Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bulldozer and Windows 8, the perfect marriage

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 1:21:41 PM


the FX-6100 was tested on both win 7 & 8, granted win 8 is still in consumer preview stage but AMD has been crowing about how win 8 will change the game for bulldozer. i will let you all decide for yourselves

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1425/pg6/windows-...



March 4, 2012 1:28:45 PM

Games will not see much huge improvement but certain high end apps which have high CPU usage will see a noticeable improvement....
a c 127 à CPUs
a b * Windows 8
March 4, 2012 3:19:54 PM

I still don't think its going to do anything. BD is just a inefficent arch and thats it. You can't fix problems with the OS or band aids.

Besides the majority wont move to Windows 8 that fast. Will take quite some time and most will stik with 7.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 3:43:36 PM

If anything I am hoping windows 7 to be the next XP that I will be using for the next 10 years.
March 4, 2012 4:37:43 PM

I thought I read that late last year Win 7 became the most used OS ever.... could be wrong.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 5:38:27 PM

Quote:
with you all the way on this one.
nice cpu-z shot, congrats.

and of no offense to you 'dirtyferret' but you picked the worse performing FX Bulldozer chip out of the three to research.
the FX-41xx and FX-81xx of course, both do way better regardless.


it was the only chip i saw that anyone used with win8 for benchmarks and regardless, I kept hearing increase of 15% with win8 across the board for all bulldozer...
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 5:47:43 PM

honestly, it doesn't look like this will make any difference at all unless the main use of your computer is benchmarks.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 6:07:47 PM

Quote:
even with the ASSUMED 15% increase it's still far below expectations and necessary computing power to be effective unless sold for DIRT cheap.
if one already (like myself) has an AM3+ motherboard then the best bet is to wait for Piledriver WITH YOUR FINGERS CROSSED
and run a current Deneb or Thuban chip.
if Piledriver delivers along with Win 8 then I'll upgrade from my 965BE but that will be more on performance of PD more than it will be Win 8.
heck, I didn't know that Win 8 can fix the FX-Bulldozer's IPC issues... :lol: 

best thing to do if one already has AM3 hardware is to upgrade to AM3+ and maybe surrounding hardware,
then wait for PD.


i was on the fence waiting for BD but after release I put together a 2500k build. my phenom II x4 955 (still a very good CPU for gaming and excellent for every day use) went to my GF's build (upgraded from a phenom IIx2 560). the only game she plays is bejeweled other then that it's facebook, pictures, and email.
a c 119 à CPUs
a b * Windows 8
March 4, 2012 6:12:18 PM

lulz... your not serious theres a marginal 1 percent improvement across the board... which is to be expected because of the lighter footprint... it wont suddenly make the fx an all powerful cpu as intel get the same if not more improvement. again, widening the gap and disparity in performance. seriously get over yourself the fx is a fail that cant even compete with its own older brothers. just accept it and move on...
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2012 6:27:00 PM

HEXiT said:
lulz... your not serious theres a marginal 1 percent improvement across the board... which is to be expected because of the lighter footprint... it wont suddenly make the fx an all powerful cpu as intel get the same if not more improvement. again, widening the gap and disparity in performance. seriously get over yourself the fx is a fail that cant even compete with its own older brothers. just accept it and move on...


the title is sarcastic if you read my other posts in this thread and the linked benchmarks (as you stated)
a c 186 à CPUs
March 4, 2012 7:33:47 PM

dirtyferret does it again!
a c 480 à CPUs
a b * Windows 8
March 5, 2012 12:12:10 AM

jjack339 said:
I thought I read that late last year Win 7 became the most used OS ever.... could be wrong.


Win XP still commands at least 46% of the install base. Win 7 is stll below 30%.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2012 12:25:12 AM

excuse me, i completely ignored every post here to say,

when i saw the topic i thought "great, two fails that go great together."


that is all . . .
March 5, 2012 12:39:47 AM

Windows 8 isnt going to fix Bulldozers slow IPC. AMD can say all they want that Windows 8 will improve Bulldozers but they are just fooling themselves and customers. W8 isn't going to fix their engineering screw up.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b * Windows 8
March 5, 2012 1:29:45 AM

Quote:
Microsoft's Windows XP is still comfortably the most popular operating system after gaining a larger share of the market in January, new stats have shown.

Despite Redwood's best efforts to convert users to Windows 7, the decade-old XP OS still had 47.19 per cent of all PC and Mac users in January, up from 46.5 per cent in December.

Windows 7, which had sold over 400 million licenses as of last summer making it the fastest-selling operating system ever, has 36.4 per cent of the market, according to figures from NetApplications.

With the next generation Windows 8 OS set to go public this year, it seems unlikely that Windows 7 will be able to overhaul XP before that transition takes place.
No support for XP beyond 2014

Microsoft is still attempting to convince businesses and home users to upgrade to Windows 7 before Windows 8 arrives, with the company dropping support for XP in just two years time.

Over 8 per cent of personal computer users are still on Windows Vista and, as bad as Vista proved to be, it still has a bigger market share than Apple's Mac OS X.

The Macintosh software has 6.39 per cent of all users, which is actually up an entire percentage point from one year ago.


At least gamers seem to be smart enough to know to move to a better OS:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Via Steam, 43% of users, the majority, have Windows 7 64Bit. 9% of the Steam gamers have 7 32Bit. 16% have XP and 1.5% have XP 64Bit (I feel soooo bad for those poor bastards). That means that 7 has over 50% of current Steam gamers.

Honestly I have no idea why people are staying with XP. For starters, XP acts the same performance wise with one core as it does 4 cores and 1GB RAM or 4GB of RAM. Got my wife off XP last year and her system went fro meh to very fast in comparison plus she could finally use more than 3.25GB of RAM.

People are ignorant. Built a system for a customer, a LGA1366, with 12GB of RAM and a Core i7 960 along with a GTX560. He didn't like 7 so he installed XP 32Bit. Wasted 8.75GB of RAM and a quad core CPU.

He would have been better off getting a AMD Sempron with 2GB of RAM and a GTS250.

Slickrick214 said:
Windows 8 isnt going to fix Bulldozers slow IPC. AMD can say all they want that Windows 8 will improve Bulldozers but they are just fooling themselves and customers. W8 isn't going to fix their engineering screw up.


thats what I said. People continue to blame the software but even if it does fix the "scheduling issues" it wont magically make Bulldozers IPC go through the roof.
a c 186 à CPUs
March 5, 2012 2:24:27 AM

Anonymous said:
excuse me, i completely ignored every post here to say,

when i saw the topic i thought "great, two fails that go great together."


that is all . . .

March 5, 2012 3:26:45 AM

jimmysmitty said:
At least gamers seem to be smart enough to know to move to a better OS:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Via Steam, 43% of users, the majority, have Windows 7 64Bit. 9% of the Steam gamers have 7 32Bit. 16% have XP and 1.5% have XP 64Bit (I feel soooo bad for those poor bastards). That means that 7 has over 50% of current Steam gamers.

Honestly I have no idea why people are staying with XP. For starters, XP acts the same performance wise with one core as it does 4 cores and 1GB RAM or 4GB of RAM. Got my wife off XP last year and her system went fro meh to very fast in comparison plus she could finally use more than 3.25GB of RAM.

People are ignorant. Built a system for a customer, a LGA1366, with 12GB of RAM and a Core i7 960 along with a GTX560. He didn't like 7 so he installed XP 32Bit. Wasted 8.75GB of RAM and a quad core CPU.

He would have been better off getting a AMD Sempron with 2GB of RAM and a GTS250.



thats what I said. People continue to blame the software but even if it does fix the "scheduling issues" it wont magically make Bulldozers IPC go through the roof.



It's not hard to see an average Joe have no idea about how the computer works, but you do realize that most people use their pc to work, instead of gaming right? Meanwhile there is no necessity to upgrade from XP to 7 while the system is still functioning, not to mention the cost in today's economy...True, 7 is better than xp, it's like saying i7 is better than i3; yet they perform the same in normal office/ school environment and there's no need to upgrade.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b * Windows 8
March 5, 2012 3:32:13 AM

tomhrxbfg said:
It's not hard to see an average Joe have no idea about how the computer works, but you do realize that most people use their pc to work, instead of gaming right? Meanwhile there is no necessity to upgrade from XP to 7 while the system is still functioning, not to mention the cost in today's economy...True, 7 is better than xp, it's like saying i7 is better than i3; yet they perform the same in normal office/ school environment and there's no need to upgrade.


Minus the fact that MS is cutting support for XP very fast and as well it wont utilize new hardware properly.

I have no qualms of people using a older system with XP. But tell me why that customer watsed so much power on a archaic OS developed when GHz was the main focus?

You probably cannot.

Most people who don't want to move to 7 are the same people who didn't want to move to XP until 98 was completley cut in support. What happens to those same people when programs top supporting XP? Do they hang on to programs that are old and out of date forever?

And if they don't like 7, they sure as hell wont like 8. I think its just the old people. Honestly 7 is a lot like XP for normal users, the only major differences are in the underlaying framework, the looks and what power users can see.
March 5, 2012 3:38:48 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Minus the fact that MS is cutting support for XP very fast and as well it wont utilize new hardware properly.

I have no qualms of people using a older system with XP. But tell me why that customer watsed so much power on a archaic OS developed when GHz was the main focus?

You probably cannot.

Most people who don't want to move to 7 are the same people who didn't want to move to XP until 98 was completley cut in support. What happens to those same people when programs top supporting XP? Do they hang on to programs that are old and out of date forever?

And if they don't like 7, they sure as hell wont like 8. I think its just the old people. Honestly 7 is a lot like XP for normal users, the only major differences are in the underlaying framework, the looks and what power users can see.


I can assure you if 7 is given away for free now most ppl will gladly accept the offer (big corp and university etc) and the % utilization will be much higher, except those ppl that're reluctant to change, which happens in real life and you can do nothing about them...
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2012 3:47:10 AM

I'm not hoping to start a flame war, but I have already moved to WIN8 and my FX 8120 does just fine, allowing me to max out Skyrim. It is fast and while I know it won't beat a core i5 2500k I am quite content with the performance. There's really nothing wrong with BD that can't be fixed by pricing.

At any rate, if you own an Intel system then I don't see what good bashing AMD does for you. Why not just be happy you have a faster system?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2012 4:24:17 AM

buzznut said:
I'm not hoping to start a flame war, but I have already moved to WIN8 and my FX 8120 does just fine, allowing me to max out Skyrim



i know what you mean!
it seemed new life got breathed into my PIII installing windowsME .

the cards move so much faster in solitaire now :bounce: 
a c 119 à CPUs
a b * Windows 8
March 5, 2012 2:27:31 PM

sarcasm never really works on forums...
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2012 7:05:40 PM

jjack339 said:
I thought I read that late last year Win 7 became the most used OS ever.... could be wrong.


And you are. Windows 7 isn't even close to XP's lifetime user base.
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2012 7:16:46 PM

dirtyferret said:
it was the only chip i saw that anyone used with win8 for benchmarks and regardless, I kept hearing increase of 15% with win8 across the board for all bulldozer...


That 15% number comes from a known inefficiency in the bulldozer design. If you turn off the second integer core, a thread is executed 10 to 15 percent faster. So theoretically, proper scheduling should produce up to a 15 percent speed boost in lesser threaded workloads.

Obviously, it may not work quite that well in practical application. But it I do expect more than that article suggested. I suspect Win 8 is still not handling it optimally.
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2012 7:21:35 PM

Slickrick214 said:
Windows 8 isnt going to fix Bulldozers slow IPC. AMD can say all they want that Windows 8 will improve Bulldozers but they are just fooling themselves and customers. W8 isn't going to fix their engineering screw up.



As I just pointed out, there is some merit to the Win 8 argument. But as Malmental pointed out, Bulldozers issues are bigger than a 15% speed boost. But its a start, if it happens.

But also remember thats not 15% overall. Its only 15% in lightly threaded workloads. Im expecting a 5% overall improvement.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2012 7:46:58 PM

FALC0N said:
And you are. Windows 7 isn't even close to XP's lifetime user base.


well of course not, XP has over a 10 year lifetime where as W7 has only 3 (including beta).

but it won't be long.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-s...
March 5, 2012 10:20:10 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Honestly 7 is a lot like XP for normal users, the only major differences are in the underlaying framework, the looks and what power users can see.


Which is exactly why people don't see any reason to replace XP with Windows 7, particularly with yet another version of Windows coming out soon. The last 'must have' Windows upgrade was 3.11 to 95, because it was clearly superior.

Now most people only get a new version of Windows when they buy a new PC, and PC lifespans are rapidly increasing.
March 6, 2012 1:37:40 AM

FALC0N said:
As I just pointed out, there is some merit to the Win 8 argument. But as Malmental pointed out, Bulldozers issues are bigger than a 15% speed boost. But its a start, if it happens.

But also remember thats not 15% overall. Its only 15% in lightly threaded workloads. Im expecting a 5% overall improvement.


And as I said already Windows 8 isn't going to give you that magical 15% number that AMD and other people keep throwing out. Again its not going to fix the engineering screw up that AMD made with Bulldozers IPC. Bulldozer is a lost cause, AMD's only hope is to tear it apary take what they know (IPC problem) and make changes before they release Piledriver.
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2012 7:31:17 AM

seems to be a good boost. I don't know what people are being so sarcastic about. better than the hot fixes to window 7 which give like a 1% overall boost but often made things worse.

I have no idea where people were pulling the 15%+ number from. I would have guessed it to be 5-10% on things using 2-6 threads based on what was being said in reviews and linux optimizations. Seems less than that but anything is good.
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 6:40:37 AM

esrever said:
seems to be a good boost. I don't know what people are being so sarcastic about. better than the hot fixes to window 7 which give like a 1% overall boost but often made things worse.

I have no idea where people were pulling the 15%+ number from. I would have guessed it to be 5-10% on things using 2-6 threads based on what was being said in reviews and linux optimizations. Seems less than that but anything is good.


The 15% number comes from disabling the second core in the module and comparing 2 cores/2 modules with 2 cores/1 module. This effectively simulates optimal scheduling. The improvement is 10% to 15%.

HOWEVER, that only applies to lower threaded workloads as heavier workloads don't benefit from the scheduling as the cores are all loaded anyways.

I really didn't expect the improvement to be huge, but it should be better than 1%. I don't think the win 7 patch is working right.
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 8:54:23 AM

Oh look another Bulldozer fail thread, just a question how many have actually used one? hmmm. This forum must be a cash cow for Intel reps, they will sell you a i3 for $500 if they could convince you after some random test that the i3 blows away everything, which is quite funny when the IB I3 will likely retail at $150~ with SB on the market.

One thing we can all agree on is that a Intel core is faster than a AMD core, fast enough to negate the need for SMT, yet Intels bad numbers start where SMT is required, HT is at best 15% boost yet Intels roadmap through to skylake has not intention of addressing this. AMD module architecture is as significant as Netburst to Core2, right now it has its teething issues and software developers will now understand the module better than last year when it was released, the BD is still evolving and will evolve even when PD is released. Overall running both a SB and BD I get no difference at all other than a 2500K not dealing with software thread loads at all well even with a BD said to be a bad chip it churns its way through multiple software threads like a knife through butter.

It would be nice if the fanboism stopped, does it really matter if the system does everything you need even if only a few nano seconds slower?

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 9:04:05 AM

sarinaide said:
Oh look another Bulldozer fail thread, just a question how many have actually used one? hmmm


why would i?

methinks for a few more years or if trinity is a massive come back, amd is gonna be the brunt of jokes.

hey, i was on the AMD wagon since 96 until the core duos when they pounded intel with price/performance.
March 8, 2012 9:15:22 AM

Im curious to see any improvements with windows 8 due to gaming.

But personally there will be no much if there is. I am going to be sticking with windows 7 because Im used to it, and have had rarely and problems with it. I also dislike how microsoft made the visual of windows 8 look like your on a pad.

This is how you can see computers are going to transform into the computer tablets one day.
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 9:58:17 AM

Well you see I like trying new things as I suffer from compulsive upgrade dissorder (though can we call Sandy to Bulldozer an upgrade, whatever), so I was quite excited, I threw the 8120 (in my country it is well cheaper than the 2500K) onto a nice ASRock Fatality Pro 990FX got it all up and running and fired up 3DMark 06/Vantage and 11. I then needed to yank my chain so I ran 3DM 11 knowing I have a good minute half to get back, to my shock and horror it only just finished as I came back......the sad day I now have to shake three times instead of the old double shack.

Benchmarks are by and large the same all within margin of error. Last I checked it ran better in BF3, the holy grail of all things awesome (does that mean a Athlon II will romp a 2600K too since they are the same?) By a Frame or two, is that like blow away stuff now? Lol this gets tiring.
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 10:43:55 AM

sarinaide said:


Benchmarks are by and large the same all within margin of error. Last I checked it ran better in BF3, the holy grail of all things awesome (does that mean a Athlon II will romp a 2600K too since they are the same?) By a Frame or two, is that like blow away stuff now? Lol this gets tiring.


i could swear you are trying to communicate with us in english...or you just posting gibberish...one of the two
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 10:51:41 AM

dirtyferret said:
i could swear you are trying to communicate with us in english...or you just posting gibberish...one of the two

c'mon there was classic stuff there

sarinaide said:
I suffer from compulsive upgrade dissorder


and i'll never forget


sarinaide said:
BF3, the holy grail of all things awesome . . .


these are the gem's i cherish on tom's after dealing with the masses. . . .
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 10:53:02 AM

Sorry, google translate doesn't have dragon tongue in the database. Essentially this is another thread to knock AMD for trying something different.
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 11:08:47 AM

Anonymous said:
these are the gem's i cherish on tom's after dealing with the masses. . . .


This coming from the user with "I gotta poop" as a handle :heink: 

All I am saying is that Bulldozer is not a failure in the design sense, it is a perhaps in implementation, the design and percieved model that AMD are looking at is very aggressive and will bear results in time, BD is a teething period in the same way Pentium D was for Core2 Duo.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 11:17:24 AM

sarinaide said:
This coming from the user with "I gotta poop" as a handle :heink: 


careful there ol'e dragon tongue, i can be like monkey and fling poop. [:grahamlv:2]
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 11:40:06 AM

I think the big issue is the perception that people have that AMD cannot correct the architecture issues, core modulation is innovative and perhaps the performance per core got sacrificed to impliment the core modulation architecture, that is not to say that by the time PD rolls on it is not as bigger a leap forward as Core2 was from Pentium D. It will unlikely be a inherent defect which carries through to Excavator.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 11:47:30 AM

sarinaide said:
It will unlikely be a inherent defect which carries through to Excavator.


because AMD FIRED everyone!
March 8, 2012 11:56:44 AM

Come on guys, lets stop this E-peen contest. Games nowadays dont use more than 4 cores and 2 good and fast cores are enough. Loads of benchies show that. ( cores BD isn't good for gaming ? No worry, they are great for loads of stuff.

Gaming is GPU bound anyway.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 12:01:13 PM

radnor said:
( cores BD isn't good for gaming ? No worry, they are great for loads of stuff.


and that would be?


c'mon! stop keeping me in suspense.
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 12:11:12 PM

Quote:
or they quit and found other employment/financial opportunities..
have you seen the ads on monster and in local papers that get posted all over the internet.?
AMD has had employment ads in detail to, asking for chip designers and everything.
for real.


When your entire capital is less than Intels R&D, redundancy can become a issue, similarly why keep people who cannot deliver what you pay them good money for it is a cycle of business. It will be lovely when we are all forced to buy Intel chips which cost $500 at the lowend because there is no competition. Buy then the performance desktop market will all but be gone, already games are console ports.

Making positions redundant and changing personal doesn't mean that 3 architectures will be inherently bust, it is about progress now not delivering a instant top end chip, if they do that then its only for the better of the market.
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 12:21:39 PM

If you can fix it, they will come.
March 8, 2012 12:23:02 PM

Anonymous said:
and that would be?


c'mon! stop keeping me in suspense.


Server wise benchmarks are really hard to do, that's why anandtech presents some benchies with fixed and branded plataforms in mind. Toms just skips giving decent benchmarks, because it would be too big for them.

Honestly mates, BD isn't great, but it isn't that bad, just overpriced. take 50€ from the top CPUs , 30 from the lower ones and they are correctly priced. Anyway, it is not the first e-peen contest i have here with some posters and the true conclusion is that games, nowadays can run decently on a Pentium G630/640 or in a Athlon 631. Why ? Because most of them don't use more than two cores or are single threaded.

Again, i haven't seen DNS, IIS, RSA, LDAP, AD DS, RDS, Puppet and decent VM benchmarks. ESXI, Xen and HyperV behave differently. You can buy 1 gaming computer every two years or so. HPC and Datacenter markets buy hundreds of 1U in MP configurations. So ? It is a server chip. I have yet to see decent Unix benchies also. I bet he really shines in a server ecosystem, considering price also.

As for a reasonable performance, i have a X4 955. I don't see any reason to change CPU atm. If i had a C2Q 9550 or an I7 920 my opinion would be the same. CPU wise, just is almost irrelevant. You all talk about high resolutions like you would know what it looks like, But i don't see many bragging about having a Dell 27" or 30" monitor, and very few eyefinity setups.

Read the numbers with open eyes, just don't mindlessly copy paste them. That dumb function is the computer job, not yours.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 12:34:29 PM

radnor said:
<SNIP>


thanks for taking the time with that.

you reminded me i ought to install VMware or really half my 8 gigs of ram is wasted.

i don't think half of what is E-peen'd is serious, if it is well, thats sorta sad.


but what i really want to know is if sarinaide "upgraded" to BD, why does he still have an intel rig in his sig?
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 12:45:40 PM

I have both a i5 and 8120 build and the BD is less than a week old.
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2012 1:02:43 PM

Quote:
so basically last weak is when you made a mistake and now your trying to ease your mind as in lessening the pain.... ;) 
I'm sure you can still send it back and grab you a Deneb X4 C3 stepping or a Thuban 1100T..


No, I just wanted to see how well a BD can perform in my setup environment. We don't have anymore X6 1100T's only the 1090T BE's but they are rare, trust me I looked.

I guess I need to add that I am sponsored 2500k's by virtue of being on a overclockers team so seeing the same thing is kind of boring.
March 8, 2012 1:03:49 PM

Anonymous said:
thanks for taking the time with that.


If you get the idea, it was worth the time.

Anonymous said:

you reminded me i ought to install VMware or really half my 8 gigs of ram is wasted.


Do your really have a game that uses 8 GB ? I don't ! My gaming rig has 8 GB, no pagefile and WS2008R2. never had a problem. I need need to be extra careful when i'm virtualizing something (home lab). I work in It, a home lab is always necessary.

Anonymous said:

i don't think half of what is E-peen'd is serious, if it is well, thats sorta sad.


it seems to be, because regardless of the question the reply is always, get the 2500k. not considering other factors.

Anonymous said:

but what i really want to know is if sarinaide "upgraded" to BD, why does he still have an intel rig in his sig?


Regardless of his rig, he seems quite fair. That is the main point.
!