Friday, January 13th 2012

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

by
btarunr
 Discuss (165 Comments)
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.
Source: TweakPC.de

Related News

Add your own comment

165 Comments on AMD FX-8150 Tested with Latest Windows Hotfixes, Still No Improvement

#26
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
wheres the gaming tests, particularly DX11?
Posted on Reply
#27
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
Musselswheres 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.
Posted on Reply
#28
Completely Bonkers
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: support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594
Posted on Reply
#29
ice_v
qubitYes, 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 :)
Posted on Reply
#30
lilhasselhoffer
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.
I asked some guys doing firmware hacks to check out the Bulldozer problem.
Good news one the coders that worked on the Panasonic GH1 camera hack has agreed to help write a registry patch.

AMD FX-8150 Passmark CPU Score has jumped from 8500 to 13000 using REG Patch. But it is not stable yet.
UPDATE:

The boys over at Kubuntu has been working on a AMD Bulldozer fix that sort-of applies across several platforms. The idea came from ArchLinux that run ARM multiple processors. 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.

Preliminary data from Passmark CPU test show the FX-4100 with a score of 5900, and the FX-6100 with a score of 7700. The FX-8150 should be posting in the 11,400 area but several test have the FX-8150 down in 8000 score.
LINK:
quinetiam.com/?p=2356
Have a look back at the following thread: 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....
Posted on Reply
#31
THE_EGG
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.
Posted on Reply
#32
Andrei23
I was seriously surprised, I thought for sure they would make it at least twice as fast, if not faster.
Posted on Reply
#34
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Andrei23I 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!!

Posted on Reply
#36
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
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.
Posted on Reply
#37
ensabrenoir
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.
Posted on Reply
#38
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
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 .
Posted on Reply
#39
TheLaughingMan
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?
Posted on Reply
#40
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
TheLaughingManIt 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 . :D
Posted on Reply
#41
Yellow&Nerdy?
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.
Posted on Reply
#42
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Yellow&Nerdy?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
Posted on Reply
#43
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
FreedomEclipseLonger 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 ! :mad:
Posted on Reply
#44
TheLaughingMan
tricksonThe 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 . :D
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.
Posted on Reply
#45
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
TheLaughingManThen 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 .
Posted on Reply
#46
Dent1
Musselscan 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.
Posted on Reply
#47
Batou1986
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.
Posted on Reply
#48
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
Dent1I 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 ? :wtf:
Posted on Reply
#49
Dent1
tricksonYeah 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 ? :wtf:
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.
Posted on Reply
#50
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Hence why he said this.
Musselscan 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.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 23rd, 2024 04:26 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts