Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX 4100 - 4 Cores become 2? :S

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 23, 2012 10:29:10 PM

Hi Guys,

I was taking a look at System Information and noticed this:-



Dose this mean that only 2 cores are working? Or am I getting this wrong?

Any help would be great cheers!

More about : 4100 cores

October 23, 2012 10:41:56 PM

hellohappy22 said:
Hi Guys,

I was taking a look at System Information and noticed this:-

http://i49.tinypic.com/2rqlemh.png

Dose this mean that only 2 cores are working? Or am I getting this wrong?

Any help would be great cheers!

It's kind of a sticky area. The FX-4100 has 2 Bulldozer modules, each module has 2 x86 engines, but they share a lot of resources/components within the module. It's kinda halfway between a full traditional core and something like hyper-threading. All 4 cores are working, as indicated by recognition of "4 logical processors"
October 23, 2012 10:46:35 PM

jerm1027 said:
It's kind of a sticky area. The FX-4100 has 2 Bulldozer modules, each module has 2 x86 engines, but they share a lot of resources/components within the module. It's kinda halfway between a full traditional core and something like hyper-threading. All 4 cores are working, as indicated by recognition of "4 logical processors"


That's for the fast, precise and helpful answer. Cheers buddy
Related resources
a c 146 à CPUs
October 23, 2012 10:48:54 PM

hellohappy22 said:
Hi Guys,

I was taking a look at System Information and noticed this:-

http://i49.tinypic.com/2rqlemh.png

Dose this mean that only 2 cores are working? Or am I getting this wrong?

Any help would be great cheers!


The so called quad core Bulldozer is really a dual core CPU. Everything is working fine.
October 23, 2012 11:05:25 PM

Lets just put it like this

Its a Dual Core cpu with a AMD type of hyperthreading so

2C/4T not 4C/4T
a b à CPUs
October 23, 2012 11:34:13 PM

What are you guys all talking about? This is NOT normal.
Should say

System Type x64-based PC

Processor AMD FX(tm)-4100 Quad-Core Processor, 4300 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4
Logical Processor(s)

BIOS Version/Date American Megatrends Inc. 1003, 26/03/2012

SMBIOS Version 2.5

Update your Windows 7/Whatever to the newest version an this should change, I had the same problem.
October 23, 2012 11:41:09 PM

yummerzzz said:
What are you guys all talking about? This is NOT normal.
Should say

System Type x64-based PC

Processor AMD FX(tm)-4100 Quad-Core Processor, 4300 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4
Logical Processor(s)

BIOS Version/Date American Megatrends Inc. 1003, 26/03/2012

SMBIOS Version 2.5

Update your Windows 7/Whatever to the newest version an this should change, I had the same problem.

this is normal. you don't know what your are talking about. a FX 4100 is not a true quad core its a dual core just like a FX 6100 isn't a true six core and a FX 8100 isn't really a true 8 core.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)
October 23, 2012 11:44:03 PM

rds1220 said:
The so called quad core Bulldozer is really a dual core CPU. Everything is working fine.

gamerkila57 said:
Lets just put it like this

Its a Dual Core cpu with a AMD type of hyperthreading so

2C/4T not 4C/4T

Then you don't know what hyper-threading is. The goal behind hyper threading is to utilize other-wise idle resources in a single core. A Bulldozer module actually has two dedicated x86 processing engines with dedicated caches amongst other dedicate resources. The sharing of resources within the module, in theory, with proper software, is suppose to increase efficiency, not necessarily performance. However, with Windows 7 inability to tell the cores apart, it doesn't schedule threads accordingly (threads that share data can greatly benefit from shared resources) which can mean up to a 20% performance hit (This is not an issue on Linux). Hyper-threading is the opposite. Again, more of a halfway. While I agree calling it a dual core is misleading, I still think the module is closer to a "true" dual-core vs a hyper-threaded single core.

See here:
a b à CPUs
October 23, 2012 11:47:11 PM

gamerkila57 said:
this is normal. you don't know what your are talking about. a FX 4100 is not a true quad core its a dual core just like a FX 6100 isn't a true six core and a FX 8100 isn't really a true 8 core.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)

Do some more research please.
http://i.imgur.com/ImEmP.png

EDIY : Ignore clock speed, mine is OC'd.
a c 109 à CPUs
October 23, 2012 11:58:56 PM

If I'm not mistaken, a certain Windows 7 Bulldozer patch made Windows recognize Bulldozer Modules as a 'core' and the Integer units inside as the threads. Thus an FX-4100, with two Bulldozer modules, will be recognized as a 2 core 4 thread CPU.

This was all done to 'help' Windows work with the new architecture much like how Intel's Hyperthreading technology works.
a c 146 à CPUs
October 23, 2012 11:59:09 PM

jerm1027 said:
Then you don't know what hyper-threading is. The goal behind hyper threading is to utilize other-wise idle resources in a single core. A Bulldozer module actually has two dedicated x86 processing engines with dedicated caches amongst other dedicate resources. The sharing of resources within the module, in theory, with proper software, is suppose to increase efficiency, not necessarily performance. However, with Windows 7 inability to tell the cores apart, it doesn't schedule threads accordingly (threads that share data can greatly benefit from shared resources) which can mean up to a 20% performance hit (This is not an issue on Linux). Hyper-threading is the opposite. Again, more of a halfway. While I agree calling it a dual core is misleading, I still think the module is closer to a "true" dual-core vs a hyper-threaded single core.

See here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_%28CPU_core_bloack%29.PNG/469px-AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_%28CPU_core_bloack%29.PNG


I think it is you that doesn't understand AMD's module design. The so called quad core is really a dual core a six core is really a three core and an 8 core is really a quad core. There are two half cores in each module. So a so called eight core would look like this [1/2+1/2] [1/2+1/2]. The last time I checked 1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2 equals four not eight.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/the-myth-of-cmt...
a c 109 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 12:04:01 AM

http://www.overclock.net/t/1309989/is-it-really-that-ba...


So look at it this way.
Will a Intel 2600k beat a 2500k clock VS. clock?
Windows 7 and 8 sees the Bulldozer FX-8150 chip like a 2600k.
Meaning
FX-4*** like 2c/4t
FX-6*** like 3c/6t
FX-8*** like 4c/8t

Comparing Intel to AMD is like compairing apples and oranges.


-dixson01974, OCN
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 12:04:42 AM

gamerkila57 said:
its not an issue some programs notice it for its real 2C/4T where as others see it as a 4C/4T


No..If that were the case then our System Informations would be the same.
October 24, 2012 12:07:57 AM

yummerzzz said:
No..If that were the case then our System Informations would be the same.

looks the same to me





mocchan said:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1309989/is-it-really-that-ba...


So look at it this way.
Will a Intel 2600k beat a 2500k clock VS. clock?
Windows 7 and 8 sees the Bulldozer FX-8150 chip like a 2600k.
Meaning
FX-4*** like 2c/4t
FX-6*** like 3c/6t
FX-8*** like 4c/8t

Comparing Intel to AMD is like compairing apples and oranges.


-dixson01974, OCN



^^^^^^
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 12:12:55 AM

gamerkila57 said:
looks the same to me


http://imageshack.us/a/img38/3062/pumk.png





^^^^^^

I said System Information, NOT the two programs I didn't say.
And that quote is void because mine and many others show this.
a c 109 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 12:16:04 AM

Have you installed the hotfixes for Win7? If not, once you install it, you will most likely see a 2C, 4T in most applications.

Regardless of what your system information shows, OP is NOT going to suffer any performance issues.
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 12:19:35 AM

mocchan said:
Have you installed the hotfixes for Win7? If not, once you install it, you will most likely see a 2C, 4T in most applications.

Regardless of what your system information shows, OP is NOT going to suffer any performance issues.

Yes this is what it should say AFTER the hotfixes.

http://imgur.com/NRiPu

EDIT : I know he won't see any performance loss, I wasn't saying that.
a c 109 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 12:24:16 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5251/microsoft-releases-h...

VR-Zone is claiming that Windows sees one Bulldozer module as a single multi-threaded core, similar to an Intel Hyper-Threading core. Basically, your 8-core FX-8150 is seen as a quad-core, 8-thread CPU—just like Intel's i7-2600K for instance. This goes against AMD's design and marketing because Bulldozer is closer to an 8-core CPU.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/microsoft-comes-to-amd-bull...

This patch updates the thread management logic in the OS at the kernel level for the Bulldozer, and - interestingly - proclaims it as a multithreading feature. With this update, Windows sees each BD dual core block as A SINGLE MULTITHREADED CORE, contrary to AMD's official positioning. Therefore, BD is seen as a 4-core, 8-thread chip, rather than a fully 8-core processors.
a c 109 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 12:25:00 AM

yummerzzz said:
Yes this is what it should say AFTER the hotfixes.
http://imgur.com/NRiPu
http://imgur.com/NRiPu

EDIT : I know he won't see any performance loss, I wasn't saying that.


In that case, I don't get the point on what this fuss is about :lol: 
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 12:27:15 AM

mocchan said:
In that case, I don't get the point on what this fuss is about :lol: 


It's about that not being normal for OP to show that :p 
Those posts are from 2011 so like I said you need to update Win7 to the NEWSEST version.

EDIT : Also that VVV
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 12:29:46 AM

the difference is how i see(visually) how intel and AMD is approaching their cpus is more like:

o = core
. = hyper thread
{cluster} //where whats inside it shares stuff

Phenom x4/I5
{o}{o}
{o}{o}

I3
{o.}{o.}

i7
{o.}{o.}
{o.}{o.}

Fx-4xxx
{oo}{oo}

FX-6xxx
{oo}{oo}
{oo}

FX-8xxx
{oo}{oo}
{oo}{oo}
October 24, 2012 12:33:18 AM

rds1220 said:
I think it is you that doesn't understand AMD's module design. The so called quad core is really a dual core a six core is really a three core and an 8 core is really a quad core. There are two half cores in each module. So a so called eight core would look like this [1/2+1/2] [1/2+1/2]. The last time I checked 1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2 equals four not eight.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/the-myth-of-cmt...

You have yet to make a valid argument. The article you linked to has factual discrepancies and compares AMD to Intel's solutions and uses the performance discrepancy to discredit AMD's technology, which is apples and lettuce (forget oranges). The two have vastly difference architectures. And where did you get the 1/2 number?
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 12:39:09 AM

jerm1027 said:
You have yet to make a valid argument. The article you linked to has factual discrepancies and compares AMD to Intel's solutions and uses the performance discrepancy to discredit AMD's technology, which is apples and lettuce (forget oranges). The two have vastly difference architectures. And where did you get the 1/2 number?


I don't see what you aren't getting. The article tells the problems with AMD's module design and why it doesn't work. Where do I get 1/2 from, because each module is really half a real core. So an 8 core CPU is really 4 half cores. So an 8100 is four cores 8 threads as Mocchan said.
October 24, 2012 1:10:38 AM

rds1220 said:
*snip*

There are two half cores in each module. So a so called eight core would look like this [1/2+1/2] [1/2+1/2]. The last time I checked 1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2 equals four not eight.

*snip*


rds1220 said:
I don't see what you aren't getting. The article tells the problems with AMD's module design and why it doesn't work. Where do I get 1/2 from, because each module is really half a real core. So an 8 core CPU is really 4 half cores. So an 8100 is four cores 8 threads as Mocchan said.


Your understanding of addition is questionable.... Perhaps you are confusing modules with cores?

A module is 2 integer units, and then everything else is shared. It's basically a core with an extra integer unit, a floating point unit that can split up in a manner similiar to hyperthreading, and then shared resources that either "core"can access equally. This is not the same as hyperthreading, because it involves actual physical resources added to the architecture. It's pretty close though.

Really the whole argument reminds me a bit of the "is Pluto a planet" hullabaloo. A bunch of people want Pluto to be a planet because it was called a planet long ago (similiar to how a "core" consists of, well, whatever it is that they've always been), while others say it is not due to a more detailed look at its properties relative to other astrological bodies (which is similiar to the discussion of an integer core being "core-like" enough to be called a core, but with the "module" qualification). If I wanted to be precise, I would say AMD has a "modular core" structure, where modular cores are defined as partial cores that assemble together to equal individual traditional cores via resource sharing.

That way, one could say an FX-8350 is an 8 modular core processor for precision, or an 8 core processor for convenience.
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 1:29:42 AM

designasaurus said:
Your understanding of addition is questionable.... Perhaps you are confusing modules with cores?

A module is 2 integer units, and then everything else is shared. It's basically a core with an extra integer unit, a floating point unit that can split up in a manner similiar to hyperthreading, and then shared resources that either "core"can access equally. This is not the same as hyperthreading, because it involves actual physical resources added to the architecture. It's pretty close though.

Really the whole argument reminds me a bit of the "is Pluto a planet" hullabaloo. A bunch of people want Pluto to be a planet because it was called a planet long ago (similiar to how a "core" consists of, well, whatever it is that they've always been), while others say it is not due to a more detailed look at its properties relative to other astrological bodies (which is similiar to the discussion of an integer core being "core-like" enough to be called a core, but with the "module" qualification). If I wanted to be precise, I would say AMD has a "modular core" structure, where modular cores are defined as partial cores that assemble together to equal individual traditional cores via resource sharing.

That way, one could say an FX-8350 is an 8 modular core processor for precision, or an 8 core processor for convenience.


There is no question about addition or confusion about a cores vs modules. Each module is a half a real core. So again a quad core CPU is really dual core, there are two half cores in each module. module 1- [1/2+1/2] Core 2- [1/2+1/2] so again an FX 4100 is reall a dual core NOT a quad core as AMD's marketing team would try to have you believe. The fact is that that AMD's module design isineffcient and slow. Having two integer cores in each module sharing resources that should be dedicated to a single core is just very inefficient.
October 24, 2012 1:39:05 AM

rds1220 said:
There is no question about addition or confusion about a cores vs modules. Each module is a half a real core. So again a quad core CPU is really dual core, there are two half cores in each module. module 1- [1/2+1/2] Core 2- [1/2+1/2] so again an FX 4100 is reall a dual core NOT a quad core as AMD's marketing team would try to have you believe. The fact is that that AMD's module design isineffcient and slow. Having two integer cores in each module sharing resources that should be dedicated to a single core is just very inefficient.



Four halves equals two. Not four. When you add 1/2+1/2 you get 1. When you add 1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2 you get 2. You just now correctly added the halves to get 2 cores for an FX-4100, but in the messages prior to this, you added the same sum together to get 4 cores for an 8-core FX.

Also, you are calling modules half a core. Are you saying an integer core is a module and the module (as defined by AMD) is a core? This is the opposite of common nomenclature, and very confusing, if that is what you are doing.
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 2:12:41 AM

designasaurus said:
Four halves equals two. Not four. When you add 1/2+1/2 you get 1. When you add 1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2 you get 2. You just now correctly added the halves to get 2 cores for an FX-4100, but in the messages prior to this, you added the same sum together to get 4 cores for an 8-core FX.

Also, you are calling modules half a core. Are you saying an integer core is a module and the module (as defined by AMD) is a core? This is the opposite of common nomenclature, and very confusing, if that is what you are doing.


Yes exactly it equals TWO! its a dual core not a quad core thats the point. No I am not calling modules half cores I'm saying there are two half core IN each module. A module is not equal to a core. There is a big difference between Intels real dual and quad core and AMD's phony module scam. Thats clearly seen in the performance.
October 24, 2012 1:50:25 PM

rds1220 said:
I don't see what you aren't getting. The article tells the problems with AMD's module design and why it doesn't work. Where do I get 1/2 from, because each module is really half a real core. So an 8 core CPU is really 4 half cores. So an 8100 is four cores 8 threads as Mocchan said.

So, it's a half core because you say so? That's dandy! I'm going to every core of an i7 a quarter of a core. So, let's do the math: 1/4+1/4+1/4+1/4=1. So the Core i7 is really a hyper-threaded single core. (<- your logic)

Seriously, I agree with the "modular core" argument designasaurus made.
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 3:38:37 PM

jerm1027 said:
So, it's a half core because you say so? That's dandy! I'm going to every core of an i7 a quarter of a core. So, let's do the math: 1/4+1/4+1/4+1/4=1. So the Core i7 is really a hyper-threaded single core. (<- your logic)

Seriously, I agree with ecause "modular core" argument designasaurus made.


Because I say so..ah no. Try because that is what it is that is AMD's modular micro architecture. Each modular core is pretty much a half of core that shares resources. If you're foolish enough to buy into AMD's 8 core scam that's your problem but I'll take four real cores of an I5 or I7 over Bulldozer's inefficient modular half core crap. If you don't understand it than you don't really understand AMD's new micro architecture and how the modular design works. BTW you is the I7 single core CPU with hyper threading, that's not even close to being true. Nic try though but that was a stretch that made no sense. :pfff: 
October 24, 2012 6:11:34 PM

rds1220 said:
Because I say so..ah no. Try because that is what it is that is AMD's modular micro architecture. Each modular core is pretty much a half of core that shares resources. If you're foolish enough to buy into AMD's 8 core scam that's your problem but I'll take four real cores of an I5 or I7 over Bulldozer's inefficient modular half core crap. If you don't understand it than you don't really understand AMD's new micro architecture and how the modular design works. BTW you is the I7 single core CPU with hyper threading, that's not even close to being true. Nic try though but that was a stretch that made no sense. :pfff: 

I'm going to tell you how you're dead wrong. If each core is really a half core, then isolate 1 core within each module. What do you have? You guessed it, a full dedicated core with all the resources a typical core has; NOT a half core. So stop with your half core crap, they are cores sharing resources. I'm not saying Bulldozer is the best architecture ever, in fact it's not that great, but the criticisms out there are both blown out of proportion and misplaced.

And if it is indeed the eight-core FX-8150 is actually quad-core, then how did it spank the 6 core/12 thread Core i7 990X in this multi-threaded benchmark?
http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1110239-AR-FX8150AMD26&sha=aa4f0c7&p=2
And this one:
http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1110239-AR-FX8150AMD26&sha=4a71dc3&p=2
And this one:
http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1110239-AR-FX8150AMD26&sha=9c1626e&p=2

The biggest faults of Bulldozer is being a victim of inadequate outdated software (Windows 7). These benchmarks were ran on Ubuntu.
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 7:21:53 PM

You have no clue what you are talking about and you obviously still don't understand how the architecture works. In each "module is a half a core" each two halves equal a "core" though it's really not. So tell me then if there are four halves in a fx 4100 how it equals four full cores because it doesn't. The software has nothing to do with Bulldozers piss poor performance and blaming it on the software is just a sad attempt for fanboys to try and justify why the Bulldozer sucks. Windows 7 hot fixes isn't going to change anything and neither is Windows 8. AMD's microarchitecture won't be good until they fix the IPC or drop the modular design all togeher. Btw it's easy to cherry pick benchmarks the fact is that Bulldozer got destoryed by Intel CPU's in single threaded programs and got beat in all but a few heavily threaded programs and when it did beat out an I7 it was just barely.
October 24, 2012 9:00:08 PM

rds1220 said:
The software has nothing to do with Bulldozers piss poor performance

That statement alone says everything. Software has EVERYTHING to do with hardware performance.
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 9:08:28 PM


those 2 patches are now part of Windows Update. All it does is allow windows to load "modules" before "half cores". The same thing Intel does, load cores before HT "virtual cores"

It also allows windows to park unused half-cores wich lowers power and increases performance in light-threaded applications.

the whole 4 core 8 thread, 2 core 4 thread, 3 core 6 thread for AMD BD cpus is accurate and absolutely normal.

The whole arguement here is have you checked sysinfo lately or have you ran windows update. If you don't update windows it will still be a 4 core 4 thread cpu.
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 10:02:30 PM

jerm1027 said:
That statement alone says everything. Software has EVERYTHING to do with hardware performance.


Yes it does, it shows you have no clue. Software has almost nothing to do with it. Windows isn't going to magically make Bulldozer a great chip. BTW what good is the software if the hardware can't use it to the fullest? You're obviously an AMD fanboy probably just trying to justify your crappy Bulldozer. Like I said only a faboy would try to blame software for their CPU's crappy performance. Again you need too some reading and reseach.
October 24, 2012 11:35:44 PM

rds1220 said:
Yes it does, it shows you have no clue. Software has almost nothing to do with it. Windows isn't going to magically make Bulldozer a great chip. BTW what good is the software if the hardware can't use it to the fullest? You're obviously an AMD fanboy probably just trying to justify your crappy Bulldozer. Like I said only a faboy would try to blame software for their CPU's crappy performance. Again you need too some reading and reseach.

If software has nothing to do with hardware performance, do me a favor and load up Windows 95 on your computer and tell me how it runs Crysis. I can guarantee you a 0FPS frame rate, regardless of your GPU.
On a more practical note, why you think there are driver updates? Software directly affects performance. I'm not sure if you keep with Tom's Best GPU's for the money articles, but if you do, you'd notice that the vanilla 7970 went up a tier in performance solely because of driver updates.

you clearly know nothing about anything. If you don't have the software to support the hardware, then the hardware is little more than a paper-weight.
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 11:40:57 PM

jerm1027 said:
If software has nothing to do with hardware performance, do me a favor and load up Windows 95 on your computer and tell me how it runs Crysis. I can guarantee you a 0FPS frame rate, regardless of your GPU.
On a more practical note, why you think there are driver updates? Software directly affects performance. I'm not sure if you keep with Tom's Best GPU's for the money articles, but if you do, you'd notice that the vanilla 7970 went up a tier in performance solely because of driver updates.

you clearly know nothing about anything. If you don't have the software to support the hardware, then the hardware is little more than a paper-weight.


The main problem is the architecture not Windows. Windows is part of the problem but the majority of the problem is a crappy IPC and crappy inefficient micro architecture. The fact that you think the whole problems lies in Windows shows you don't know how Bulldozer works. You've also shown you are obviously an AMD fanboy. You have made no real argument to prove your point all you have done is cried about how software causes Bulldozers crappy peformance when that is a load a garabage. Your whole post above is pointless and irrelevant. Like I said do some reseach because you are making a fool of yourself.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 12:05:38 AM

AMD modules have 2 cores.

You can't use performance as a judge of how many cores they have.

Otherwise we couldn't call a quad core A9 phone a quad core because it's slower than a Celeron.

a c 146 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 12:09:18 AM

Cazalan said:
AMD modules have 2 cores.

You can't use performance as a judge of how many cores they have.

Otherwise we couldn't call a quad core A9 phone a quad core because it's slower than a Celeron.


Thats what i've been saying....
October 25, 2012 12:24:17 AM

rds1220 said:
The main problem is the architecture not Windows. Windows is part of the problem but the majority of the problem is a crappy IPC and crappy inefficient micro architecture. The fact that you think the whole problems lies in Windows shows you don't know how Bulldozer works. You've also shown you are obviously an AMD fanboy. You have made no real argument to prove your point all you have done is cried about how software causes Bulldozers crappy peformance when that is a load a garabage. Your whole post above is pointless and irrelevant. Like I said do some reseach because you are making a fool of yourself.

Which is why I have a 2500K in my gaming rig, and a Core 2 Duo in my old gaming lappy. And I've already stated Bulldozer is not that great, again, my obvious fanboyism. :pfff: 

When Windows is responsible for a 20% hit in performance, that's a big part of the problem.
I'm not responsible for what you don't understand. I've already posted benchmarks on Linux, which shows Bulldozer to more competitive with a SB Core i5 and coming up on top on a good portion of benchmarks under Linux and wiping the floor with the 990X, where as Windows it's handily beaten on nearly every benchmark by the i5, and for gamers, Bulldozer is right down with the Core i3. The thread-scheduling issue is well known to enthusiasts, but you can look that up here:
http://techreport.com/review/21865/a-quick-look-at-bull...

I've made my point: Bulldozer isn't that great, but not as bad as critics would have you believe (as indicated by sales reviews), and Windows isn't helping either. It's you who's rambling garbage and an apparent troll. Until you make a clear argument and back it up, I'm done here.
a c 146 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 12:30:32 AM

jerm1027 said:
Which is why I have a 2500K in my gaming rig, and a Core 2 Duo in my old gaming lappy. And I've already stated Bulldozer is not that great, again, my obvious fanboyism. :pfff: 

When Windows is responsible for a 20% hit in performance, that's a big part of the problem.
I'm not responsible for what you don't understand. I've already posted benchmarks on Linux, which shows Bulldozer to more competitive with a SB Core i5 and coming up on top on a good portion of benchmarks under Linux and wiping the floor with the 990X, where as Windows it's handily beaten on nearly every benchmark by the i5, and for gamers, Bulldozer is right down with the Core i3. The thread-scheduling issue is well known to enthusiasts, but you can look that up here:
http://techreport.com/review/21865/a-quick-look-at-bull...

I've made my point: Bulldozer isn't that great, but not as bad as critics would have you believe (as indicated by sales reviews), and Windows isn't helping either. It's you who's rambling garbage and an apparent troll. Until you make a clear argument and back it up, I'm done here.


If you haven't gotten it by now you aren't going to...
!