Why Bulldozer's spotty performance is good news.

[Super XP]

A small tool that can run an application using only one CPU core. Can this be used to measure each individual Bulldozer core and to determine which one runs better than the other. If you can figure out what cores run better on there own, then you can perhaps disable the cores that are not optimal.

Just a thought.

LINK:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/C...U-loader.shtml

Also check this out:

Maybe need to patch for running core priority.

Now : Core 0 --> Core 1 --> Core 2 --> Core 3 --> Core 4 --> Core 5 --> Core 6 --> Core 7
Right Priority : Core 0 --> Core 2 --> Core 4 --> Core 6 --> Core 1 --> Core 3 --> Core 5 --> Core 7

[nt300]

You should pass that one to the FX overclocking thread so somebody can benchmark with it

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Herp derp. http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

[Super XP]

What do you expect from Bulldozer's performance. AMD's top dogs either fired or layed off the wrong people, they got rid of a lot of smart engineers that were responsible for the Athlon & the AMD64.

Bulldozer at launch should have been 20% better performance vs. what it is today. But it's not, and now AMD is working on damage control all thanks to the new CEO. Hopefully we will see better performance with the B3.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by Super XP

A small tool that can run an application using only one CPU core. Can this be used to measure each individual Bulldozer core and to determine which one runs better than the other. If you can figure out what cores run better on there own, then you can perhaps disable the cores that are not optimal.

No, I think I'll either have AMD exchange my current FX chip for a "fixed" one or I'll send it back to the retailer for an exchange. I didn't buy an 8 core chip to use a 4 or 6 core chip.

[Super XP]

Originally Posted by erocker

No, I think I'll either have AMD exchange my current FX chip for a "fixed" one or I'll send it back to the retailer for an exchange. I didn't buy an 8 core chip to use a 4 or 6 core chip.

Then run it at 8-cores. Though I hear your Frustration. For now, put away the Benchmarks, give yourself a nice healthy bump in clock speed and game away until AMD fixes this.

[Super XP]

This guy now posting on Newegg. I already found some of his posts on Amazon and other related sites.

ATInsider
10/25/2011 6:19:41 PM
Tech Level:
Ownership:

AMD FX - B3 Revision Q1 2012

Pros: AMD FX – Series B3 revision is more than just a basic stepping:
I have direct knowledge of a possible B3 revision for the AMD FX line of CPUs. I cannot disclose performance projections at this time, but be assured AMDs processor division is working vigorously on a (B3) stepping revision with minor architectural tweaks. The base architecture will not be changed at this time.

See Other thoughts below.

Cons: Slower than the Phenom II X6 CPUs in a Clock for clock review(s). B3 revision coming to resolve this issue among a few more.

Other Thoughts: Within the B3 stepping revision, expect minor tweaks to the following:
1) L1, L2 and L3 latencies
2) Cache Thrashing Issues
3) Modified Algorithms for Branch Prediction
4) Healthy Bump in Processor Frequency
5) Slight Frequency increase via NB Controller
6) “Total Intelligent Control” For example programs and applications should look at the module design approach and the ability for the processor to intelligently turn off and/or turn on specific cores that it believes is hindering performance for maximum performance. (May be for Socket FM2, not sure at this time).
7) Power will be improved but not my much. We will have to wait for Socket FM2 or a future B4 revision for the AM3+ platform for better power efficiency especially when Over-clocked.

[Super XP]

Here's another post by this guy.

ATInsider
10/14/2011 9:02:55 AM
Tech Level:
Ownership:

Innovation at it's MAX

Pros: AMD put a dump load of true Genuine Innovation within this brand new CPU design built from the ground up. I give AMD credit for taking a massive leap forward forcing themselves to innovate.

Personally Bulldozer is a marvel of success, but it's for the future because today's software won't fully utilize the new architecture unless developers start releasing patch fixes. That said, for what you are paying for it's a super deal and a half, and makes for a great gaming CPU along with heavy multi-tasking use.

Take my word for it, Bulldozer i.e.: AMD FX series is far from being a wash, it's innovation at it's best. Which is why I highly recommend them to everybody.....

Cons: Currently it outperforms the Phenom II is most benchmarks but not all of them. I don't blame AMD for all of this; I blame the software developers along with Windows 7. The OS is having a hard time trying to figure out what Bulldozer really is and is making a mess in how the CPU is actually suppose to work. Once Microsoft resolves this and releases an update you should theoretically see performance go through the roof.

That said, currently single threaded programs are not as fast with the AMD FX as they should, we are talking about a massive 8-core CPU designed for massive Multi-Tasking and such.

Other Thoughts: What NEXT?
With the fact that Piledriver (Bulldozer II / AMD FX2 within Q1 2012 based on Socket AM3+) is being released so soon I believe that AMD knew about Bulldozer's minor design issues (Branch Prediction, Pipeline Flushing, Cache Trashing, Decode unit not wide enough etc. which all need to be TWEAKED.) but instead counted on higher frequencies to make up until Piledriver (Bulldozer II - AMD FX2) could be released via Socket AM3+.

Anandtech's review also shows that cache latency is worse than Phenom II.

Both problems can be blamed on Global Foundry's poor 32nm process yields.

Cache latency can be increased and clock speeds lowered to get higher yields.

I think that AMD saw the problems that needed re-working but decided that clock speed would be enough to counter them for the time being but then a few months later they find that yields were too poor and had no choice but to launch as is.

AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz 8MB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cac...

[CDdude55]

He just sounds like a rabid fanboy, in his older post it seems he has no ties to AMD at all either. Ya we get it, blame GF, blame Windows 7, AMD is ''innovation to the max'' and nothing is their fault. More bullshit.

The chip is shit and i'm not looking for more anecdotal testimonies, just fix it.

[Winston_008]

Originally Posted by CDdude55

He just sounds like a rabid fanboy, in his older post it seems he has no ties to AMD at all either. Ya we get it, blame GF, blame Windows 7, AMD is ''innovation to the max'' and nothing is their fault. More bullshit.

.

Agreed. If amd was going to do what he claims, Amd themselves should publicly tell everyone, but then that would mean no one buys the current fx series lol. They really put themselves in a position there.

Just my opinion but what i think Amd should have done is to squeeze whatever last ipc perf tweaks possible out of the pII architecture, shrink it and make it 8 cores. As a stopgap before releasing the true fx cpus which will be piledriver.

[ensabrenoir]

Originally Posted by Super XP

Here's another post by this guy.
I blame the software developers along with Windows 7. The OS is having a hard time trying to figure out what Bulldozer really is and is making a mess in how the CPU is actually suppose to work

????? Your not alone windows 7....... your not alone.....

Geeez bd is what it is. Want one? Buy one and just enjoy it. Nothing else matters. Spend you money as you please. BD doesn't have to be the fastest, most powerful or ... most anything. Better is yet to come? Hoooray even better! But most importantly.Be happy with it. It would be cool if everyone could share in your happiness but if they don't...so what... just enjoy. No one have to prove to the rest of the world how great or fail bd is.

[Frick]

No offense <sarcasm> but when I want updates on how a new chip will perform the first place I look is the Newegg review fields. </sarcasm>