1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Bulldozer Threading Hotfix Pulled

Discussion in 'News' started by qubit, Dec 17, 2011.

  1. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    But this in not the case pall . It seems like BD is not doing so well in the first place and if YOU need a HOT FIX then just how good is that CPU to start with ? I have never seen one HOT FIX for Intel CPU's ! Why is it AMD needs a driver so windows will schedule ? I just do not get it .
     
    1c3d0g says thanks.
  2. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,436 (0.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    AMD fucked up. What's not to get? I don't get why this is bothering you so bad, it's not like it's effecting you in any way.
     
  3. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    Sure it does . It is like this one person said an I will Quote them .

     
  4. JustaTinkerer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2011
    Messages:
    272 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    71
    Location:
    Scotland
    LOL, I care little for my analogies, I was making fun reading.
    As the joker would say "why so serious".

    Let me tell you how it is.
    Intel dont need help.....you getting that?
    AMD didnt really need it until windows 7 scheduling.

    And I quote

    "Windows 7 doesn’t understand Bulldozer’s resource allocation very well. Windows 7 “sees” eight independent CPU cores, despite the fact that each module shares scheduling and execution resources."
    You starting to see the problem?
     
  5. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    Yes I see the problem . AMD . :cry::cry:
     
  6. blibba

    blibba

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    834 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    It's not that AMD are getting help and Intel aren't.

    It's that Windows 7 currently knows perfectly well how to use Intel CPUs, but doesn't know how to use Bulldozer CPUs. It can end up sending two threads to the same module when other modules are available, resulting in performance drops most noticeable in software optimised for dual core CPUs.
     
  7. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,436 (0.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    So how does that effect you? Did you buy the chip? All of the magic in the world isn't going to change BD in to an SB killer, but if it makes the chip run the way it's supposed to, I see no reason why you care.

    You are basically bitching because Intel didn't fuck up.
     
  8. JustaTinkerer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2011
    Messages:
    272 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    71
    Location:
    Scotland
    On the money but dont bite like me, hes trolling for a argument.

    I need to stop before I get in to it......run blibba.... run
     
  9. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    Here is the real problem as I see it . AMD released the chip they must have known this well maybe not as they did not know how many transistors were on the blood thing to start with . AMD is at fault here NOT Microsoft so how is it there problem ? I just think AMD should be giving fully tested fully functioning chips from the start ! Not some thing like they have been giving for the last 5 years . Hot fix this hot fix that . Bug this bug that . It makes me wonder about the quality of there product as a consumer why would I want some POS that needs so much just to work ?
     
    1c3d0g says thanks.
  10. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    Thing is I wanted TO ! I wanted this chip ! Yes I got a MB now for it but what use is that if this chip sucks so much ?
     
  11. JustaTinkerer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2011
    Messages:
    272 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    71
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ah now anger at projected results I understand. Not AMDs fault you bought the board.
     
  12. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,436 (0.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    I have a board for it too. It still runs the Phenoms fine. Who knows? Maybe PD will come out and be the best thing since sliced bread. I highly doubt it and I will have moved on to Ivy by then, but you never can tell. Besides, you bought the board on your own just like I did, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
     
  13. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    Yeah since when should AMD think of the consumer . Well I am done with AMD and with this thread as I see it AMD did do this they are to blame . ;) Have a nice day .
     
  14. TRWOV

    TRWOV

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,058 (2.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,742
    Location:
    Mexico
    Intel's HT and Athlon X2 received a hotfix too back when they were new, if I recall correctly.
     
    JustaTinkerer says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  15. linoliveira

    linoliveira

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    126 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Location:
    Portugal
    All i see here is hate... cmon... srly guys? It's just an hotfix, not the end of the world.

    Intel fanboys playing the victim game and saying shit here and there... srly? LOL! Buldozer will not outperform your chip, and W7 is optimized for SMT (intel design), so i don't see the point.
    All i see in this news post is a benefict for AMD owners that MS will be releasing for W7 (wich all of us should be happy, not bashing each other)

    Every new tech needs adoption, if no one ever optimizes things for new tech, we would still have single threaded apps and single-core CPU's worth a shit. Windows is optimized for SMT and now Buldozer brings up CMT, i don't see why not optimize it if they can.
     
    JustaTinkerer says thanks.
  16. lashton New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    63 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    m,y phenom II X4 kicks a 17-2600K rig in BF3 and thats all i play sop CPU means dick shit in games!
     
  17. xenocide

    xenocide

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,161 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    469
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    Do you know why this is? Because Modules = CORES. AMD is marketting their CPU's deceptively. The reason Windows 7 sees each Modules as 2 seperate cores, is because that's how AMD wanted it. It's not Microsoft's fault AMD made a CPU that was poorly optimized. Intel CPU's don't accidentally send multiple threads through each core when HTing is present to my knowledge.

    The shared resource design is fundamentally flawed. If BD is allowed to be marketted as an 8-Core CPU, then the i7-2600k should be as well.

    Not sure about HTing, but I know the Athlon X2's had a Hot Fix from AMD because the chips internal schedulers were setup incorrectly for Windows. Basically since that was on a hardware level, the aptch reconfigured Windows to read the threads differently.

    Wow, I'm sold. Wait... no... that's retarded. If you are comparing a Phenom II X4 with a GTX580 to a i7-2600k with a 520GT, of course you're going to see the Penom II X4 perform better, with equal graphics cards, the i7 will beat the Phenom II pretty handily. And saying the CPU "means dick shit in games" proves that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
     
  18. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,325 (0.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    252
    oh wait....no never mind....its still a Delorean..

    :roll:
    :roll:
    :roll:
    I read these bulldozer threads for the sheer comedy.... However do understand the frustration/hope of those who bought the chip. Sad part is they'll probably get it optimized 2 days before piledrivers launch. :banghead:
     
  19. seronx

    seronx

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    994 (0.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    219
    Location:
    USA, Arizona
    Hmmmm, I'll just post this every time people do "that."
     
  20. Iciclebar New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    15 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    I know you guys like to get all riled up and say how its never happened and amd this and intel that and so on and so forth.

    To be honest it happens every time someone changes something in a way not expected. Sometimes it just needs software changes. Look at the Pentium 3 and the Pentium 4. When the p4 came out it performed more slowly than the p3 in most workloads unless you made use of SSE2 instructions. Once you did it flattened it. The p3-S 1.4 chip outperformed the p4 at some workloads until the p4 reached almost 2 ghz. This is an example of the software being "patched" or "coded to take advantage of the strengths of an architecture".

    With HT there were issues when it first came out. The system would assign high priority threads to the logical core and the chip would stall out the logical core when it should have been running that thread. The system would sit in a "Waiting" period, sometimes for an actual noticeable amount of times if you had a poorly written .net program where the UI is tied into execution code or something of that nature, when this happened you could actually tell the program locked up momentarily. The patch helped aleviate this problem.

    Athlon x2 had issues. A bigger issue was the first phenom TLB bug, this had fixes but the performance suffered. Phenom also had issues with the independant core clocking feature. Vista was pushing priority threads onto cores that had clocked down to 200mhz. There was a noticeable lag when you had to clock the cores up to full speed on a system critical thread.

    TLDR
    Change can be good but it also causes issues. If Windows is updated to the point where it can properly address bulldozers cores then this method is available to not only AMD but intel is well if they want to split cores down the middle instead of the 70/30 or 80/20 split hyper threading has now. This also paves the way for an OS aware of specialized cores. Lets say Intel or AMD actually wants to offload general computing functions to the GPU sections of their chips and the OS can do it automatically instead of having to need code compiled to do it in the first place?
     
  21. xenocide

    xenocide

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,161 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    469
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    By most definitions they are independent cores, but they don't behave like them. The fact is AMD has bashed Intel in the past for using the term when they didn't think it was 100% accurate, so I reserve the right to do the same. You can swear up and down that BD is an 8-Core CPU, but it seems to take a per-thread performance hit from the shared resource design, just as HTing in Intel CPU's causes a per-thread performance hit.
     
  22. Iciclebar New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    15 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    AMD's "cores" are much closer to a complete cpu core than a hyperthreaded core is. Sure if it walks like a duck quacks like a duck and so on...

    Hyperthreading was designed to maximize cpu usage by always being able to feed the execution units. Instead of waiting to fully load up a new thread. Being able to switch immediately has its advantages. In the end however its a technology designed to feed a single "core". This is why I would consider SB i7 a quad instead of an 8 core chip.

    In AMD's case its more like 2 cores joined at the hip, they share some resources but in actuality have 2 complete functioning pipelines and are able to complete certain operations without accessing the other "core". In intel's design unless theyve changed it recently you cant process the logical thread directly.

    If Intel and AMD were monsters Intel would be a guy with 4 arms. AMD would be a guy with 4 arms, 2 heads and 1 head is disagreeing with the other one about what they should be holding onto.
     
  23. seronx

    seronx

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    994 (0.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    219
    Location:
    USA, Arizona
    They do behave like two individual cores.

    Not related...

    Performance doesn't equal Core Amount

    CPU A:
    1 control unit, 512bit instruction bus, 512bit data bus, 512bit (integer) datapath with a 1024bit FPU on die in the core space
    CPU B:
    8 control units, 8 64bit instruction buses, 8 64bit data buses, 8 64bit integer data paths each of the 8 cores has one 128bit FPU on die in eight of the core spaces

    In a well optimized benchmark for CPU A and CPU B..(It is SMP ready and CMP ready)
    CPU A scores 1,000 pts
    CPU B scores 1,000 pts

    Following your definition of what a core is
    CPU A is an eight core and CPU B is a single core
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2011
  24. JustaTinkerer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2011
    Messages:
    272 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    71
    Location:
    Scotland
    2 cores (modules) sharing a single scheduler is the problem, the scheduler in windows 7 doesn't see it this way.

    it see's HT'ing fine but cant see two SMT threads (in which each thread shares most of the hardware resources with the other thread).
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2011
  25. seronx

    seronx

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    994 (0.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    219
    Location:
    USA, Arizona
    I don't see where a single scheduler is being shared in relation to the cores....

    [​IMG]
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page