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

[seronx]

Originally Posted by erocker

Wrong. The architecture of the chip plus its IMC are the limiting factor with gaming performance, not the chipset.

False erocker

It's the chipset

You simply don't know what you are talking about anymore

Bulldozer has a faster architecture and a faster IMC than Sandy Bridge



Vishera has 4 64bit Memory Controllers meaning it will compete with Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E

[HillBeast]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Bulldozer is bull****. There is nothing that can be done to save it. The fact a hotfix is needed in the first place to give it on average a 2% increase in performance to make it match a CPU that is 4 years old from Intel is just a total failure.

Go back to Phenom AMD. It was a piece of crap but at least you didn't have to have a hotfix to unleash it's full power.

[seronx]

Originally Posted by HillBeast

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Bulldozer is bull****. There is nothing that can be done to save it. The fact a hotfix is needed in the first place to give it on average a 2% increase in performance to make it match a CPU that is 4 years old from Intel is just a total failure.

Go back to Phenom AMD. It was a piece of crap but at least you didn't have to have a hotfix to unleash it's full power.

You don't know what you are talking about...so

First Intel need Hotfixes to compete with AMD because there hyperthreading is worthless

AMD is getting Hotfixes to implement sequential threading

Core 0 -> Core 1 -> Core 2 and so on

[erocker]

What in the chipset is limiting gaming performance?



Let's see, the Northbridge controls the PCI-E bus. The chipset offers full bandwith PCI-E 2.0 x16. Nope, the issue isn't there.

Southbridge controls: Sata, USB, Audio, PCI. Nope, the issue isn't there either. It isn't the chipset in no way. Insult my intelligence again. Go ahead. Actually don't bother. You've been spouting BS since BD became newsworthy. I don't hold you in any regard and I certainly don't find you credible.

[seronx]

Originally Posted by erocker

What in the chipset is limiting gaming performance?

http://media.bestofmicro.com/990fx-s...-294069-13.jpg

Let's see, the Northbridge controls the PCI-E bus. The chipset offers full bandwith PCI-E 2.0 x16. Nope, the issue isn't there.

Southbridge controls: Sata, USB, Audio, PCI. Nope, the issue isn't there either. It isn't the chipset in no way. Insult my intelligence again. Go ahead.

BIOSes = Chipset problem

You are talking about stuff you don't know and failing hard

There is a reason C2012 and G2012 sockets are being made it's because the chipset is the bottleneck

[erocker]

Originally Posted by seronx

BIOSes = Chipset problem

You are talking about stuff you don't know and failing hard

Likewise, I'm positive.

[seronx]

Originally Posted by erocker

Likewise, I'm positive.

Rofl, Nice retort....

[trickson]

Originally Posted by seronx

You don't know what you are talking about...so

First Intel need Hotfixes to compete with AMD because there hyperthreading is worthless

AMD is getting Hotfixes to implement sequential threading

Core 0 -> Core 1 -> Core 2 and so on

Ok I think you need to rethink things here . I do not recall one Intel CPU that I have had that ever needed a HOT fix . You are talking out of you bum. Hyperthreading is not worthless it is on the Intel chips right NOW !

[trickson]

Originally Posted by erocker

Likewise, I'm positive.

Man good thing we are totally off topic here LOL !

[erocker]

Wonderful, now let's get back on it.

[seronx]

Originally Posted by trickson

Ok I think you need to rethink things here . I do not recall one Intel CPU that I have had that ever needed a HOT fix . You are talking out of you bum. Hyperthreading is not worthless it is on the Intel chips right NOW !

http://www.techpowerup.com/94464/Win...ng_Better.html

Understanding Limitations and Maximizing Performance

• While Intel HT Technology improves thread-level parallelism, the two logical processors in each physical processor core share most execution resources. The focus of this capability is to improve the efficiency of instruction scheduling, keeping the execution resources occupied, increasing instruction-level parallelism, and keeping execution units busy during microarchitectural stalls. The majority of applications show a significant increase in performance as a result. There are circumstances that can limit the Intel HT Technology benefit and in rare cases cause performance degradation. Examples include the following:
  
• Application Scaling: Intel HT Technology adds additional hardware threads to the system. Therefore, to take advantage of Intel HT Technology, an application must be able to launch additional threads in order to generate additional parallelism. Applications that do not scale well with Intel HT Technology disabled are more likely to exhibit performance issues when Intel HT Technology is enabled. The best solution in this case is to identify the scaling issues and address these first. An application that spends an increasing amount of time in critical resource handling (locks and synchronization) may overwhelm any Intel HT Technology improvement in CPI due to more instructions and contention in the pipeline. Other scaling issues may be due to utilization of all of a particular platform resource as addressed above. Specific limiters of performance scaling are discussed in detail below.
• Extremely high memory bandwidth applications. Intel HT Technology increases the demand placed on the memory subsystem when running two threads. If an application is capable of utilizing all the memory bandwidth with Intel HT Technology disabled, then the performance will not increase when Intel HT Technology is enabled. It is possible in some circumstances that performance will degrade, due to increased memory demands and/or data caching effects in these instances. The good news is that systems based on the Nehalem core with integrated memory controllers and Intel® QuickPath Interconnects greatly increase available memory bandwidth compared to older Intel CPUs with Intel HT technology. The result is that the number of applications that will experience a degradation using Intel HT Technology on the Nehalem core due to lack of memory bandwidth is greatly reduced.
• Extremely compute-efficient applications. If the processor's execution resources are already well utilized, then there is little to be gained by enabling Intel HT Technology. For instance, code that already can execute four instructions per cycle will not increase performance when running with Intel HT Technology enabled, as the process core can only execute a maximum of four instructions per cycle.
• Thread imbalance. The increased parallelism is only as useful as the degree of concurrency of the workload. If the work happens on only a few threads, then the increased hardware parallelism will provide little or no performance benefit. Intel® Software Development Products include tools to diagnose thread imbalance and improve concurrency.
• Parallellism bottlenecks. There are many parallelism barriers that can limit thread scaling, such as false sharing, too many locks/synchronization, small parallel region compared to serial region, etc. Some barriers such as the amount of work (and thus the amount of work per thread) may be difficult or impossible to change, but other barriers such as false sharing can be fixed.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/arti...ng-technology/

I have to search other forums for the actual hotfixes for Windows Vista and Windows 7 that prevents Blue Screens of Deaths on Valve games that use CEG
and Blue screens when Turbo Boost is enabled then disabled without a change in voltage

[trickson]

When the first HT processors were released it was difficult for some users to decide whether to enable it, because many of them were still using operating systems that were not optimized for hyper-threading technology (e.g. Windows 2000) Also, since most computers had previously had single-threaded processors, few programs were able to take advantage of the feature on their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

This is why the P4 had such a hard time and took a huge hit in performance . Now all that has changed .

Now get back on topic !

[qubit]

@seronx

Thanks for posting that HT info. I didn't know that much about how HT worked and I knew HT was a mixed blessing that could result in reduced performance sometimes, but I didn't know any details.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by erocker

What in the chipset is limiting gaming performance?

http://media.bestofmicro.com/990fx-s...-294069-13.jpg

Let's see, the Northbridge controls the PCI-E bus. The chipset offers full bandwith PCI-E 2.0 x16. Nope, the issue isn't there.

Southbridge controls: Sata, USB, Audio, PCI. Nope, the issue isn't there either. It isn't the chipset in no way. Insult my intelligence again. Go ahead. Actually don't bother. You've been spouting BS since BD became newsworthy. I don't hold you in any regard and I certainly don't find you credible.

There it is there !

[seronx]

Originally Posted by trickson

When the first HT processors were released it was difficult for some users to decide whether to enable it, because many of them were still using operating systems that were not optimized for hyper-threading technology (e.g. Windows 2000) Also, since most computers had previously had single-threaded processors, few programs were able to take advantage of the feature on their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

This is why the P4 had such a hard time and took a huge hit in performance . Now all that has changed .

Now get back on topic !

Well...okay It took Intel & Microsoft till Windows 7 to get Hyperthreading to perform pretty well

(There are still cases where Hyperthreading gets negative scaling)

AMD & Microsoft are already working on solutions to improve CMT(Windows 8 being the best and Windows 7 patches being the money saver so you don't have to buy Windows 8)





But the issue isn't really CMT any performance loss isn't actually the fault of the architecture but they will fix those problems that look like it is the architecture with the architectural fixes

And now why did I post these most used x86 instrustions well Vishera will got an IPC boost

LEA and CALL are already used in the AGLUs

But with Late Piledriver 20h-2Fh

(Trinity is 10h-1Fh
Bulldozer is 00h-0Fh)

AGLUs can then process MOV instructions which are 25-35% of all Integer IPC in most applications

BEXTR reg, reg, reg
MOV reg, reg
XADD reg, reg
XCHG reg32, reg32
XCHG reg64, reg64

^all the instructions that can be processed with the AGLUs with Vishera

Bulldozer is Win...
Bulldozer is CMT in my case
00h-0Fh is relatively unoptimized that is why it has 0s in its name it's the beginning(everything begins at zero)

If Orochi is your thing you should pay attention to

00h-0Fh(H2 2011) -> 20h-2Fh(H2 2012) -> 40h-4Fh(H2 2013) -> 60h-6Fh(H2 2014)

Zambezi -> Vishera/Komodo -> Steamroller -> Excavator

If Llano is your thing

10h-1Fh(H1 2012) -> 30h-3Fh(H1 2013) -> 50h-5Fh(H1 2014)

Trinity -> Kaveri -> Excavator

[trickson]

WOW this thread became an Intel thread fast !

[brandonwh64]

Just admit it seronx.... Bulldozer failed... Its ok, the first step to recovery is acceptance!

[seronx]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

Just admit it seronx.... Bulldozer failed... Its ok, the first step to recovery is acceptance!

Well February 2nd will prove everything

If Bulldozer is still in the roadmaps I am right if it isn't in the roadmaps I am wrong

But, I have a four out of five chance of being correct

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74...ventId=4203026

Regardless, Bulldozer has won

[trickson]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

Just admit it seronx.... Bulldozer failed... Its ok, the first step to recovery is acceptance!

LOL now this is more like it . I feel like I'm in AA meeting , For recovering AMDholics !

[seronx]

Originally Posted by trickson

LOL now this is more like it . I feel like I'm in AA meeting fore recovering AMD aholics !

Nope, he has an intel processor

AMDholics stick with AMD no matter what...

I stick with AMD and Nvidia...no matter what

Black and Green is the way to go!

[brandonwh64]

Originally Posted by seronx

Nope, he has an intel processor

AMDholics stick with AMD no matter what...

I stick with AMD and Nvidia...no matter what

Black and Green is the way to go!

I have used both and both have their benefits. I just prefer which ever is faster and affordable.

[seronx]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

I have used both and both have their benefits. I just prefer which ever is faster and affordable.

Which is AMD and Nvidia....

Cray pretty much tells you who is faster...

[brandonwh64]

Originally Posted by seronx

Which is AMD and Nvidia....

Cray pretty much tells you who is faster...

From any benchmarks I have seen, sandy bridge beats bulldozer and thuban in every gaming bench I have seen. Unless your talking AMD the GPU side then you must be mistaken.

[seronx]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

From any benchmarks I have seen, sandy bridge beats bulldozer and thuban in every gaming bench I have seen. Unless your talking AMD the GPU side then you must be mistaken.

http://www.cray.com/Home.aspx

No, I am talking about super computing

K15 is bred from a long heritage of super computers

[Damn_Smooth]

Originally Posted by seronx

Which is AMD and Nvidia....

Cray pretty much tells you who is faster...

Can I have some of what you're smoking? I don't know what it is, but it's obviously a pretty good departure from reality. I don't care about instruction sets, integers, clock speeds or anything. I care about what CPU drives games better. Can you find a game that is better serviced by BD? I'll wait here.