Friday, January 13th 2012

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

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
Add your own comment

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

#1
Dent1
Damn_Smooth said:
True, it can handle games fine, but price/performance against Intel in gaming is a sure loss for AMD.
Agreed, aside from mere upgrading from an existing AM3 socket, Bulldozer is far too expensive for new builds. They really need to shave the FX-8150 to $149 USD and it's price/performance would be unmatched IMO.

BTW as anyone got any news on the exact release date of the B3 stepping. They said early 2012 but that was in 2011 lol
Posted on Reply
#2
Damn_Smooth
Dent1 said:
Agreed, aside from mere upgrading from an existing AM3 socket, Bulldozer is far too expensive for new builds. They really need to shave the FX-8150 to $149 USD and it's price/performance would be unmatched IMO.

BTW as anyone got any news on the exact release date of the B3 stepping. They said early 2012 but that was in 2011 lol
I wish AMD thought like you, that price would be worth it. I haven't heard anything about the next stepping recently. I don't have too much faith that it will be much better though, BD kicked me in the nuts and made me lose a lot of faith in AMD's CPU division.
Posted on Reply
#3
Syborfical
AMD haven't made anything really decent since the Athlon 64. That was a pentium 4 killer.

Then the core came out and core2 duo. Phenom was okay but not a core2 killer...

I can't see AMD comming out with a Core I7 killer anytime soon.
Posted on Reply
#4
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
Syborfical said:
AMD haven't made anything really decent since the Athlon 64. That was a pentium 4 killer.

Then the core came out and core2 duo. Phenom was okay but not a core2 killer...

I can't see AMD comming out with a Core I7 killer anytime soon.
So really Bulldozer and this patch and every thing is all about AMD killing Intel ? And since it did not do this then what ? I think some of you are missing the point here .

The patch worked !
pantherx12 said:
I got a single core and dual core performance boost.

Nothing at 10% thus far but still a wee boost for free aint bad : ]

I wouldn't say it was no improvement due to that website only testing multi-core stuff.

The patch was designed to fix threads jumping from one core to another which should fix up turbocore and the second patch designed to stop processors going into sleep mode whilst a thread was active on them. ( Caused stuttering like effect in games)

That it comes with a lil boost as well is nothing but a good thing.
And this is what it all about . Not whether or not BD is the i7 killer with some patch . GOD some of these AMD fanboy are really disappointed that AMD did not come out with the Intel KILLER and still hold to some fantasy that a PATCH will some how be the merical they were waiting for ! And it is making them angry and they still live in some fantasy thinking AMD will come out with a new patch soon that will magically put the BD on top of the world ! HEY FANYBOYS WAKE THE FUCK UP !!! It is what it is Nothing will change this EVER !!!
Posted on Reply
#5
Dent1
Syborfical said:
AMD haven't made anything really decent since the Athlon 64. That was a pentium 4 killer.

Then the core came out and core2 duo. Phenom was okay but not a core2 killer...

I can't see AMD comming out with a Core I7 killer anytime soon.
Sempron was the Pentium 4 Killer. Half the price and as fast!
The Athlon X2 was a Pentium D Killer, and held its own against the original Conroe Core 2.

Allendale and Wolfdale Core 2 Duo is what officially killed off Athlon X2. AMD have been playing catchup in performance since.

Really comes down to "when" AMD want to release something killer. A killer CPU doesnt always translate into profit. I get the feeling AMD are focused on CPUs for portable devices, lowend, and midrange enthusiast market, and have encapsulated it as their marketing strategy. Less focus on raw performance will still bring profits, look how well the APUs are selling and Bulldozer is selling well despite our hatred for it. And to be fair 99% of us don't need all the raw performance i7 has anyways.
Posted on Reply
#6
Damn_Smooth
Dent1 said:
Sempron was the Pentium 4 Killer. Half the price and as fast!
The Athlon X2 was a Pentium D Killer, and held its own against the original Conroe Core 2.

Allendale and Wolfdale Core 2 Duo is what officially killed off Athlon X2. AMD have been playing catchup in performance since.

Really comes down to "when" AMD want to release something killer. A killer CPU doesnt always translate into profit. I get the feeling AMD are focused on finances and marketing strategy and less on raw performance. And to be fair 99% of us don't need all the raw performance i7 has anyways.
I completely agree with your post. Just because we don't need it doesn't mean we don't want it though. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#7
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
Posted on Reply
#8
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
What surprises me about threads like this is how much argument there can be over something that's really objective.

The performance parameters of all the CPUs, such processing speed, heat and power use can all be measured very precisely with benchmarks of one kind or another, therefore, why the hell do we get these flamewars?

So, for this news thread, it turns out that the Windows scheduling patch made next to no difference to the performance of Bulldozer. It's there, right in the benchmarks, so what's to argue about it?

No wonder trickson is banging his head! (It must really hurt now buddy. :p )
Posted on Reply
#9
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
qubit said:
What surprises me about threads like this is how much argument there can be over something that's really objective.

The performance parameters of all the CPUs, such processing speed, heat and power use can all be measured very precisely with benchmarks of one kind or another, therefore, why the hell do we get these flamewars?

So, for this news thread, it turns out that the Windows scheduling patch made next to no difference to the performance of Bulldozer. It's there, right in the benchmarks, so what's to argue about it?

No wonder trickson is banging his head! (It must really hurt now buddy. :p )
It does . WOW I need an aspirin !
Posted on Reply
#10
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
Qubit and Trickson are right! I was right ;) AMD need to ditch the BS oops the BD and start over... ppl just need to accept the BD is and always will be a flop unless they pull out the magic wand and design a proper cpu with the correct amount of transistors ;)

~that's all~
Posted on Reply
#11
crazyeyesreaper
Chief Broken Rig
seronx said:
I'm just repaying BeepBeep because I had to go through his awful factoids about what he thinks Bulldozer is

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?277474-NaySa...BeepBeep-s-FX-8150-has-arrived!-Box-photos...

*holds it in*




The Sandy Bridge processor isn't using 1866MHz RAM 20GB/s-24GB/s is impossible on Dual Channel unless you use 2400+ MHz Ram
really 20-24gb/s is impossible

i call bullshit 2400mhz + is utter bullshit for getting 20-24gb i can get over 20 stock with my ram at 1866 but for reference heres a boat load of evidence saying your full of shit

all dual channel all over 20gb a second








oh whats this 1600mhz and it broke 20GB/s


and honestly who gives a rats ass if its NOT SiSoft

SiSoft / Maxxmem / Aida 64 tend to give similar readouts on memory bandwidth usually within 200MB/s
Posted on Reply
#12
erocker
qubit said:
What surprises me about threads like this is how much argument there can be over something that's really objective.

The performance parameters of all the CPUs, such processing speed, heat and power use can all be measured very precisely with benchmarks of one kind or another, therefore, why the hell do we get these flamewars?

So, for this news thread, it turns out that the Windows scheduling patch made next to no difference to the performance of Bulldozer. It's there, right in the benchmarks, so what's to argue about it?

No wonder trickson is banging his head! (It must really hurt now buddy. :p )
You mean "BD is fail" and "insert gif/meme here"? It's tiresome at best. I don't know why some think that Bulldozer threads are their personal playground. The world knows about bulldozer. We don't need to hear that it is fail in every other post. Some people just need to get over themselves.

I don't mind the adult, intelligent conversation/arguments but some of the other things need to stop. Especially the childish behavior by grown adults.
Posted on Reply
#13
crazyeyesreaper
Chief Broken Rig
just for laughs


default ram settings and timings oops i broke 20GB/s and then some and at
Posted on Reply
#14
MarcusTaz
air_ii said:
While BD may not be what everyone wanted it to be, maybe further iterations of the architecture will bring improvements. Maybe there is a potential in the architecture. Look what became of R600 -> RV770.
very very true. :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#15
Steevo
My turbo core works well thank you very much. I run 4 cores at a maximum so far of 4.3Ghz when I feel the need.
Posted on Reply
#16
xenocide
Well Qubit, the reason people get so out of control, is because there is always someone who comes in and quotes technical papers and posts pretty charts that explain exactly why in theory Product A is superior to Product B. What they refuse to then acknowledge, is that the only thing that matters is real world results. I remeber reading tons of slides and articles about why Netburst was better than the competition, but it didn't matter because the CPU's were just underwhelming.

On paper BD should be an excellent CPU, and in heavily threaded applications, it really does spread its wings, but for most real world use, Sandy Bridge tends to be the better value. It doesn't matter that BD gets a higher score in ObscureMark 2013, or that when you overclock every element of your system it is faster, what matters is that when you pop in a new i5-2500k or i7-2600k, and compare it side-by-side to an FX-8150, it offers better performance.

I remember reading dozens of people on here talking about how this scheduler fix would change everything, upwards of "a 10% performance increase", on par for SB across the board. Now that it's out, it's exactly what most people expected, minor changes but no huge performance gains. And now the word on the forums is that it won't REALLY be great until Pile Driver, 20-30% performance increase (according to AMD of course), better than SB in everything...

Just stop it. The fact is SB beats BD in most applications, and the i5-2500k is still the best PricePerformance CPU there is.
Posted on Reply
#17
TheLaughingMan
Well Qubit, the reason people get so out of control is people make comments like the one Xenocide just did. Discounting relevance on the thread and finding a way to somehow segway their personal opinions in with enough facts to make themselves seem smarter than everyone else because their particular choice in product brand name. When the plain and simple truth of the matter is, both product A and product B have their strengths and weaknesses.

While I fault Xenocide for this, I fault myself and most people that comment after such a statement because they refuse to compromise their position no matter how full of $%&* it may be. Once the proverbial line has been drawn, no comment no matter how factual and no matter how much evidence one way or the other is present, we are left with an argument.

The primary issue fanboys of product A and product B are always both wrong and right depending on which tests you compare. While the term "real world results" is thrown around like free condoms at a orgy, no one is every willing to compromise because the Internet provides a world with no accountability. No matter how stupid the argument, no matter how pointless the "evidence", we will all forget what happened in this thread by tomorrow.

As there is no reason to hold back, admit when you are wrong, or agree to disagree, everyone continues until moderators either threaten everyone or take a side thus derailing the argument in general. Then we are left with those like myself make pointless "after the fact" comments to either troll, get the argument going again, or getting one person like Seronx to just be quiet. Shame on me.

Xenocide I do apologize for using you as the example above, but your comment was close by.

Seronx, no love lost, no love found. (Translation: I will not apologize cause you don't deserve it).
Posted on Reply
#18
option350z
Any sort of improvement is still improvement. Even if its .01%. Granted it's not a lot but every little bit helps. Whether it will be noticeable or not, it is not likely. Besides to each his own..It doesn't matter how fast your processor is. If you suck in games, you still suck. On Topic again, it is nice that MS finally was able to roll out this hotfix. Even though I'm still curious to see how windows 8 will handle BD.
Posted on Reply
#19
BeepBeep2
The scheduler fix was only going to help so much, and the website listed that did the testing didn't even test what it was supposed to do and its WinRAR results are FUBAR.

It gives a nice 2-5% boost at 1-4 threads, and the benefit is still seen up to about 6 threads as 2 threads are given their own Compute Unit in such case. Why people are looking at 8 thread performance boost with a thread scheduler update is beyond me.

seronx has taken the extra step to say some not-so-nice things to me in PM while I was being reasonable with him. Something along the lines of "you're a #&%k*$g r#$&^d". I doubt we will see him around much longer.
Posted on Reply
#20
Mussels
Moderprator
BeepBeep2 said:
The scheduler fix was only going to help so much, and the website listed that did the testing didn't even test what it was supposed to do and its WinRAR results are FUBAR.

It gives a nice 2-5% boost at 1-4 threads, and the benefit is still seen up to about 6 threads as 2 threads are given their own Compute Unit in such case. Why people are looking at 8 thread performance boost with a thread scheduler update is beyond me.

seronx has taken the extra step to say some not-so-nice things to me in PM while I was being reasonable with him. Something along the lines of "you're a #&%k*$g r#$&^d". I doubt we will see him around much longer.
report the PM. super mods/admins will then be able to see it.
Posted on Reply
#21
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
BeepBeep2 said:
seronx has taken the extra step to say some not-so-nice things to me in PM while I was being reasonable with him. Something along the lines of "you're a #&%k*$g r#$&^d". I doubt we will see him around much longer.
Sounds like a mad fanboy. :shadedshu No one should treat people in that manner.
Posted on Reply
#22
crazyeyesreaper
Chief Broken Rig
really? i find it hilarious only because if its true and it gets reported there will be another person joining the banstick dummies club
Posted on Reply
#23
Super XP
Damn_Smooth said:
True, it can handle games fine, but price/performance against Intel in gaming is a sure loss for AMD.
I agree the FX 8150 needs to come down in price, but the FX 8120 is priced well for $199.

I'll be installing the patches later on today.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment