Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

"Bulldozer FX is underperforming by 40-70%" ???

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
  • Bulldozer
  • Windows 7
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 17, 2011 4:49:59 PM

"Bulldozer FX is underperforming by 40-70%" ???

I keep coming across this quote but, when I go to the link that quote is nowhere to be found:

Quote:
“AMD FX-Bulldozer is neither 4 core or 8 core… that’s the problem. The ARM Cortex-A9 8 core processor had a similar problem that was overcome with a software patch. The problem right now is that the patch has to be re-registered with each Windows start. Look for a 40% performance boost if this works…. more to come.

There is most definitely a Windows 7 AMD FX – software patch in the works. By most estimates the AMD Bulldozer FX is underperforming by 40-70% in most Windows 7 benchmarks. By forcing Windows 7 to recognize 8 cpu cores a huge performance hit has happened. The Bulldozer FX-8xxx design… really isn’t 8 cores, it’s a 4 core CPU with an extra integer pipeline on each core. If the FX-8xxx series scale according to the 4 and 6 core Bulldozer design than there is a serious bug in Windows 7 that is crippling the FX-8150 performance.”

http://quinetiam.com/?p=2356


Tom's, is the quote above even true in any way at all? Or, is this just some delusion, euphoria and wishful thinking at play?

More about : bulldozer underperforming

a c 915 à CPUs
a b $ Windows 7
October 17, 2011 8:48:33 PM

Lets just say that people are disappointed in its performance, hence the statements!
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
October 17, 2011 9:04:57 PM

its performing as expected according to amd
Score
0
Related resources
October 17, 2011 9:06:07 PM

Here's a commenter that probably has it right:

Quote:
"Wow, so now there’s no patch, as I thought and knew that there wouldn’t be at all. And bashing the benchmark sites that also test the 8150 at both stock and overclocked speeds and you still run your mouth with nothing to show for it.

Also, the i7 2600k may cost more, but costs only $20 more, and over all offers more performance than the 8150 at less power draw. Bulldozer does give some performance boosts, but not enough considering the power draw ratings.

Overall value, the 2600k is a better value hands down. And people aren’t brainwashed or intel fan boys because they aren’t happy with Bulldozer results, they aren’t happy with Bulldozer results because Bulldozer has terrible performance, power usage, and costs. I have a full AMD system, I’m on guru3d and I have an AMD rig. A 435 at 3.6ghz 1.4vcore. For an $85 cpu it performs great. If my board had the proper sb chip, I could unlock it to 4 core no problem. Even the Athlon II X4′s are keeping up with the lower end FX-4 series. "
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2011 10:01:49 PM

Many people have rushed to judgment not fully understanding the new BD architecture. Win 8 is reported to improve performance by 10% according to AMD. BD Opteron performance is reported to be 35% better than previous Opterons.

In addition many benchmarks can't fully use eight cores so you can get low scores. Software makers have finally realized they need to write better code and some of the gaming companies have started.
Score
0

Best solution

October 17, 2011 10:20:54 PM

I haven't heard anything about a software patch. In fact, Microsoft responded to me, saying that they aren't aware of any plans to change the Windows 7 scheduler, though that could change moving forward.

Best,
Chris
Share
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2011 10:48:27 PM

Look the issue is the way the modules work and the way the kernel schedules threads on the CPU. With an i7 Windows schedules one thread on each CPU first and any threads afterwards are handled with hyper threading, but since Windows sees a Bulldozer Module as two cores it treats them equally. Basically if you have two intensive threads, Windows would schedule the threads on two separate cores on an i7 rather than having both threads compete for resources on the same core. With a Bulldozer module though both threads go to the same module rather than going to two separate modules.

Windows 8 build seems to handle this better by making sure each module has at least one thread first before giving a module a second heavy thread, but honestly best case is going probably going to be about a 20% improvement (though the best I've seen with current benches is 10%). Each core in a module is pretty separate, so the only improvement from that kind of scheduling comes from when they are completing for resources namely the fetch and decoding, the L2 cache, or certain FPU instructions.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b $ Windows 7
October 18, 2011 12:18:09 PM

As I predicted before BD even launched, AMD's decision to call BD an "8 core" cost it performance.

BD has 4 true cores, and the second core of a BD module is only about 80% efficent. If the OS doesn't have a clue that every other core has less performance, then you do lose some performance. For example, Vista/7 specifically avoid using HT cores until the other cores are loaded, which makes HT slightly more effective then it is on XP.

That being said, AMD had FOUR YEARS to get MS to do something on the SW side.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2011 1:32:48 PM

Microsucks and InHell are in bed together and have been for a long time.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2011 2:31:30 PM

beenthere said:
Microsucks and InHell are in bed together and have been for a long time.


Hmm, a flamebait post already?? C'mon, people want to discuss BD, not silly ad hominem valueless statements, please..

At any rate, MS and Intel seem to have diverging interests lately, as MS is porting their OSes to different platforms and Intel is courting Google's OS..
Score
0
October 18, 2011 3:07:39 PM

Best answer selected by josejones.
Score
0
October 18, 2011 3:08:50 PM

cangelini said:
I haven't heard anything about a software patch. In fact, Microsoft responded to me, saying that they aren't aware of any plans to change the Windows 7 scheduler, though that could change moving forward.

Best,
Chris


"plans to change the Windows 7 scheduler"

What does that mean? How could it affect performance?
Score
0
October 18, 2011 3:20:00 PM

No matter what happens.
Let say effectively a patch camn be applied for performance gain, then what?
The processor is behind 2600k which such comfortable margin in many aspects that even with patch (that is going to take time to deliver anyway), the BD may or may not overcome the 2600k but it will already be too late. The 2600k will already be in a mature sold point and the sandy bridge e will be right in the corner.
What do you think is happening? everybody is holding their wallet to see how a patch is going to performance and PERHAPS outperform a 2600k?
No, of course they don't. Moreover, seeing a BD underperforming compared to a 2600K make people feel and believe the BD has no chance compared a sandy bridge e; therefore will stick to intel. That is said by the way that a 20$ difference on cost/performance versus value is not a big of a deal because the BD will already have the loser sticker on its forehead.
It is sad to say, it is sad to think, but it is nonetheless true :/ 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2011 3:20:38 PM

@josejones

Basically it means to modify the scheduler to treat bulldozer modules the same way it treats intel cores with hyper threading so they can get slightly better performance. Anyway that's not going to happen in Windows 7. We should see it in Windows 8 though
Score
0
October 18, 2011 3:36:10 PM

I am telling you (talking out of my buttock and from understanding),
AMD better push and push really hard for pile driver before deadline and add something incredibly great to it by June 2012 to come back into the competition or AMD will start to be in serious jeopardy with Ivy in the corner. I understand and assume AMD is roughly a good year behind Intel technology/performance wise. The BD show off is pretty grim, I want AMD to come back on top so they can swell their pockets again but the near future sounds really dark.
When you see AMD just starts 32 nm and intel is almost coming with a 22nm is indicative of a lack of endurance and ability to come up with research/development from AMD.
They cannot afford this to happen, they cannot afford to slow down.
Score
0
October 18, 2011 4:00:03 PM

Let's just wait for the fm2 board.
Score
0
December 16, 2011 7:23:08 PM

This just in ...

Windows 7 Hotfix Promises AMD Bulldozer Performance Boost
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-fx8150-bulldozer-w...

Quote:
"Currently, the performance of AMD Bulldozer CPUs is slower than expected," the article states, and explains that Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 do not support AMD's Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) scheduling feature...."


Well, at least Microsoft admits that Windows 7 does not support Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT). So, it's good to hear that they've realized the problem and are working on it ... even though there appears to be a new set of issues arising. They'll get there eventually.

Let me know when they've got it all sorted out.
Score
0
a c 487 à CPUs
a b $ Windows 7
December 16, 2011 7:27:45 PM

beenthere said:
Microsucks and InHell are in bed together and have been for a long time.


Time for you to switch over to Apple.
Score
0
!