This may confuse you all..........
 

Not sure where to start, im puzzled......Task manager (win8) is only showing two physical cores, a few days ago or when I last noticed I had four (FX-4100)....ive checked other forums and seems this is an apparent problem for some.... I even followed some peoples advice.....

ive ran a windows repair, reinstall win8, updated bios, enabled all four cores to remain on, reset bios defaults, took battery out etc, checked every monitoring program (all showing four cores), switched to boot on four cores, ran multi-threading/core programs, updated windows, searched windows forums, changed power settings and still TM wont recognise four physical cores......

I saw one guy mention it only has two cores and the others are logical (he worked for windows)...

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/7172/54309916.png

please help

Interesting, must be a slight bug in Win8, or something to do with the 4 core achitecture of the AMD making windows think there is hyperthreading going on (which is NOT the case for AMD). It's showing 4 logical cores, but only 2 physical ones. As long as applications recognise it, I say no worries.

It would seem the software people are deciding that each Bulldozer "Module" is a core with two logical processors in it. Looks like we are heading towards a fight between the software companies and AMD. AMD is calling each integer core a "core" while the software companies are calling each Module a "Core" and the integer cores in each module a "Logical Core".

I read somewhere that CPU-Z was doing the same thing Windows is, calling each module a "core" and each integer core a "logical core". It is really arguable which is true, because what AMD is calling a "Core" isn't a true full core, it is more of a core than Intel's HyperThreading, but not a true core either...

TL;DR It all comes down to what the software wants to call it, don't worry about it, you are still able to use your FX chip to its fullest. Windows is still using all 4 "cores".

hmm but im wondering if the other programs are seeing 'logical cores', and it is definitely a bug its bugging the hell out of me lol, so what youre saying is we're being sold 'quad cores' which are actually dual cores with the capability of 'quads'

2 real cores + 2 "virtual/ht"cores

nope. It's 4 identical cores in FX chips. I get what you mean...but...all 4 cores are identical.

Two modules, four cores. Looks like the "word" modules isn't in Windows 8 library so it says what it says. Everything is working as it should be.

Modules wasn't in my vocabulary either.... just found this once I searched the term....


''AMD Zambezi core and the first FX-Series microprocessors were launched in October 2011. Zambezi is based on Bulldozer microarchitecture, and it is manufactured on 32nm process. Internally, the core is organized as 2, 3, or 4 Bulldozer modules, coupled with shared 8 MB level 3 cache and on-chip DDR3 memory controller. Each Bulldozer module integrates two CPU cores, that share some circuitry, such as instruction fetch and decode logic, L1 instruction cache, L2 cache, and Floating-Point Unit. The core incorporates all technologies, found in AMD K10 microarchitecture, and adds SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES and AVX extensions to instruction set. Currently (January 2012), Zambezi core is utilized only in desktop processors. ''

so I was thinking of purchasing an eight series, thinking of eight cores...:confused: lol and thanks for the clarification..

No problem :) The 8 series is still eight cores though...

8 series: 4 modules/8 cores
6 series: 3 modules/6 cores
4 series: 2 modules/4 cores

This is my very simplified guide to how Intel Cores work compared to AMD Cores, based on my understanding of how they work:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...lHTvsAMDFX.png

so which is best?? lol

I been reading up on overclocking and it mentions if it exceeds 3.8ghz then it uses two cores... will this be the modules?? also in my bios settings I can enable all cores to stay on and overclock% each core... again would that be two modules or staying with four 'cores'

I think that graphic is comparing Intels Hyperthreading to AMDs modules. While intel has two threads, it is beign worked on by one core, while the opposite is happening with AMD.

It would make more sense if it were 2 jobs > 2 cores instead the AMD graphic says 1 job > 2 cores, which I don't think is accurate.

Whoooboy we can discuss this at lenght, and it has been discussed at lenght. The simple answer is that Intel runs great with singlethreaded and multithreaded stuff, while AMD lacks behind in single threaded applications, but use multithreaded applications and they are doing pretty darn good. Generally. Depending on the actual application.

A queue is multiple jobs, the core decides what job in the queue gets worked on by which worker.

Yes, you could have only one job in the queue, which is what happens with a single threaded application. But in that instance only one of the two "cores" will be used.

Also, what isn't really made clear by the picture is the fact that AMD's "cores" are less capable than Intel's. Which is why single threaded performance is worse with AMD.

Intel has one beefy core doing the work of two, and it is very capable of that, AMD has two weaker cores. When you ask Intel's single beefy core to do the work of a single core it tears through it very quickly compared to one AMD core.

but then it comes to multi threaded applications it suffers.... im with you.... kinda!

I wouldn't call them less capable since the capability of the CPU is about the same. The real difference is the length of the pipeline and how many clock cycles it takes to execute one particular instruction. As the pipeline gets longer, IPC is only one of the issues you encounter because now that you get that much deeper into the code before the first instruction executes, branch mispredictions have that much more of a penalty. Mainly because the bigger pipeline has to be completely cleared out before it can start executing again and you again have to wait for that first instruction to get through the entire pipeline.

All in all, Intel's CPU have better latency through the pipeline from start to end so they handle code with a lot of conditional statements better than AMD. I would say AMD offers a better core for crunching numbers where Intel offers a better core for logic in general. Meaning if you're going to do something like fold or crunch, AMD might be a better option (also because applications like those use all of your cores,) but when it comes to overall performance, Intel holds the crown.

Keep in mind though that neither AMD or Intel produces a bad CPU. They've both worked very hard on the CPU lineups that they have and some are good at some things and some are good at others. It's really that simple. Also how can you blame AMD? Intel has a lot more money than AMD to dump into everything anyways.

isnt the 4100 two cores? and four modules?