configurations, but for my software and games makes no difference.


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 13, 2012)

moonlord said:


> My WEI is still 7.7, maybe this patch improves other configurations, but for my software and games makes no difference.


LOL like WEI matters :shadedshu


----------



## mtosev (Jan 13, 2012)

laszlo said:


> why fail? there are improvements and they are free;maybe we'll see a better patch which more improvements


fail because an i7 2600/K costs less and is still faster


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 13, 2012)

I got a single core and dual core performance boost.

Nothing at 10% thus far but still a wee boost for free aint bad : ]

I wouldn't say it was no improvement due to that website only testing multi-core stuff.

The patch was designed to fix threads jumping from one core to another which should fix up turbocore and the second patch designed to stop processors going into sleep mode whilst a thread was active on them. ( Caused stuttering like effect in games)

That it comes with a lil boost as well is nothing but a good thing.


----------



## Horrux (Jan 13, 2012)

mtosev said:


> fail because an i7 2600/K costs less and is still faster



Not in SSE 4.1.

I have no idea what that is, except any code heavy with these kinds of functions in it will fly on the BD compared to a 2600k. Maybe in the future there will be more such code?


----------



## seronx (Jan 13, 2012)

Horrux said:


> Not in SSE 4.1.
> 
> I have no idea what that is, except any code heavy with these kinds of functions in it will fly on the BD compared to a 2600k. Maybe in the future there will be more such code?



SSE4.1 is for transcoding

Bulldozer prefers the traditional ideology Integer does Transcoding and it would make sense because there is 2 Integer Pipes per Core(Ignoring the AGLUs which can make it 4) and 3 Integer Pipes per Floating Point Unit

Sandy Bridge aims for floating point to do it....but ultimately it is easier to implement Bulldozer as the best transcoding beast in the world because it is easy to make it transcode and it is very fast at transcoding

Encoding and Decoding s Bulldozer as it is pretty much a big DSP

Also FMA can replace a majority of MAC instructions making Bulldozer faster in those areas

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1533501&postcount=1732

I'll just leave this link here...


----------



## Mussels (Jan 13, 2012)

wheres the gaming tests, particularly DX11?


----------



## qubit (Jan 13, 2012)

Mussels said:


> wheres the gaming tests, particularly DX11?



Yes, exactly. I wonder if W1zz is gonna do a graphics review of this patch? That would be the definitive assessment.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 13, 2012)

Good work by German tech website TweakPC.

I can see performance gains all around.  About 0.1% LOL.

But according to Microsoft, there *are* some specific cases where these FX patches will see some really huge gains. See discussion on technet: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594


----------



## ice_v (Jan 13, 2012)

qubit said:


> Yes, exactly. I wonder if W1zz is gonna do a graphics review of this patch? That would be the definitive assessment.



I would be also much interested in such review


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 13, 2012)

He he he.

For those who haven't had a laugh in the previous thread, here's a blast from the past:


> Interesting. There is most definitely a Windows 7 AMD FX – software patch in the works.
> 
> 
> > In regards to the Bulldozer Design - The User Mode Scheduler is issuing blocking calls on the execution of threads. It’s not a kernel level scheduler problem. It’s the UMS. Ok… need a new cpu scheduling algorithm.
> ...



Have a look back at the following thread: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153669



I would say that this is pretty much proof positive that BD has issues, that cannot be solved by a magical hotfix.  This said, I hope AMD can fix the problems with Piledriver.  It would be epic to see a highly functional incarnation of this architecture, in something with more balls than the APU line.  APUs have their place, but the enthusiast market definitely isn't it just quite yet....


----------



## THE_EGG (Jan 13, 2012)

TTL on overclock 3D said that BD is dead "as we know it" and also said he can't tell us any more information. Makes me wonder what this exactly means.


----------



## Andrei23 (Jan 13, 2012)

I was seriously surprised, I thought for sure they would make it at least twice as fast, if not faster.


----------



## xanagu (Jan 13, 2012)

R.I.P  "You-Know-Who"


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 13, 2012)

Andrei23 said:


> I was seriously surprised, I thought for sure they would make it at least twice as fast, if not faster.



you are probably the only one here that was....

anyway on with the show!!!

Come get your BD Windows 7 patches here!! Free galon of snake oil with every download!!


----------



## Static~Charge (Jan 13, 2012)

xanagu said:


> R.I.P  "You-Know-Who"



Lord Voldemort?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 13, 2012)

can people stop making hasty judgements until all results are in? its like how people called BD a total flop, even when it matches the original i7 in performace with 50% less memory bandwidth (triple vs dual channel).


people see one result and turn into rabid werefanboys or something. wait for more tests from more websites (and TPU users!), so we can get the complete picture.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 13, 2012)

Begin talk of new patch microsoft conspiracy and linux new hope.......now


Amd will start mailing out those missing  tranies too

Seriously though this patch been out for a minute tpu bd users... what the gaming results....you know im definitely gonna get a bd chip.... just because .......I love to tweak and tinker.  Just waiting for a price drop.


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

Just how was it any one would even think that a HOT fix or Patch was going to = to 100% performance increase from what you already have in the first place ? 
What gets me is that it seems AMD users were thinking that some how when they put the patch out we will see a MONSTER come to life . Well you can polish a turd all day long getting into all the nooks and crannies but in the end all you have is a piece of crap . What it seems to me is that AMD users are looking for is some magical CPU patch to put them in the top leader box and it just isn't going to happen . I will tell you this any one that has a bulldozer setup and doesn't like it I will be more than willing to trade you mine for yours .


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 13, 2012)

It amazing how those charts show an improvement in the 4 thread test which is exactly what these patches are suppose to do.

The patches do not provide 10% improve overall. They improve low thread count tasks (4 threads or less) by changing the way Windows threats the modules. So I am not sure how there is "No Improvement" when the area they were looking to improve clearly has improvement?


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> It amazing how those charts show an improvement in the 4 thread test which is exactly what these patches are suppose to do.
> 
> The patches do not provide 10% improve overall. They improve low thread count tasks (4 threads or less) by changing the way Windows threats the modules. So I am not sure how there is "No Improvement" when the area they were looking to improve clearly has improvement?



The thing is AMD BD users wanted to see a overall improvement to the CPU , They wanted it to be a cure-all Patch one that gives them what they expected not what they really have .


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Jan 13, 2012)

Surprise surprise... I honestly did not believe Windows 7 was the problem. They had three years to develop it, so it's undoubtedly not software that's wrong with it.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 13, 2012)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> Surprise surprise... I honestly did not believe Windows 7 was the problem. They had three years to develop it, so it's undoubtedly not software that's wrong with it.



Longer then 3 years actually. It was more like 4 years


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Longer then 3 years actually. It was more like 4 years



Yeah and they still just couldn't make the chip right ? Man Talk about fail !


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> The thing is AMD BD users wanted to see a overall improvement to the CPU , They wanted it to be a cure-all Patch one that gives them what they expected not what they really have .



Then those people are delusional.

It stopped my little system lock ups with you refresh 15 tabs in my web browser and other single threaded applications when I first start them. It was like BD was confused about what to do with it. That being fixed is good enough for me at 14 MB.


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Then those people are delusional.



Let me ask you this . From every thing you hear about the patch and from AMD users , What is your conclusion ? From what I am hearing is that they wanted this patch to fix every thing that it was supposed to be a " Fix-all " to the problems of performance . Most think that the patch was to bring them 50 - 100 % more performance from the current offerings as if it was just some magic bullet ! 10% is more than I even expected really , Think about it this is just an issue with the OS ! In other words if you wanted some thing spectacular from a patch well you just don't get it . The Chip can only do what it can do and no amount of patches is going to change this .  Delusional ? Oh yeah . Like I said any one here that doesn't like there BD setup I will be more than happy to trade you system for system .


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 13, 2012)

Mussels said:


> can people stop making hasty judgements until all results are in? its like how people called BD a total flop, even when it matches the original i7 in performace with 50% less memory bandwidth (triple vs dual channel).
> 
> 
> people see one result and turn into rabid werefanboys or something. wait for more tests from more websites (and TPU users!), so we can get the complete picture.



I agree with you. However, TechPowerUp is guilty of inciting these "hasty judgements". Btarunr named the title "Latest Windows Hotfixes, *Still No Improvement*" and expect positive things to be said in the forum. If you want people to give the patch a chance at least change the title of the thread. You are a moderator change it, or get a senior moderator to change it..that would be a start.


----------



## Batou1986 (Jan 13, 2012)

Well regardless of what everyone's tests say i definitely noticed more consistent core loading on my fx-4100.
It may be my imagination but watching the core loads on my g15 while playing BF3 and Skyrim they don't bounce around from 70% to 0% constantly.


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> I agree with you. However, TechPowerUp is guilty of inciting these "hasty judgements". Btarunr named the title "Latest Windows Hotfixes, *Still No Improvement*" and expect positive things to be said in the forum. If you want people to give the patch a chance at least change the title of the thread. You are a moderator change it, or get a senior moderator to change it..that would be a start.



Yeah what gives ? I mean there is improvement here 10% and that is more than any one should expect from a patch like this after all it is not a revamp of the CPU it is just a software patch . And stating that there is NO improvement is wrong unless you were expecting a huge performance increase in the first place , Right ?


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> Yeah what gives ? I mean there is improvement here 10% and that is more than any one should expect from a patch like this after all it is not a revamp of the CPU it is just a software patch . And stating that there is NO improvement is wrong unless you were expecting a huge performance increase in the first place , Right ?



I never thought I would agree with you. But yes, the title is inaccurate. There is some improvement in both the charts and by Bulldozer users from this community.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 13, 2012)

Hence why he said this.



Mussels said:


> can people stop making hasty judgements until all results are in? its like how people called BD a total flop, even when it matches the original i7 in performace with 50% less memory bandwidth (triple vs dual channel).
> 
> 
> people see one result and turn into rabid werefanboys or something. wait for more tests from more websites (and TPU users!), so we can get the complete picture.


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 13, 2012)

I see it as TheMailMan78 posting yesterday said "initial testing of the upcoming Windows 8 operating system, we’ve seen performance improvements of up to 10% in some applications, when compared to Windows 7".  Are these "patches" actually able to replicating what a complete and final Win8 architecture improvments offer?  Are these just a rehash of what Beta Win8 has, and as AMD and Microsoft collaborate furthure they will find 10% here and there. 

Then today btarunr finds one site that ran a few tests (obviously not all the software AMD has at their disposal) and then claim is "Still No Improvement"... typical misleading banter. 

First AMD should conduct a complete battery of tests and provide results and work in partnership with Microsoft to say within the confines of Win7 this is what such patches can impart.  Nothing wrong with that, while just shut-up about Win8, and keep that in their back pocket till Win8 is really relevant.


----------



## Deadlyraver (Jan 13, 2012)

I think there needs to be more patching done with this, Bulldozer is still a nice solution for its clock speed and overclocking headroom however fails to maintain purpose in performance solutions. I guess the problem here is that AMD gets too focused on trying to lead an idea, which eventually compromises their marketing goals. Perhaps too early release to counter Sandy-Bridge?


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 13, 2012)

Deadlyraver said:


> I think there needs to be more patching done with this, Bulldozer is still a nice solution for its clock speed and overclocking headroom however fails to maintain purpose in performance solutions. I guess the problem here is that AMD gets too focused on trying to lead an idea, which eventually compromises their marketing goals. Perhaps too early release to counter Sandy-Bridge?



As far as single threaded applications go. I think we Piledriver will be enough to counter Sandybridge. Because, in TPU's 7970 review Bulldozer seems on par with the 920 Nelham for the most part. After Bulldozer's B3 stepping, Piledriver offers 20-30% performance increase ontop (AMD's estimate). This should be enough to close the Sandy Bridge gap whilst continuing to nullify Sandy in multithreading too.

Although, it might be too late as Ivy Bridge is around the corner and is likely to close the gap again. AMD will have to release Piledriver same price or cheaper.


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

Deadlyraver said:


> I think there needs to be more patching done with this, Bulldozer is still a nice solution for its clock speed and overclocking headroom however fails to maintain purpose in performance solutions. I guess the problem here is that AMD gets too focused on trying to lead an idea, which eventually compromises their marketing goals. Perhaps too early release to counter Sandy-Bridge?



You can not just patch performance into a CPU ! Jesus , If it was just an issue as a patch then we wouldn't need to have new CPU's they could just patch the performance into them ! This just makes no sense to me at all .


----------



## Syborfical (Jan 13, 2012)

Bulldozer one of the biggest Epic fails in PC history.


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

Syborfical said:


> Bulldozer one of the biggest Epic fails in PC history.



No 2nd did you forget about netburst and P4 ?


----------



## Suhidu (Jan 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> You can not just patch performance into a CPU ! Jesus , If it was just an issue as a patch then we wouldn't need to have new CPU's they could just patch the performance into them ! This just makes no sense to me at all .



I understand it would break the way the market for x86 CPUs currently works, but consider that they can release occasional patches, and it still wouldn't prevent them from selling upgrades. Imagine a "Service Pack" paradigm, like Microsoft has with its Operating Systems. We'd get a few significant updates over the life of the product, and a new product in no more than a half a decade.

It'd shatter the way CPUs have been sold for decades, but AMD needs to help Bulldozer from every angle it can integrate into its VISION.


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2012)

Suhidu said:


> AMD needs to help Bulldozer from every angle it can integrate into its VISION.


They should then start over . This is just not going to get fixed by patching the OS . It would seem to me the lack of performance that AMD users are having is not due to an OS but hardware . Though there is a 10% increase in performance with the patch , I truly think that it is not going to get any better than that . Sad that AMD could not beat sandy bridge as every one so wanted it to do but this is a fact so again no patch will fix that !


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 13, 2012)

Wow....people are really passionate about the intel must fall thing..... Bd cant go core for core with intel.....and with whats  coming.......its over.    Amd knows where its strength lies.... Gpus and  low poweed  apus.  Thats amds fututer thats where the rule....for now.


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Jan 13, 2012)

The low level of intelligence of a lot of people posting in these threads here is worrying.

The patch puts 1 thread on its own module, up to 4 threads. You get the same effect as shutting off every other core in BIOS leaving 1 FPU (BD has 4) to 1 thread instead of making it work on 2.

Here are my test results on my own system from Dec 16th when the first patch (KB2645594 only, then was removed)came out:
As you can see, 8 thread performance was lowered a few percent, so the patch was removed and now two patches are coupled.

Test System:
AMD Eight Core FX-8150 @ 4.69Ghz / 2.51Ghz CPU-NB
2x2GB DDR3-2133 CAS 7-10-7-27 160ns 1T
ASUS Crosshair V Formula
2x Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB WD6401AALS in RAID 0
XFX Black Edition 850w (Seasonic 850w M12D) 80 Plus Silver
2x AMD HD5770
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1

Core Parking ON

wPrime 32M v1.55 -

1 Thread: 44.896 sec
2 Thread: 22.586 sec
3 Thread: 15.114 sec
4 Thread: 11.684 sec
5 Thread: 10.017 sec
6 Thread: 8.815 sec
7 Thread: 7.938 sec
8 Thread: 7.673 sec

1 to 4 Thread Ratio: 3.842x
2 to 4 Thread Ratio: 1.933x

1 to 8 Thread Ratio: 5.851x
4 to 8 Thread Ratio: 1.523x

Non-patched wPrime 32M v1.55:
*1 Thread:* 45.116 sec
*2 Thread:* 22.869 sec
*3 Thread:* 15.725 sec
*4 Thread: *12.098 sec
*5 Thread:* 10.640 sec
*6 Thread:* 8.924 sec
*7 Thread:* 7.831 sec
*8 Thread:* 7.410 sec

1 to 4 Thread Ratio: 3.729x
2 to 4 Thread Ratio: 1.890x

4 to 8: 1.632x


Cinebench R11.5 -

1 Thread: 1.16 pts
2 Thread: 2.30 pts
3 Thread: 3.42 pts
4 Thread: 4.44 pts
5 Thread: 5.31 pts
6 Thread: 6.14 pts
7 Thread: 6.93 pts
8 Thread: 7.68 pts

1 to 4 Thread Ratio: 3.82x
2 to 4 Thread Ratio: 1.93x

1 to 8 Thread Ratio: 6.62x
4 to 8 Thread Ratio: 1.72x

4 thread Cinebench R11.5 unpatched:
4.30 pts

Patched:
4.44 pts

7-Zip 9.20 - AES-256 Encrypted 10 Char. Password - 1003MB 200 File JPEG deflate to .ZIP

1 Thread: 8:14s (494s) 2030 KB/s
2 Thread: 4:12s (252s) 3980 KB/s
3 Thread: 2:46s (166s) 6040 KB/s
4 Thread: 2:15s (135s) 7430 KB/s
5 Thread: 1:52s (112s) 8955 KB/s
6 Thread: 1:38s (98s) 10234 KB/s
7 Thread: 1:29s (89s) 11270 KB/s
8 Thread: 1:21s (81s) 12382 KB/s

1 to 4 Thread Ratio: 3.65x
2 to 4 Thread Ratio: 1.86x

1 to 8 Thread Ratio: 6.09x
4 to 8 Thread Ratio: 1.66x 

4 thread Unpatched 7-Zip 9.20:
2:20

Patched:
2:15


----------



## Disruptor4 (Jan 13, 2012)

The patch appears to be more of a stability fix which enables the CPU to handle the threads better as it was previously putting cores to sleep when it shouldn't etc, which in turn, allows for a more stable FPS count which means a boost to your performance.
I personally would be happy with that, if I had BD. The performance of the processor is still good, especially considering the hardware I currently have. IIRC, they never said it was going to be the best CPU on the market, just they were going to compete better than before, and they are. With this patch, they are making it more stable and giving a slight boost here and there.


----------



## seronx (Jan 13, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> As far as single threaded applications go. I think we Piledriver will be enough to counter Sandybridge. Because, in TPU's 7970 review Bulldozer seems on par with the 920 Nelham for the most part. After Bulldozer's B3 stepping, Piledriver offers 20-30% performance increase ontop (AMD's estimate). This should be enough to close the Sandy Bridge gap whilst continuing to nullify Sandy in multithreading too.
> 
> Although, it might be too late as Ivy Bridge is around the corner and is likely to close the gap again. AMD will have to release Piledriver same price or cheaper.



Orochi-B2 and Orochi-B3 competes with Sandy Bridge-E(294mm² vs 315mm²)
Viperfish-C2 competes with Ivy Bridge-E

Trinity is the one that will compete with Ivy Bridge


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 13, 2012)

seronx said:


> Orochi-B2 and Orochi-B3 competes with Sandy Bridge-E(294mm² vs 315mm²)
> Viperfish-C2 competes with Ivy Bridge-E
> 
> Trinity is the one that will compete with Ivy Bridge



Trinity will beat Ivy with IGP, but it's CPU performance will fail hard. I'm not in the market for an IGP right now.


----------



## seronx (Jan 13, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Trinity will beat Ivy with IGP, but it's CPU performance will fail hard. I'm not in the market for an IGP right now.



CPU performance won't fail hard...in reality it is pretty much the same minus AVX which will be dependent on the applications then you have case of it being "optimized" for Windows 8...C++ AMP Support and Forced Auto-Vectorization comes with Windows 8(IGP kicks in with C++ AMP and FAV will make FMA3/FMA4 be used more)

IGP performance is true Trinity is about 5x-8x faster than Ivy Bridges IGP


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 13, 2012)

Syborfical said:


> Bulldozer one of the biggest Epic fails in PC history.



And the biggest win is Core 2 Duo, Intel realized what they were doing wrong with netburst, and fixed it in spectacular fashion. Amd need to do the same now.


----------



## seronx (Jan 13, 2012)

tigger said:


> AMD needs to do the same now.



Not really, Bulldozer has potential just like Netburst....luckily Bulldozer isn't actually aimed at what Netburst was really aimed at

Bulldozer is aiming for a Hetrogeneous design
Netburst was aiming for a Homogeneous design

Netburst will make it's return by Skylake since Haswell still has a 14 stage pipeline

Intel needs Netburst to beat Bulldozer in the later stages...


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> CPU performance won't fail hard...in reality it is pretty much the same minus AVX which will be dependent on the applications then you have case of it being "optimized" for Windows 8...C++ AMP Support and Forced Auto-Vectorization comes with Windows 8(IGP kicks in with C++ AMP and FAV will make FMA3/FMA4 be used more)
> 
> IGP performance is true Trinity is about 5x-8x faster than Ivy Bridges IGP



A few months ago, I would have agreed with you. Obviously though, instruction sets don't make up for a lack of per core performance. Then again, I'm only really interested in gaming. AMD does have one hell of a server based architecture.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 14, 2012)

Deadlyraver said:


> I think there needs to be more patching done with this, Bulldozer is still a nice solution for its clock speed and overclocking headroom however fails to maintain purpose in performance solutions. I guess the problem here is that AMD gets too focused on trying to lead an idea, which eventually compromises their marketing goals. Perhaps too early release to counter Sandy-Bridge?



This just means improvements Piledriver will have over First Gen Bulldozer


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Obviously though, instruction sets don't make up for a lack of per core performance.



You need to look for applications that actually use the ISAs....a lot of people are using older versions of applications which distorts actual performance



Damn_Smooth said:


> Then again, I'm only really interested in gaming. AMD does have one hell of a server based architecture.



The gaming partition of everything is majority all our fault and the OEMs/Partners

The Chipset is the limiting factor on Gaming Performance not the architecture


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> Not really, Bulldozer has potential just like Netburst....luckily Bulldozer isn't actually aimed at what Netburst was really aimed at
> 
> Bulldozer is aiming for a Hetrogeneous design
> Netburst was aiming for a Homogeneous design
> ...



Netburst is what Core i3-7 is.


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Netburst is what Core i3-7 is.



No that is a fusion with 80% Core 20% Netburst

Intel needs 100% Netburst to beat Bulldozer after Excavator

AMD releasing Bulldozer with no optimizations should have been a huge warning to everyone...about the future versions of Bulldozer
(They pretty much ported Sandtiger to 32nm and called it Orochi)


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 14, 2012)

All sounds familar......can smell the fail from here.


----------



## erocker (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> The Chipset is the limiting factor on Gaming Performance not the architecture



Wrong. The architecture of the chip plus its IMC are the limiting factor with gaming performance, not the chipset.


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

I think you all need to get back on topic here . The fact is that BD finally has a patch did it improver things for BD YES it did . Did the patch fix the issues BD was having sure . Stability is now corrected , I heard the problem was scheduling that windows was shutting off the cores of the CPU because they were not being used and since this was happening then the CPU would become unstable as it really can only do what it is told to . Now is there the huge performance gain from this No not really are people pissed because they did not get the CPU performance of the Intel sandy bridge ? I do not care ! Thing is the patch works and the CPU is now fixed move on , Nothing to see here now time to move on .


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

erocker said:


> Wrong. The architecture of the chip plus its IMC are the limiting factor with gaming performance, not the chipset.



False erocker

It's the chipset

You simply don't know what you are talking about anymore

Bulldozer has a faster architecture and a faster IMC than Sandy Bridge







Vishera has 4 64bit Memory Controllers meaning it will compete with Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E


----------



## HillBeast (Jan 14, 2012)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Bulldozer is bull****. There is nothing that can be done to save it. The fact a hotfix is needed in the first place to give it on average a 2% increase in performance to make it match a CPU that is 4 years old from Intel is just a total failure.

Go back to Phenom AMD. It was a piece of crap but at least you didn't have to have a hotfix to unleash it's full power.


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

HillBeast said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again: Bulldozer is bull****. There is nothing that can be done to save it. The fact a hotfix is needed in the first place to give it on average a 2% increase in performance to make it match a CPU that is 4 years old from Intel is just a total failure.
> 
> Go back to Phenom AMD. It was a piece of crap but at least you didn't have to have a hotfix to unleash it's full power.



You don't know what you are talking about...so

First Intel need Hotfixes to compete with AMD because there hyperthreading is worthless

AMD is getting Hotfixes to implement sequential threading

Core 0 -> Core 1 -> Core 2 and so on


----------



## erocker (Jan 14, 2012)

What in the chipset is limiting gaming performance?






Let's see, the Northbridge controls the PCI-E bus. The chipset offers full bandwith PCI-E 2.0 x16. Nope, the issue isn't there.

Southbridge controls: Sata, USB, Audio, PCI. Nope, the issue isn't there either. It isn't the chipset in no way. Insult my intelligence again. Go ahead. Actually don't bother. You've been spouting BS since BD became newsworthy. I don't hold you in any regard and I certainly don't find you credible.


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

erocker said:


> What in the chipset is limiting gaming performance?
> 
> http://media.bestofmicro.com/990fx-sli-am3-,W-L-294069-13.jpg
> 
> ...



BIOSes = Chipset problem

You are talking about stuff you don't know and failing hard

There is a reason C2012 and G2012 sockets are being made it's because the chipset is the bottleneck


----------



## erocker (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> BIOSes = Chipset problem
> 
> You are talking about stuff you don't know and failing hard



Likewise, I'm positive.


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

erocker said:


> Likewise, I'm positive.



Rofl, Nice retort....


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> You don't know what you are talking about...so
> 
> First Intel need Hotfixes to compete with AMD because there hyperthreading is worthless
> 
> ...



Ok I think you need to rethink things here . I do not recall one Intel CPU that I have had that ever needed a HOT fix . You are talking out of you bum. Hyperthreading is not worthless it is on the Intel chips right NOW !


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

erocker said:


> Likewise, I'm positive.



Man good thing we are totally off topic here LOL !


----------



## erocker (Jan 14, 2012)

Wonderful, now let's get back on it.


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

trickson said:


> Ok I think you need to rethink things here . I do not recall one Intel CPU that I have had that ever needed a HOT fix . You are talking out of you bum. Hyperthreading is not worthless it is on the Intel chips right NOW !



http://www.techpowerup.com/94464/Windows_7_Benefits_from_HyperThreading_Better.html



> Understanding Limitations and Maximizing Performance
> 
> 
> While Intel HT Technology improves thread-level parallelism, the two logical processors in each physical processor core share most execution resources. The focus of this capability is to improve the efficiency of instruction scheduling, keeping the execution resources occupied, increasing instruction-level parallelism, and keeping execution units busy during microarchitectural stalls. The majority of applications show a significant increase in performance as a result. There are circumstances that can limit the Intel HT Technology benefit and in rare cases cause performance degradation. Examples include the following:
> ...



http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/performance-insights-to-intel-hyper-threading-technology/

I have to search other forums for the actual hotfixes for Windows Vista and Windows 7 that prevents Blue Screens of Deaths on Valve games that use CEG
and Blue screens when Turbo Boost is enabled then disabled without a change in voltage


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

When the first HT processors were released it was difficult for some users to decide whether to enable it, because many of them were still using operating systems that were not optimized for hyper-threading technology (e.g. Windows 2000) Also, since most computers had previously had single-threaded processors, few programs were able to take advantage of the feature on their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

This is why the P4 had such a hard time and took a huge hit in performance . Now all that has changed . 

Now get back on topic !


----------



## qubit (Jan 14, 2012)

@seronx

Thanks for posting that HT info.  I didn't know that much about how HT worked and I knew HT was a mixed blessing that could result in reduced performance sometimes, but I didn't know any details.


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

erocker said:


> What in the chipset is limiting gaming performance?
> 
> http://media.bestofmicro.com/990fx-sli-am3-,W-L-294069-13.jpg
> 
> ...



There it is there !


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

trickson said:


> When the first HT processors were released it was difficult for some users to decide whether to enable it, because many of them were still using operating systems that were not optimized for hyper-threading technology (e.g. Windows 2000) Also, since most computers had previously had single-threaded processors, few programs were able to take advantage of the feature on their own.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading
> 
> ...



Well...okay It took Intel & Microsoft till Windows 7 to get Hyperthreading to perform pretty well

(There are still cases where Hyperthreading gets negative scaling)

AMD & Microsoft are already working on solutions to improve CMT(Windows 8 being the best and Windows 7 patches being the money saver so you don't have to buy Windows 8)











But the issue isn't really CMT any performance loss isn't actually the fault of the architecture but they will fix those problems that look like it is the architecture with the architectural fixes

And now why did I post these most used x86 instrustions well Vishera will got an IPC boost

LEA and CALL are already used in the AGLUs

But with Late Piledriver 20h-2Fh

(Trinity is 10h-1Fh
Bulldozer is 00h-0Fh)

AGLUs can then process MOV instructions which are 25-35% of all Integer IPC in most applications


> BEXTR reg, reg, reg
> MOV reg, reg
> XADD reg, reg
> XCHG reg32, reg32
> XCHG reg64, reg64


^all the instructions that can be processed with the AGLUs with Vishera

Bulldozer is Win...
Bulldozer is CMT in my case
00h-0Fh is relatively unoptimized that is why it has 0s in its name it's the beginning(everything begins at zero)

If Orochi is your thing you should pay attention to

00h-0Fh(H2 2011) -> 20h-2Fh(H2 2012) -> 40h-4Fh(H2 2013) -> 60h-6Fh(H2 2014)

Zambezi -> Vishera/Komodo -> Steamroller -> Excavator

If Llano is your thing

10h-1Fh(H1 2012) -> 30h-3Fh(H1 2013) -> 50h-5Fh(H1 2014)

Trinity -> Kaveri -> Excavator


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

WOW this thread became an Intel thread fast !


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 14, 2012)

Just admit it seronx.... Bulldozer failed... Its ok, the first step to recovery is acceptance!


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> Just admit it seronx.... Bulldozer failed... Its ok, the first step to recovery is acceptance!



Well February 2nd will prove everything

If Bulldozer is still in the roadmaps I am right if it isn't in the roadmaps I am wrong

But, I have a four out of five chance of being correct

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-EventDetails&EventId=4203026

Regardless, Bulldozer has won


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> Just admit it seronx.... Bulldozer failed... Its ok, the first step to recovery is acceptance!



LOL now this is more like it .  I feel like I'm in AA meeting , For recovering AMDholics !


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

trickson said:


> LOL now this is more like it . I feel like I'm in AA meeting fore recovering AMD aholics !



Nope, he has an intel processor

AMDholics stick with AMD no matter what...

I stick with AMD and Nvidia...no matter what

Black and Green is the way to go!


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> Nope, he has an intel processor
> 
> AMDholics stick with AMD no matter what...
> 
> ...



I have used both and both have their benefits. I just prefer which ever is faster and affordable.


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> I have used both and both have their benefits. I just prefer which ever is faster and affordable.



Which is AMD and Nvidia....

Cray pretty much tells you who is faster...


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> Which is AMD and Nvidia....
> 
> Cray pretty much tells you who is faster...



From any benchmarks I have seen, sandy bridge beats bulldozer and thuban in every gaming bench I have seen. Unless your talking AMD the GPU side then you must be mistaken.


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> From any benchmarks I have seen, sandy bridge beats bulldozer and thuban in every gaming bench I have seen. Unless your talking AMD the GPU side then you must be mistaken.



http://www.cray.com/Home.aspx

No, I am talking about super computing

K15 is bred from a long heritage of super computers


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> Which is AMD and Nvidia....
> 
> Cray pretty much tells you who is faster...



Can I have some of what you're smoking? I don't know what it is, but it's obviously a pretty good departure from reality. I don't care about instruction sets, integers, clock speeds or anything. I care about what CPU drives games better. Can you find a game that is better serviced by BD? I'll wait here.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 14, 2012)

HMM doesn't seem like they would be good for super computing seen that they fail in mathematical computing.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/11/14/intel-sandy-bridge-e-review/4


----------



## erocker (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> http://www.cray.com/Home.aspx
> 
> No, I am talking about super computing
> 
> K15 is bred from a long heritage of super computers



I understand your point however thats not what most members, including myslelf are concerned with or talking about.


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Jan 14, 2012)

Did seronx claim the chipset was the limiting factor in gaming performance earlier?
I spewed OJ all over my keyboard. That's stupidity (no, not ignorance!) at it's best.

"Bulldozer has a faster architecture" - are you serious? So because it has more jiggahurtz it is a faster architecture and the chipset is the problem? Because it has an IMC that pulls more bandwidth, the chipset is the problem? Get real...

Attain knowledge.

AMD has an extremely robust platform since 790FX, which 890 and 990 are evolutions of. NVIDIA had the crown in the AM2 era with nforce 500 series.

Furthermore, rasing HT clock to 3GHz + doesn't gain you any performance except in IGP scenarios (think 790GX/890GX), in which case AMD now has Hudson FCH for their APUs and elimated on-board GPU from their 9-series chipsets.


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Can I have some of what you're smoking? I don't know what it is, but it's obviously a pretty good departure from reality. I don't care about instruction sets, integers, clock speeds or anything. I care about what CPU drives games better. Can you find a game that is better serviced by BD? I'll wait here.



Any game that doesn't use x87 code
Avoid Havok, Physx(CPU), and Bullet

You might ask why Bullet? Well the benchmarks that use it compile it with ICC

Also, Any game that uses 64bit

So, go find a game that uses 64bit...I bet you'll have a hard time...do to the Blueness



brandonwh64 said:


> HMM doesn't seem like they would be good for super computing seen that they fail in mathematical computing.
> 
> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/11/14/intel-sandy-bridge-e-review/4



Intel C++ Compiler for both

You are going to have to use SPEC for benchmarks when talking about actual performance in Supercomputing



erocker said:


> I understand your point however thats not what most members, including myslelf are concerned with or talking about.



Well, Supercomputers usually have the fastest processor and there is a reason Bulldozer is slightly still based on Alpha



BeepBeep2 said:


> Did seronx claim the chipset was the limiting factor in gaming performance on this page?
> I spewed OJ all over my keyboard. That's stupidity (no, not ignorance!) at it's best.
> 
> "Bulldozer has a faster architecture" - are you serious? So because it has more jiggahurtz it is a faster architecture and the chipset is the problem? Because it has an IMC that pulls more bandwidth, the chipset is the problem? Get real...
> ...



Oh GOD BeepBeep I've been waiting for you I've been seeing your retarded posts at xtremesystems oh my...

You have no idea what you are talking about....

HT Clock is still below 4.4GHz, learn to read

Every time I read your posts at xtremesystems I regurgitate a little

I bet you have an awful sense of what IPC is as well oh wait I already saw your IPC tree of wrongliness when going from K8 to K15...IPC didn't decrease with Bulldozer, broski


----------



## Super XP (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> Well February 2nd will prove everything
> 
> If Bulldozer is still in the roadmaps I am right if it isn't in the roadmaps I am wrong
> 
> ...





brandonwh64 said:


> Just admit it seronx.... Bulldozer failed... Its ok, the first step to recovery is acceptance!


Your opinion of course. Bulldozer may not have lived up to the hype, but in no its a fail.
Was the P4 a fail? Absolutely not because Intel sold a dump load of them, just like AMD selling its FX line very well.

Does Bulldozer need some work? Absolutely. But calling it fail is short sited. Price/Performance currently is great for FX CPU's.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 14, 2012)

Ya know People should respect eachother here regardless if they are wrong or not and not insult one another.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> False erocker
> 
> It's the chipset
> 
> ...



There seems to be something very wrong with your chart. As I recall it should look more like this:


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Ya know People should respect eachother here regardless if they are wrong or not and not insult one another.



I'm just repaying BeepBeep because I had to go through his awful factoids about what he thinks Bulldozer is

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums......BeepBeep-s-FX-8150-has-arrived!-Box-photos...

*holds it in*



TheLaughingMan said:


> There seems to be something very wrong with your chart. As I recall it should look more like this:




The Sandy Bridge processor isn't using 1866MHz RAM 20GB/s-24GB/s is impossible on Dual Channel unless you use 2400+ MHz Ram


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> Oh GOD BeepBeep I've been waiting for you I've been seeing your retarded posts at xtremesystems oh my...
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about....
> 
> ...


HT Clock? On BD it is 2200 MHz, 4400 MT/s. The chipset is not the limitation. Raising the bus speed doesn't change performance.

I'll again pull up this diagram:





Where is the chipset bottleneck? Why does a Phenom II X6 CPU on 790/890990FX @ 4.2 GHz play games faster than AMD FX-8150 @ 4.6 GHz on 990FX? Must be the chipset, because the architecture is "faster".

Instructions per clock decreased with Bulldozer.

IPC increased from K8 > Bulldozer. 
IPC decreased from Family 10h > Bulldozer.

You are the one which can not read.

Acquire knowledge.

EDIT:
I see you revised your post. Too bad I'd already replied to the original.



seronx said:


> I'm just repaying BeepBeep because I had to go through his awful factoids about what he thinks Bulldozer is
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums......BeepBeep-s-FX-8150-has-arrived!-Box-photos...
> 
> ...


My CPU
A. Overclocked poorly, was buggy
B. Did not run stock settings on stock cooler with normal vdroop

I RMA'ed and now have a CPU that actually does. I quite like it, to be honest.


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

BeepBeep2 said:


> Instructions per clock decreased with Bulldozer.
> 
> IPC increased from K8 > Bulldozer.
> IPC decreased from Family 10h > Bulldozer.
> ...




Nope it is still the same K8 = K10 = K15 there is no drops and with K15 20h-2Fh you will have K8 = K10 < K15

Acquire knowledge. Thou who canst read!


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 14, 2012)

Can we please close this thread, It already served it purpose and Its obviously getting deep in here



Super XP said:


> Your opinion of course. Bulldozer may not have lived up to the hype, but in no its a fail.
> Was the P4 a fail? Absolutely not because Intel sold a dump load of them, just like AMD selling its FX line very well.
> 
> Does Bulldozer need some work? Absolutely. But calling it fail is short sited. Price/Performance currently is great for FX CPU's.



I just had to troll him due to his crazy posts throughout this thread.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> I'm just repaying BeepBeep because I had to go through his awful factoids about what he thinks Bulldozer is
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums......BeepBeep-s-FX-8150-has-arrived!-Box-photos...
> 
> *holds it in*



im not singling out no one as this applies to everyone in this thread. There is no need for insulting eachother in this forum n when people do it makes them seem unprofessional and extremely uncouth.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> The Sandy Bridge processor isn't using 1866MHz RAM 20GB/s-24GB/s is impossible on Dual Channel unless you use 2400+ MHz Ram



To believe your bullshit or my tests??? That is a hard decision. You are a mad man and need get back your medication soon.

I am done. I am going to go play some games on my Bulldozer.


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> im not singling out no one as this applies to everyone in this thread. There is no need for insulting eachother in this forum n when people do it makes them seem unprofessional and extremely uncouth.



There is no way to be professional about this subject it pretty much is politics

You have Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge performance in a margin of 5% of each other in benchmarks

The argument will always end up in a way talking about how Republicans are better than democrats


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/34835733/Programming/Untitled.png
> 
> Can we please close this thread, It already served it purpose and Its obviously getting deep in here
> 
> ...



I just about pissed myself !!!  That is just too funny !!!


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> Nope it is still the same K8 = K10 = K15 there is no drops and with K15 20h-2Fh you will have K8 = K10 < K15
> 
> Acquire knowledge. Thou who canst read!


Per clock, per thread, K15 services less instructions every clock cycle than K8 and 10h. This is the reason for lower gaming performance. Instructions per clock has decreased, however over time has increased 10% over K8 + a lot of clock speed.
*
Have a jolly day, and I apologize for telling you to read and acquire knowledge.* 



seronx said:


> There is no way to be professional about this subject it pretty much is politics
> 
> You have Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge performance in a margin of 5% of each other in benchmarks
> 
> The argument will always end up in a way talking about how Republicans are better than democrats


In some benchmarks, the difference is up to 80%.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> The Sandy Bridge processor isn't using 1866MHz RAM 20GB/s-24GB/s is impossible on Dual Channel unless you use 2400+ MHz Ram


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx man you need to chill out you are getting no were man ! BD is just not what you think or want to make it out to be face it man . The patch worked so it was not the best fix for a shitty CPU !


----------



## seronx (Jan 14, 2012)

BeepBeep2 said:


> Per clock, per thread, K15 services less instructions every clock cycle than K8 and 10h.
> 
> Have a jolly day, and I apologize for telling you to read and acquire knowledge.



Now you are using the broad definition of instruction great...

K15 has 4 IPC per core it has 4 Execution units to process those instructions so 4 IPC 4 x 3.9 GHz = 15.6 IPS

K10 has 6 IPC per core it has 3 Executions units per clock to process those instructions  so 3 IPC 3 x 3.7GHz = 11.7 IPS

Well good riddance retard

You can only have high IPS when you have a good clock rate and good IPC



BeepBeep2 said:


> In some benchmarks, the difference is up to 80%.



Which is because of ICC



brandonwh64 said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/111217/maxxmem.jpg



That is MaxxMem not SiSoft


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> Now you are using the broad definition of instruction great...
> 
> K15 has 4 IPC per core it has 4 Execution units to process those instructions so 4 IPC 4 x 3.9 GHz = 15.6 IPS
> 
> ...



DUDE really ? You brought this on yourself !


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> There is no way to be professional about this subject it pretty much is politics
> 
> You have Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge performance in a margin of 5% of each other in benchmarks
> 
> The argument will always end up in a way talking about how Republicans are better than democrats



Im already at the point of not giving a flying fuck who is better than the other. I stick to my guns n no one can change me just like i cant change no one here. I cant fore anything on anyone like several members of this website try to do. I can only provide suggestions/solutions and problem solving techniques. This same shit is what made me disappear for a year.


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> Now you are using the broad definition of instruction great...
> 
> K15 has 4 IPC per core it has 4 Execution units to process those instructions so 4 IPC 4 x 3.9 GHz = 15.6 IPS
> 
> ...


We've been discussing Instructions Per Cycle, not Instructions Per Second. Furthermore, my "idiot wrongliness" chart on XS defined real world performance to achieve performance differences in Instructions Per Cycle.

The amount of "execution units" you are talking about (FPU units), 15h has four 256-bit FPU and 10h has six 128bit. BD has essentially 8 128-bit FPU units through Flex-FP however they service less Instructions Per Cycle than 10h. FX-6100 never really wins in the real world vs 1100T does it? 

"Good riddance retard"? Nice one. Your calculations are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about.

By the way, most people measure bandwidth with AIDA Extreme Edition (Used to be Lavalys Everest.).

Sisoftware Sandra reads up to 20GB/s on Phenom II depending on overclocks and Everest will only read 12GB/s.

Again:


> K15 has 4 IPC per core it has 4 Execution units to process those instructions so 4 IPC 4 x 3.9 GHz = 15.6 IPS
> 
> K10 has 6 IPC per core it has 3 Executions units per clock to process those instructions so 3 IPC 3 x 3.7GHz = 11.7 IPS
> 
> Well good riddance retard


FPU decode width:
Phenom II - 3 wide in single thread
Bulldozer - 4 wide 256bit, 2 wide 128 bit

4 256-bit IPC (select programs like 256-bit AVX) / clock on BD, 2 128-bit IPC / clock
3 128-bit IPC / clock on Phenom II

8 "cores" threads * 2 FMAC = 16
6 cores * 3 FMAC = 18

BD can only execute 4 256-bit FMAC at once, so 4 "cores" / threads * 4 FMAC = 16. For 256-bit FMAC, BD is essentially a quad core CPU. Integer and normal 128-bit FMAC however BD acts as an 8 core and is marketed as such. 

So you need 12.5% extra clockspeed over Phenom II to make it's 8 128-bit FMAC threads = 6 Phenom II FPU threads, and 50% extra clockspeed over Phenom II to make its 6 = 6. I'm not sure if you noticed, but Phenom II's turbo never works for one, and applies to only 1 thread. Turbo on BD is 3.9 up to all cores and 4.2 on one. In benchmarks with Turbo enabled, BD spends 80% of its time at 3.9 while X6 is stuck at 3.3. That's an 18% difference, so BD's performance often wins when all 8 cores are used. Congrats! ...right?

On BD, IPC decreases. This translates to real world performance, which only increases in applications that use 256-bit FMAC (ie. 256-bit AVX)

Then you have integer calculations...which also play into real world performance.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> The Sandy Bridge processor isn't using 1866MHz RAM 20GB/s-24GB/s is impossible on Dual Channel unless you use 2400+ MHz Ram





seronx said:


> That is MaxxMem not SiSoft



better for you?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> Any game that doesn't use x87 code
> Avoid Havok, Physx(CPU), and Bullet
> 
> You might ask why Bullet? Well the benchmarks that use it compile it with ICC
> ...



So basically, don't play any games that are out or in development and BD will be a great CPU. Well, since I already acknowledged that earlier, that's not really a point.

My point is that Intel is clearly a far superior solution for gaming right now, and will be for quite some time. If not indefinitely.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 14, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> From any benchmarks I have seen, sandy bridge beats bulldozer and thuban in every gaming bench I have seen. Unless your talking AMD the GPU side then you must be mistaken.



Think that is a little farfetched. I can dig out a couple of benchmarks where Bulldozer beats out the Sandy, Battlefield 3. I've even seen the Phenom II X6 Thubans beat the Sandy in that gaming benchmark.



Damn_Smooth said:


> So basically, don't play *any *games that are out or in development and BD will be a great CPU. Well, since I already acknowledged that earlier, that's not really a point.
> 
> My point is that Intel is clearly a far superior solution for gaming right now, and will be for quite some time. If not indefinitely.



I agree with your overall statement, but disagree where you say "any". You are basically implying that bulldozer is incapable of playing games, which is false.

If somebody does 80% encoding, and 20% gaming. Bulldozer is still a good choice. So that contracticts your "any" statement.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 14, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Think that is a little farfetched. I can dig out a couple of benchmarks where Bulldozer beats out the Sandy, Battlefield 3. I've even seen the Phenom II X6 Thubans beat the Sandy in that gaming benchmark.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True, it can handle games fine, but price/performance against Intel in gaming is a sure loss for AMD.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 14, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> True, it can handle games fine, but price/performance against Intel in gaming is a sure loss for AMD.



Agreed, aside from mere upgrading from an existing AM3 socket, Bulldozer is far too expensive for new builds. They really need to shave the FX-8150 to $149 USD and it's price/performance would be unmatched IMO. 

BTW as anyone got any news on the exact release date of the B3 stepping. They said early 2012 but that was in 2011 lol


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 14, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Agreed, aside from mere upgrading from an existing AM3 socket, Bulldozer is far too expensive for new builds. They really need to shave the FX-8150 to $149 USD and it's price/performance would be unmatched IMO.
> 
> BTW as anyone got any news on the exact release date of the B3 stepping. They said early 2012 but that was in 2011 lol



I wish AMD thought like you, that price would be worth it.  I haven't heard anything about the next stepping recently. I don't have too much faith that it will be much better though, BD kicked me in the nuts and made me lose a lot of faith in AMD's CPU division.


----------



## Syborfical (Jan 14, 2012)

AMD haven't made anything really decent since the Athlon 64. That was a pentium 4 killer.

Then the core came out and core2 duo.  Phenom was okay but not a core2 killer...

I can't see AMD comming out with a Core I7 killer anytime soon.


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

Syborfical said:


> AMD haven't made anything really decent since the Athlon 64. That was a pentium 4 killer.
> 
> Then the core came out and core2 duo.  Phenom was okay but not a core2 killer...
> 
> I can't see AMD comming out with a Core I7 killer anytime soon.



So really Bulldozer and this patch and every thing is all about AMD killing Intel ? And since it did not do this then what ? I think some of you are missing the point here . 

The patch worked ! 


pantherx12 said:


> I got a single core and dual core performance boost.
> 
> Nothing at 10% thus far but still a wee boost for free aint bad : ]
> 
> ...



And this is what it all about . Not whether or not BD is the i7 killer with some patch . GOD some of these AMD fanboy are really disappointed that AMD did not come out with the Intel KILLER and still hold to some fantasy that a PATCH will some how be the merical they were waiting for ! And it is making them angry and they still live in some fantasy thinking AMD will come out with a new patch soon that will magically put the BD on top of the world ! HEY FANYBOYS WAKE THE FUCK UP !!! It is what it is Nothing will change this EVER !!!


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 14, 2012)

Syborfical said:


> AMD haven't made anything really decent since the Athlon 64. That was a pentium 4 killer.
> 
> Then the core came out and core2 duo.  Phenom was okay but not a core2 killer...
> 
> I can't see AMD comming out with a Core I7 killer anytime soon.



Sempron was the Pentium 4 Killer. Half the price and as fast!
The Athlon X2 was a Pentium D Killer, and held its own against the original Conroe Core 2.

Allendale and Wolfdale Core 2 Duo is what officially killed off Athlon X2.  AMD have been playing catchup in performance since.

Really comes down to "when" AMD want to release something killer. A killer CPU doesnt always translate into profit. I get the feeling AMD are focused on CPUs for portable devices, lowend, and midrange enthusiast market, and have encapsulated it as their marketing strategy. Less focus on raw performance will still bring profits, look how well the APUs are selling and Bulldozer is selling well despite our hatred for it. And to be fair 99% of us don't need all the raw performance i7 has anyways.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 14, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Sempron was the Pentium 4 Killer. Half the price and as fast!
> The Athlon X2 was a Pentium D Killer, and held its own against the original Conroe Core 2.
> 
> Allendale and Wolfdale Core 2 Duo is what officially killed off Athlon X2.  AMD have been playing catchup in performance since.
> ...



I completely agree with your post. Just because we don't need it doesn't mean we don't want it though.


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)




----------



## qubit (Jan 14, 2012)

What surprises me about threads like this is how much argument there can be over something that's really objective.

The performance parameters of all the CPUs, such processing speed, heat and power use can all be measured very precisely with benchmarks of one kind or another, therefore, why the hell do we get these flamewars?

So, for this news thread, it turns out that the Windows scheduling patch made next to no difference to the performance of Bulldozer. It's there, right in the benchmarks, so what's to argue about it?

No wonder trickson is banging his head! (It must really hurt now buddy.  )


----------



## trickson (Jan 14, 2012)

qubit said:


> What surprises me about threads like this is how much argument there can be over something that's really objective.
> 
> The performance parameters of all the CPUs, such processing speed, heat and power use can all be measured very precisely with benchmarks of one kind or another, therefore, why the hell do we get these flamewars?
> 
> ...



It does . WOW I need an aspirin !


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 14, 2012)

Qubit and Trickson are right! I was right  AMD need to ditch the BS oops the BD and start over... ppl just need to accept the BD is and always will be a flop unless they pull out the magic wand and design a proper cpu with the correct amount of transistors 

~that's all~


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jan 14, 2012)

seronx said:


> I'm just repaying BeepBeep because I had to go through his awful factoids about what he thinks Bulldozer is
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums......BeepBeep-s-FX-8150-has-arrived!-Box-photos...
> 
> ...



really 20-24gb/s is impossible 

i call bullshit  2400mhz + is utter bullshit for getting 20-24gb  i can get over 20 stock with my ram at 1866 but for reference heres a boat load of evidence saying your full of shit

all dual channel all over 20gb a second




















oh whats this 1600mhz and it broke 20GB/s





and honestly who gives a rats ass if its NOT SiSoft

SiSoft / Maxxmem / Aida 64 tend to give similar readouts on memory bandwidth usually within 200MB/s


----------



## erocker (Jan 14, 2012)

qubit said:


> What surprises me about threads like this is how much argument there can be over something that's really objective.
> 
> The performance parameters of all the CPUs, such processing speed, heat and power use can all be measured very precisely with benchmarks of one kind or another, therefore, why the hell do we get these flamewars?
> 
> ...



You mean "BD is fail" and "insert gif/meme here"? It's tiresome at best. I don't know why some think that Bulldozer threads are their personal playground. The world knows about bulldozer. We don't need to hear that it is fail in every other post. Some people just need to get over themselves.

I don't mind the adult, intelligent conversation/arguments but some of the other things need to stop. Especially the childish behavior by grown adults.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jan 14, 2012)

just for laughs





default ram settings and timings oops i broke 20GB/s and then some and at


----------



## MarcusTaz (Jan 14, 2012)

air_ii said:


> While BD may not be what everyone wanted it to be, maybe further iterations of the architecture will bring improvements. Maybe there is a potential in the architecture. Look what became of R600 -> RV770.


 very very true.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 14, 2012)

My turbo core works well thank you very much. I run 4 cores at a maximum so far of 4.3Ghz when I feel the need.


----------



## xenocide (Jan 15, 2012)

Well Qubit, the reason people get so out of control, is because there is always someone who comes in and quotes technical papers and posts pretty charts that explain exactly why in theory Product A is superior to Product B.  What they refuse to then acknowledge, is that the only thing that matters is real world results.  I remeber reading tons of slides and articles about why Netburst was better than the competition, but it didn't matter because the CPU's were just underwhelming.

On paper BD should be an excellent CPU, and in heavily threaded applications, it really does spread its wings, but for most real world use, Sandy Bridge tends to be the better value.  It doesn't matter that BD gets a higher score in ObscureMark 2013, or that when you overclock every element of your system it is faster, what matters is that when you pop in a new i5-2500k or i7-2600k, and compare it side-by-side to an FX-8150, it offers better performance.

I remember reading dozens of people on here talking about how this scheduler fix would change everything, upwards of "a 10% performance increase", on par for SB across the board.  Now that it's out, it's exactly what most people expected, minor changes but no huge performance gains.  And now the word on the forums is that it won't REALLY be great until Pile Driver, 20-30% performance increase (according to AMD of course), better than SB in everything...

Just stop it.  The fact is SB beats BD in most applications, and the i5-2500k is still the best Price\Performance CPU there is.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 15, 2012)

Well Qubit, the reason people get so out of control is people make comments like the one Xenocide just did. Discounting relevance on the thread and finding a way to somehow segway their personal opinions in with enough facts to make themselves seem smarter than everyone else because their particular choice in product brand name. When the plain and simple truth of the matter is, both product A and product B have their strengths and weaknesses.

While I fault Xenocide for this, I fault myself and most people that comment after such a statement because they refuse to compromise their position no matter how full of $%&* it may be. Once the proverbial line has been drawn, no comment no matter how factual and no matter how much evidence one way or the other is present, we are left with an argument.

The primary issue fanboys of product A and product B are always both wrong and right depending on which tests you compare. While the term "real world results" is thrown around like free condoms at a orgy, no one is every willing to compromise because the Internet provides a world with no accountability. No matter how stupid the argument, no matter how pointless the "evidence", we will all forget what happened in this thread by tomorrow.

As there is no reason to hold back, admit when you are wrong, or agree to disagree, everyone continues until moderators either threaten everyone or take a side thus derailing the argument in general. Then we are left with those like myself make pointless "after the fact" comments to either troll, get the argument going again, or getting one person like Seronx to just be quiet. Shame on me.

Xenocide I do apologize for using you as the example above, but your comment was close by.

Seronx, no love lost, no love found. (Translation: I will not apologize cause you don't deserve it).


----------



## option350z (Jan 15, 2012)

Any sort of improvement is still improvement. Even if its .01%. Granted it's not a lot but every little bit helps. Whether it will be noticeable or not, it is not likely. Besides to each his own..It doesn't matter how fast your processor is. If you suck in games, you still suck. On Topic again, it is nice that MS finally was able to roll out this hotfix. Even though I'm still curious to see how windows 8 will handle BD.


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Jan 15, 2012)

The scheduler fix was only going to help so much, and the website listed that did the testing didn't even test what it was supposed to do and its WinRAR results are FUBAR.

It gives a nice 2-5% boost at 1-4 threads, and the benefit is still seen up to about 6 threads as 2 threads are given their own Compute Unit in such case. Why people are looking at 8 thread performance boost with a thread scheduler update is beyond me.

seronx has taken the extra step to say some not-so-nice things to me in PM while I was being reasonable with him. Something along the lines of "you're a #&%k*$g r#$&^d". I doubt we will see him around much longer.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 15, 2012)

BeepBeep2 said:


> The scheduler fix was only going to help so much, and the website listed that did the testing didn't even test what it was supposed to do and its WinRAR results are FUBAR.
> 
> It gives a nice 2-5% boost at 1-4 threads, and the benefit is still seen up to about 6 threads as 2 threads are given their own Compute Unit in such case. Why people are looking at 8 thread performance boost with a thread scheduler update is beyond me.
> 
> seronx has taken the extra step to say some not-so-nice things to me in PM while I was being reasonable with him. Something along the lines of "you're a #&%k*$g r#$&^d". I doubt we will see him around much longer.



report the PM. super mods/admins will then be able to see it.


----------



## qubit (Jan 15, 2012)

BeepBeep2 said:


> seronx has taken the extra step to say some not-so-nice things to me in PM while I was being reasonable with him. Something along the lines of "you're a #&%k*$g r#$&^d". I doubt we will see him around much longer.



Sounds like a mad fanboy. :shadedshu No one should treat people in that manner.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jan 15, 2012)

really? i find it hilarious only because if its true and it gets reported there will be another person joining the banstick dummies club


----------



## Super XP (Jan 27, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> True, it can handle games fine, but price/performance against Intel in gaming is a sure loss for AMD.


I agree the FX 8150 needs to come down in price, but the FX 8120 is priced well for $199.

I'll be installing the patches later on today.


----------



## MarcusTaz (Jan 27, 2012)

For those of you with a Microcenter store in the states check out this killer deal:

$120 off AMD motherboard with FX purchase

http://slickdeals.net/f/3872268-FRE...-of-Bulldozer-FX-Processors-B-M-Microcenter?#


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 27, 2012)

MarcusTaz said:


> For those of you with a Microcenter store in the states check out this killer deal:
> 
> $120 off AMD motherboard with FX purchase
> 
> http://slickdeals.net/f/3872268-FRE...-of-Bulldozer-FX-Processors-B-M-Microcenter?#



Wow wish I had one near me...just for kicks would definitely  get one


----------



## suraswami (Jan 27, 2012)

MarcusTaz said:


> For those of you with a Microcenter store in the states check out this killer deal:
> 
> $120 off AMD motherboard with FX purchase
> 
> http://slickdeals.net/f/3872268-FRE...-of-Bulldozer-FX-Processors-B-M-Microcenter?#



I tried adding 8120 and Gigabyet 970 board to the cart, it only took $40 off.  May be instore only?


----------



## MarcusTaz (Jan 27, 2012)

suraswami said:


> I tried adding 8120 and Gigabyet 970 board to the cart, it only took $40 off.  May be instore only?



I think it is in store only but it does not hurt to call their 800 number and ask:

1-800-634-3478


----------



## xenocide (Jan 29, 2012)

MarcusTaz said:


> I think it is in store only but it does not hurt to call their 800 number and ask:
> 
> 1-800-634-3478



Microcenter deals are always In-Store only.  They mark down CPU's to get people thinking of upgrading to buy the entire setup there.  My friend got his i5-2500k from them for like $175.  He went home and compared the entire setup and noticed every part was like 10-20$ more expensive than on Newegg to offset it.

Microcenter is awesome, and much better priced than places like Best Buy, but I wouldn't buy everything there--just CPU's


----------



## MarcusTaz (Jan 29, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Microcenter deals are always In-Store only.  They mark down CPU's to get people thinking of upgrading to buy the entire setup there.  My friend got his i5-2500k from them for like $175.  He went home and compared the entire setup and noticed every part was like 10-20$ more expensive than on Newegg to offset it.
> 
> Microcenter is awesome, and much better priced than places like Best Buy, but I wouldn't buy everything there--just CPU's



There is some truth in that statement. Since I live in NJ Newegg now charges 7% tax so a lot of their deals are killed by tax for me. MC is in Paterson NJ for me so the 3.5% tax rate for certain inner cities for me rocks! Look you just have a to be a smart shopper and there are deals to find at all stores B&M or online, thats why I check slickdeals like everyday...    But $120 off a mobo to me is a killer deal like I said if you have a MC store nearby...

Not to take this post off subject sorry to the post creator. I am so on the fence on upgrading my Core i7 950 / Rampage Formula III rig with an 8120 / Sabertooth just to get this deal... Call me retarded???? 

Got to make my mind up today. Deal ends today.... HELP!!!!!


----------



## Super XP (Jan 29, 2012)

Get it, that is an awesome deal. Then you can join the rest of us FX owners


----------



## qubit (Jan 29, 2012)

@MarcusTaz

Oh, how I envy your little 7% tax, lol. Here in exorbitantly expensive England, we pay 20% tax on everything. They call it Value Added Tax (VAT).

What joy.


----------



## erocker (Jan 29, 2012)

MarcusTaz said:


> Not to take this post off subject sorry to the post creator. I am so on the fence on upgrading my Core i7 950 / Rampage Formula III rig with an 8120 / Sabertooth just to get this deal...



It wouldn't be much of an upgrade at all. Though, if you're in the mood to play with something new, I'm all for that.


----------



## xenocide (Jan 30, 2012)

erocker said:


> It wouldn't be much of an upgrade at all. Though, if you're in the mood to play with something new, I'm all for that.



It would be a slight upgrade in heavily threaded applications and a side grade at best in anything under 6 threads if memory serves correctly.


----------



## ViperXTR (Jan 30, 2012)

*AMD's FX-8150 After Two Windows 7 Hotfixes And UEFI Updates*

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119.html


----------



## MarcusTaz (Jan 30, 2012)

Well I did not make it out to the store, there was just to much going on with the family today.

I know they will have more sales and chances are they will extend this one. I really need to sell my other rig first though before I start buying again... 

My other HTPC gaming rig has a Sabertooth and an FX 6100 so I am partly there anyway...


----------



## MarcusTaz (Jan 30, 2012)

MarcusTaz said:


> Well I did not make it out to the store, there was just to much going on with the family today.
> 
> I know they will have more sales and chances are they will extend this one. I really need to sell my other rig first though before I start buying again...
> 
> My other HTPC gaming rig has a Sabertooth and an FX 6100 so I am partly there anyway...





Well I broke down and purchased it online and will pickup tues, curse sales!!!! 

The 8150 is not part of the deal so I had to settle for the 8120... Not really a difference except base clock speed? Correct me if I am wrong? They are the same proc??

I got the 8120 and the Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3 Socket AM3+ 970 ATX ... The mobo was free with the proc... I am gonna stick the 6100 in this since it hardly gets used and move the 8120 in my Sabertooth.


----------



## MarcusTaz (Jan 30, 2012)

erocker said:


> It wouldn't be much of an upgrade at all. Though, if you're in the mood to play with something new, I'm all for that.



Playing is fun for sure lol



qubit said:


> @MarcusTaz
> 
> Oh, how I envy your little 7% tax, lol. Here in exorbitantly expensive England, we pay 20% tax on everything. They call it Value Added Tax (VAT).
> 
> What joy.



Yea that does suck... and we complain over here, go fiqure...


----------



## Super XP (Jan 30, 2012)

ViperXTR said:


> *AMD's FX-8150 After Two Windows 7 Hotfixes And UEFI Updates*
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119.html



I don't like this move Tom's Hardware made by not including games which AMD recommended to test pre-post patches. Tom's Hardware should have "ALSO" included older games with average to low resolutions because many people still run old games at those res.



> In this case, we decided to run our complete benchmark suite instead of testing the examples of software that AMD hand-picked as most-affected by Microsoft's scheduling efforts. Old games running at low resolutions, for example, are hardly worth running (beyond their value as synthetics, that is). That's why we spent a few days testing the hardware the way we would use it. And, at the end, we saw little to no improvement from the evolutionary changes implemented by Microsoft and some of AMD's motherboard partners to help augment performance.





MarcusTaz said:


> Well I broke down and purchased it online and will pickup tues, curse sales!!!!
> 
> The 8150 is not part of the deal so I had to settle for the 8120... Not really a difference except base clock speed? *Correct me if I am wrong? They are the same proc??*
> 
> I got the 8120 and the Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3 Socket AM3+ 970 ATX ... The mobo was free with the proc... I am gonna stick the 6100 in this since it hardly gets used and move the 8120 in my Sabertooth.


Yes they are 100% identicle. Just a multiplier difference. The 8120 OC's very nice on all 8-cores without killing the vCore. Well this is my case along with others which have the FX 8120.


----------



## xenocide (Jan 30, 2012)

Super XP said:


> I don't like this move Tom's Hardware made by not including games which AMD recommended to test pre-post patches. Tom's Hardware should have "ALSO" included older games with average to low resolutions because many people still run old games at those res.



So you're mad because they did unbias testing?


----------



## entropy13 (Jan 30, 2012)

AnandTech's tests.


----------

