From what I've seen, it does. I'm ordering an FX-8120 from newegg this week
Quick question, compared to the Sandy Bridge CPUs does the Bulldozer perform less because there are no programs or benchmarks that couldn't utilize the 8 cores?
Other way around, is a program that needs assuming 8 cores is test on both Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge then will Bulldozer perform higher?
As for single-threaded performance, Bulldozer is very weak. In some cases it is weaker than Phenom II, despite the clock speed advantage of Bulldozer
I wonder why its performance is poor on single-threaded
From what I've seen, it does. I'm ordering an FX-8120 from newegg this week
I see.... are you running Windows 8 or Linux on any partition? If so, then it would be really interesting to see a single-thread WPrime benchmark (if it exists, I've never tried WPrime) on an OS that can utilize Bulldozer well. Or, better yet, a quad-thread WPrime benchmark.FX doesn't natively support x87 is why SuperPi results suck, though I will happily do wprime
I've heard that AMD and Microsoft are talking about who will provide the patch. If it will be a microsoft patch or a new AMD processor driver. Wish they would make up there mind and just get it out. Windows just doesnt know what to do with a module. The pisser about it, this should have been took care of long before the release.
It should have been done, yeah. I guess they couldn't really delay release any more though...
Still, nice to know that when I order mine the driver/fix could be out already.
Slightly off topic: Did you know that Phenom II CPU's and windows vista/7 still have the TLB bug fix enabled by default, even when the Phenom II doesn't have the bug? I disabled it with a little program... I tested with wprime before and after and I got a lower time
I see a lot of finger pointing and questioning...
Here is my current understanding:
In the past we have seen CPU drivers for windows (mostly XP, and mostly AMD.) This is NOT what is occurring here, its not some weird issue with the processor causing it (although it kind of is)
What is happening is this: The FX 8xxx series of processors has 4 cores, each core with TWO integer pipelines, effectively granting two processor cores for the price of one. (not "hyperthreading" effective, but almost literally additional core effective.)
This is all fine and dandy, except that when Windows (or Linux) goes to issue work to a core in the processor, it picks the core with the least load, and distributes things using a task scheduler. The problem here is that when a single pipeline on a bulldozer core is being utilized both cores are effectively "in use" even though Task Manager sees the cores appropriately, the task scheduler does not. This isn't really anybody's fault, but rather an oversight.
Standard CPU design from a by-the-book standpoint would never add a second integer pipeline to a single core. So nobody ever really thought to code a task scheduler that worked in that situation. So basically, AMD thought outside the box, and Windows got confused.
Oh not to mention that if the scheduler tries to run non-integer work on one of the integer only threads, the CPU returns an error and the command is re-queued and has to sit in line waiting to be executed again. Basically its a scheduler issue, and could definitely cause some HUGE impact in synthetic benchmarks and normal use. And even more issues in a cluttered server environment.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Is the FX8150 the maximum processor that they are coming out with? I thought they were going to have a higher one?
If this is true, looks like i will be buying it sooner than what i thought
My understanding is that BD has 8 INT and 8 128bit FP cores (I.e. 1 of each for each core). Does this mean 16 max instructions at once?
Each module however has 4 256bit FP cores.
So if you are using all 4 256bit cores then maximum instructions is 12.
Therefore BD should be able to run between min 12 and max 16 instructions per cycle.
I bet windows is only running max 8 and not correctly with all the other CACHE associated issues.
So 40% could very well be plausible.
What ya think?