Wednesday, January 11th 2012

New Windows 7 Bulldozer Patches Available.

Very quietly Microsoft has released two new patches available for the Bulldozer platform. According to the AMD blog these patches seem to offer little more then a 10% boost but the do improve over all performance. This is what Adam Kozak a product marketing manager at AMD had to say,

"Some of you may remember that AMD FX processors use a unique dual-core module architecture codenamed “Bulldozer”, which current versions of Windows® 7 were not specifically architected to utilize. In essence, for those with an AMD FX-8150 Processor, for example, Windows 7 sees the eight available cores and randomly assigns threads to them.

In 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. This is because the system correctly recognizes the AMD FX processor architecture and cores. Thanks to close collaboration between Microsoft and AMD, Microsoft recently completed back-porting some of the Windows 8 scheduler code for AMD FX processors into a hotfix for Windows 7."

Here are the directions given by Adam Kozak,
So if you have an AMD FX processor, here’s what you can do to update your version of Windows 7:

1) Download the scheduler update (KB2645594) and install. This will tell the scheduler that your AMD FX processor contains dual-core modules (in fact this is similar to the SMT path that the other guys use). In essence, threads 1-4 now get assigned to their own module first.

2) Download the core parking scheduler update (KB2646060) and install. This will prevent Windows 7 shutting down unused cores prematurely when there are threads to be assigned (there’s a performance penalty parking and then un-parking a core).

The best possible cases for improvement are applications that use ½ cores in your AMD FX processor. In our testing using the AMD FX-8150 processor, we found the best improvement in wPrime, Left 4 Dead 2, and Lost Planet. Below you’ll find links to the patches:

Patch 1
Patch 2Source: AMD Blog
Add your own comment

105 Comments on New Windows 7 Bulldozer Patches Available.

#1
Tweety
by: mtosev
my i7 930 has the same score and it's almost 2 years old:p
I upgraded from an X3 720BE. Which got 7.1 @3.5GHz. BD is pretty good with memory, those scores went right up, 7.9 now.

I'm very pleased with my purchase. :)
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Both these files are now available on our downloads section. Find them on Today's Downloads (frontpage).
Posted on Reply
#3
Bluefox1115
AMD's new FX 8-core series are not bad. In fact, they are power houses. The reason why they still fall behind in some places, is due to Microsoft's lacking ability to write multithreading code to fully utilize all 8 cores. So in essence, all of you flaming the FX chips, it is a software issue, not a poor hardware design, but a set of coding that has been overlooked by Microsoft.
Posted on Reply
#4
largon
Bluefox1115,
Strange, benchmarks disagree with that.
Must be something wrong with them. So all the reviews shorely are null and void.
Posted on Reply
#5
n0tiert
My Futuremark 3DMark11 test on FX-8150 / 6990

before:



and after using the patches:



as you can see , it slightly raised the PhysX score a bit and the Total score is arround 50 points higher
Posted on Reply
#6
INSTG8R
Those 50 points are well within the "median" for 3D Mark I could get that kind of deviation just running the test twice in a row(if not more). There is nothing really to show in that test other than perhaps the slightly higher PhysX score...
Posted on Reply
#7
n0tiert
by: INSTG8R
Those 50 points are well within the "median" for 3D Mark I could get that kind of deviation just running the test twice in a row(if not more). There is nothing really to show in that test other than perhaps the slightly higher PhysX score...
yeeeah come back and show me your score :)
Posted on Reply
#8
INSTG8R
by: n0tiert
yeeeah come back and show me your score :)
50 points is NOTHING in 3Dmark. I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you over scores I am just telling you 50 points could be gained or lost just in how long it's been since the last time you rebooted...Like I said run it twice in a row and you can gain or lose that much.

My point is that doesn't show anything significant to do with the Hotfix.
Posted on Reply
#9
screamer980
Here are some more Results.

Sometimes a bit better after the patch. But also often slightly worse.
Posted on Reply
#10
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
by: INSTG8R
50 points is NOTHING in 3Dmark. I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you over scores I am just telling you 50 points could be gained or lost just in how long it's been since the last time you rebooted...Like I said run it twice in a row and you can gain or lose that much.

My point is that doesn't show anything significant to do with the Hotfix.
Funny, mabey its just your system that varies so much from run to run but I can tell ya from my experience using amd or Intel the difference is a matter of only a couple of points different! not fluctuating by 50points lol :slap:
Posted on Reply
#11
INSTG8R
by: fullinfusion
Funny, mabey its just your system that varies so much from run to run but I can tell ya from my experience using amd or Intel the difference is a matter of only a couple of points different! not fluctuating by 50points lol :slap:
Well for example(and an extreme one) I actually ran 06 yesterday so I could get a comparison for a friend who just got a new GFX card. I happened to be running Steam in the background and well it cost me 737 points off my "normal" scores. Scores can fluctuate quite a bit with even the most minor of changes. Run it a couple of times in a row and tell me you get the same score? I have always considered 100 points +/- a more than normal variation.

Normal(and not even my highest just the latest)
http://3dmark.com/3dm06/16006564

With Steam running in the background
http://3dmark.com/3dm06/16385362
Posted on Reply
#12
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
by: INSTG8R
Well for example(and an extreme one) I actually ran 06 yesterday so I could get a comparison for a friend who just got a new GFX card. I happened to be running Steam in the background and well it cost me 737 points off my "normal" scores. Scores can fluctuate quite a bit with even the most minor of changes. Run it a couple of times in a row and tell me you get the same score? I have always considered 100 points +/- a more than normal variation.
If I gotta run tests all day to prove to you Im only getting a couple point difference Ill slap ya!
When benching Im sure the user unlike you are opening up steam and other programs. Think about it? :pimp:
Posted on Reply
#13
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
^ good morning shit disturber :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#14
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: fullinfusion
^ good morning shit disturber :rolleyes:
I am only saying what is right I agree with what this person said . and you call me names ? I deleted my post .
Posted on Reply
#15
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
by: trickson
I am only saying what is right I agree with what this person said . and you call me names ? I deleted my post .
now look who cant take a good morning joke... Man wake up and be happy its FRYDAY :cool:
Posted on Reply
#16
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: screamer980
Here are some more Results.

Sometimes a bit better after the patch. But also often slightly worse.
by: fullinfusion
now look who cant take a good morning joke... Man wake up and be happy its FRYDAY :cool:
I just think that this is more like it . 3Dmark11 is just not at all the best indicator of a CPU patch .
Posted on Reply
#17
INSTG8R
by: fullinfusion
If I gotta run tests all day to prove to you Im only getting a couple point difference Ill slap ya!
When benching Im sure the user unlike you are opening up steam and other programs. Think about it? :pimp:
Well of course, under normal circumstances I would and always run any bench from a clean reboot. I'm just making the point it takes very little to effect scores. 50 points IMHO is not really any kind of gain to be attributed to anything.
Posted on Reply
#18
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
Hmmmm Resident evil 5 bench maby?
Posted on Reply
#19
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: fullinfusion
Hmmmm Resident evil 5 bench maby?
LOL .:roll:
Posted on Reply
#20
x86overclock
by: OneCool
It all comes down to Intel having hyperthreading and AMD dont (because they cant patients,copyright blah blah).This CPU was to designed to fight that and its not fairing so well on its first go round.
Actually BD has multi threading, 2 dual 64 bit core dies with 4 threads each and multi threading is more stable under heavy work loads than hyper threading is. AMD was just simply misleading by slapping the FX name on the chips and they are basing all of their new chips on this architecture. Why?...you may ask, because this architecture is much more cost efficient for them to make and they can claim twice the amount of cores than they actually have and charge twice as much for the chips. People like you and me know better about the lack of performance of these chips have especially compared to their older chips, but your average everyday consumer has no idea,they hear or see 8 cores advertised and they think they are getting the best bang for the buck when they see the Intel quads going for the same price or slightly higher. Since AMD is continuing with this architecture it would be wise of them to purchase as much stock as they can in Intel,that way when they can't sell anymore of these horrid chips they can still make money on Intel consumers and prior AMD Fanboys that got smart and switched to Intel.
Posted on Reply
#21
eidairaman1
This thread puts me to sleep... Really nothing more to discuss bout the patches.
Posted on Reply
#23
x86overclock
I am upset because AMD is putting this architecture on all of their processors, by fall we will AMD will have the PhenomIIx8,they have discontinued all of their 45nm former architecture processors to use this cost efficient/ poor performance architecture. They should of atleast kept their former PhenomII quad and hex cores atleast those were FASTER THAN ALL OF THE INTEL CORE2 PROCESSORS!
Posted on Reply
#24
pantherx12
by: x86overclock
I am upset because AMD is putting this architecture on all of their processors, by fall we will AMD will have the PhenomIIx8,they have discontinued all of their 45nm former architecture processors to use this cost efficient/ poor performance architecture. They should of atleast kept their former PhenomII quad and hex cores atleast those were FASTER THAN ALL OF THE INTEL CORE2 PROCESSORS!
The Architecture will improve don't worry

Pile-driver will put it above Phenom performance clock for clock ( if it doesn't then that will be a fail :laugh:)

I don't think AMD are aiming to get close to intels IPC performance though, aiming to fit a crap ton of cores in a single package for cheap.
Posted on Reply
#25
clncain
Amd fx 4170

fx4170-8gig ram-asus crosshaire v5 win7-64bit,when first installed windows it scored two lower than before7.5-7.3, have installed the two patches still the same score 7.3 no improvement at all,we can only hope they get it right before christmas…
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment