Page 14 of 30 FirstFirst ... 41112131415161724 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 733

Thread: AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer finally tested

  1. #326
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Ayia Napa, Cyprus
    Posts
    1,354
    Quote Originally Posted by looncraz View Post
    Actually, we already have such an issue known for Bulldozer, and NO bench-marked system has the patch installed!

    The shared L1 cache is causing cross invalidations across threads so that the prefetch data is incorrect in too many cases and data must be fetched again. The fix is a "simple" memory alignment and (possible)tagging system in the kernel of Windows/Linux.

    I reviewed the code for the Linux patch and was astonished by just how little I know of the Linux kernel... lol! In any event, it could easily cost 10% in terms of single threaded performance, possibly more than double that in multi-threaded loads on the same module due to the increased contention and randomness of accesses.

    Not sure if ordained reviewers have been given access to the MS patch, but I'd imagine (and hope) so! Last I saw, the Linux kernel patch was still being worked on by AMD (publicly) and Linus was showing some distaste for the method used to address the issue. One comment questioned the performance cost but had received no replies... but you don't go re-working kernel memory mapping for anything less than 5-10%... just not worth it!
    Thanks for this great post!

    There is some light!

    So, maybe we will see a 20% improvement across the board in a couple of months time.

    Excited again

    Seasonic Prime TX-850 Platinum | MSI X570 MEG Unify | Ryzen 5 5800X 2048SUS, TechN AM4 1/2" ID
    32GB Viper Steel 4400, EK Monarch @3733/1866, 1.64v - 13-14-14-14-28-42-224-16-1T-56-0-0
    WD SN850 1TB | Zotac Twin Edge 3070 @2055/1905, Alphacool Eisblock
    2 x Aquacomputer D5 | Eisbecher Helix 250
    EK-CoolStream XE 360 | Thermochill PA120.3 | 6 x Arctic P12

  2. #327
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    France - Bx
    Posts
    2,601
    Good to see that there's some light in the lavatory pan !

    Somebody seen rintamarootta, 2good4you or even JF

  3. #328
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by Olivon View Post
    Good to see that there's some light in the lavatory pan !

    Somebody seen rintamarootta, 2good4you or even JF
    no, not in Singapore.

  4. #329
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo75 View Post
    Yes it would tell you how the chip handles gaming at settings you'll never play it.

    In these 6 tests the BD cpu averaged 130 fps with AA. The i7 averaged 131.5 fps with AA.

    Answer me this - if that BD chip was $50 would you even consider buying anything else for gaming? What about $100? How much is that 1.5 extra fps worth? This is the reality of enthusiast gaming, not ridiculous 600x480 resolutions.
    You would think people on enthusiast forum should know that fast CPU is essential for gaming in 2011:

    http://www.techspot.com/review/405-t...nce/page8.html
    http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,7...efit/Practice/
    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...rcraft-2-use/2
    http://www.techspot.com/review/312-m...nce/page8.html

    PS. 50-100$ seems like a reasonable price for AMD offering.

  5. #330
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    9,060
    Quote Originally Posted by looncraz View Post
    Actually, we already have such an issue known for Bulldozer, and NO bench-marked system has the patch installed!

    The shared L1 cache is causing cross invalidations across threads so that the prefetch data is incorrect in too many cases and data must be fetched again. The fix is a "simple" memory alignment and (possible)tagging system in the kernel of Windows/Linux.

    I reviewed the code for the Linux patch and was astonished by just how little I know of the Linux kernel... lol! In any event, it could easily cost 10% in terms of single threaded performance, possibly more than double that in multi-threaded loads on the same module due to the increased contention and randomness of accesses.

    Not sure if ordained reviewers have been given access to the MS patch, but I'd imagine (and hope) so! Last I saw, the Linux kernel patch was still being worked on by AMD (publicly) and Linus was showing some distaste for the method used to address the issue. One comment questioned the performance cost but had received no replies... but you don't go re-working kernel memory mapping for anything less than 5-10%... just not worth it!
    Very interesting.
    I suppose applications would not need any extra optimisations to benefit from this, then?
    And if this is all true and this Windows patch is not ready then the launch will be a disaster. They should have waited some more.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  6. #331
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,116
    Quote Originally Posted by looncraz View Post
    Actually, we already have such an issue known for Bulldozer, and NO bench-marked system has the patch installed!

    The shared L1 cache is causing cross invalidations across threads so that the prefetch data is incorrect in too many cases and data must be fetched again. The fix is a "simple" memory alignment and (possible)tagging system in the kernel of Windows/Linux.

    I reviewed the code for the Linux patch and was astonished by just how little I know of the Linux kernel... lol! In any event, it could easily cost 10% in terms of single threaded performance, possibly more than double that in multi-threaded loads on the same module due to the increased contention and randomness of accesses.

    Not sure if ordained reviewers have been given access to the MS patch, but I'd imagine (and hope) so! Last I saw, the Linux kernel patch was still being worked on by AMD (publicly) and Linus was showing some distaste for the method used to address the issue. One comment questioned the performance cost but had received no replies... but you don't go re-working kernel memory mapping for anything less than 5-10%... just not worth it!
    link to these discussions? I don't see anything about bulldozer on lwn.net or lkml.org
    Last edited by bamtan2; 10-10-2011 at 12:21 AM.

  7. #332
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    France - Bx
    Posts
    2,601



  8. #333
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    139
    isn't this already known? and i thought they talked about 3% performance.. Seems to be about the same 'issue'.

  9. #334
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,116
    ^^power usage (dont care)

  10. #335
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    353

    Lightbulb

    Power usage is very important. My rig at IDLE is draining 87,5W yet at load I can use extreme CPU performance. This is how modern CPU should act.
    i5 2500K (L041C124) @ 5GHz + Scythe Mugen 2 rev. B | ASRock P67 Extreme4 B3 UEFI L3.19 | ADATA 2x4GB DDR3 1600 | MSI Radeon RX 470 4GB | 2x Crucial m4 64GB SSD RAID 0, Seagate 7200.12 500GB, Samsung F4 EG 2TB | 24" HP LP2475w | EVGA SuperNOVA G2 750W | Fractal Design Define R3 | Windows 10 64 bit

  11. #336
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Michaelius View Post
    You would think people on enthusiast forum should know that fast CPU is essential for gaming in 2011:

    http://www.techspot.com/review/405-t...nce/page8.html
    http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,7...efit/Practice/
    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...rcraft-2-use/2
    http://www.techspot.com/review/312-m...nce/page8.html

    PS. 50-100$ seems like a reasonable price for AMD offering.
    Starcraft 2 - First link shows the Phenom II scoring 26.7 fps at 1024x768, no AA/AF, clicking on the 2nd resolution shows 26.1 fps at 1920x1080, 4xAA/16AF. What would you play at? Oh incidentally, that puts it 0.6 fps behind it's main competition, the i5-750.

    Mafia II - An i7 920 and i5 750 with a massive 60% overclock beats a stock 965 by 12%. 4% normally. This is supposed to be what, a major victory?

    You didn't really look very hard at the majority of those links, did you? Only Witcher 2 shows the Phenom's in a bad light, being 44% faster than the next-gen SB and 20% slower than the real competition. Congratulations, you finally got a game where the cpu could actually be said to matter at gaming settings, 2 and a half years after the "slow" cpu was released.
    Last edited by jimbo75; 10-10-2011 at 01:22 AM.

  12. #337
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    川崎市
    Posts
    2,076
    Quote Originally Posted by bamtan2 View Post
    ^^power usage (dont care)
    There is a place called Europe, where electricity is extremely expensive. Power consumption is the only reason in the near future for me to throw out my i7 920 and get something else, SB-E is out of the question as it sucks just as much power, Sandy Bridge is not enough extra performance and Bulldozer? well, if you believe the numbers then it sucks just as much power as a 6 Core Phenom / any S1366 Cpu but the performance is only a improvement if you compare it to something ancient like a Phenom II x4 or a C2Q... which is why I have a hard time believing the numbers, I mean surely AMD would not be so dumb to release it's new Cpu with a performance that can only compete with its own Phenom II x4? just doesn't make sense especially as the price suggests its a Phenom II x6 successor, but unfortunately for AMD lab501 is one of the more reliable sites out there.
    Last edited by naokaji; 10-10-2011 at 01:38 AM.

  13. #338
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by bamtan2 View Post
    link to these discussions? I don't see anything about bulldozer on lwn.net or lkml.org
    this maybe? http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1170214

    more: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-t.../msg13140.html
    Last edited by gosh; 10-10-2011 at 01:49 AM.

  14. #339
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,586
    Out of curiosity, what's the performance impact if the workaround is
    not enabled?

    Up to 3% for a CPU-intensive style benchmark, and it can vary highly in
    a microbenchmark depending on workload and compiler
    this might be the ummm....


  15. #340
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    519
    It seems to me that AMD just expected Bulldozer to clock higher.. If there was any significant penalty in OS kernel, AMD would be crazy not to have managed it long before the CPUs hit the shelves.
    2x Dual E5 2670, 32 GB, Transcend SSD 256 GB, 2xSeagate Constellation ES 2TB, 1KW PSU
    HP Envy 17" - i7 2630 QM, HD6850, 8 GB.
    i7 3770, GF 650, 8 GB, Transcend SSD 256 GB, 6x3 TB. 850W PSU

  16. #341
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    235
    power usage on the FX8150 is just horrible
    ...i dont see how big companies that have many servers running 24/7 will buy the FX...AMD are shooting themselves in the foot big time now--->bad power usage,bad computing power
    ---
    ---
    "Generally speaking, CMOS power consumption is the result of charging and discharging gate capacitors. The charge required to fully charge the gate grows with the voltage; charge times frequency is current. Voltage times current is power. So, as you raise the voltage, the current consumption grows linearly, and the power consumption quadratically, at a fixed frequency. Once you reach the frequency limit of the chip without raising the voltage, further frequency increases are normally proportional to voltage. In other words, once you have to start raising the voltage, power consumption tends to rise with the cube of frequency."
    +++
    1st
    CPU - 2600K(4.4ghz)/Mobo - AsusEvo/RAM - 8GB1866mhz/Cooler - VX/Gfx - Radeon 6950/PSU - EnermaxModu87+700W
    +++
    2nd
    TRUltra-120Xtreme /// EnermaxModu82+(625w) /// abitIP35pro/// YorkfieldQ9650-->3906mhz(1.28V) /// 640AAKS & samsung F1 1T &samsung F1640gb&F1 RAID 1T /// 4gigs of RAM-->520mhz /// radeon 4850(700mhz)-->TRHR-03 GT
    ++++
    3rd
    Windsor4200(11x246-->2706mhz-->1.52v) : Zalman9500 : M2N32-SLI Deluxe : 2GB ddr2 SuperTalent-->451mhz : seagate 7200.10 320GB :7900GT(530/700) : Tagan530w

  17. #342
    Xtreme Addict Chrono Detector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,142
    What, so it consumes higher power and isn't really that much powerful? And what I can see that it can't even keep up with 1100T in some benchmarks which is embarrassing. Bulldozer looks less appealing now.
    AMD Threadripper 12 core 1920x CPU OC at 4Ghz | ASUS ROG Zenith Extreme X399 motherboard | 32GB G.Skill Trident RGB 3200Mhz DDR4 RAM | Gigabyte 11GB GTX 1080 Ti Aorus Xtreme GPU | SilverStone Strider Platinum 1000W Power Supply | Crucial 1050GB MX300 SSD | 4TB Western Digital HDD | 60" Samsung JU7000 4K UHD TV at 3840x2160

  18. #343
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by looncraz View Post
    Actually, we already have such an issue known for Bulldozer, and NO bench-marked system has the patch installed!

    The shared L1 cache is causing cross invalidations across threads so that the prefetch data is incorrect in too many cases and data must be fetched again. The fix is a "simple" memory alignment and (possible)tagging system in the kernel of Windows/Linux.

    I reviewed the code for the Linux patch and was astonished by just how little I know of the Linux kernel... lol! In any event, it could easily cost 10% in terms of single threaded performance, possibly more than double that in multi-threaded loads on the same module due to the increased contention and randomness of accesses.

    Not sure if ordained reviewers have been given access to the MS patch, but I'd imagine (and hope) so! Last I saw, the Linux kernel patch was still being worked on by AMD (publicly) and Linus was showing some distaste for the method used to address the issue. One comment questioned the performance cost but had received no replies... but you don't go re-working kernel memory mapping for anything less than 5-10%... just not worth it!
    I guess we can expect the same issue on interlagos? That kind of glitch would seem pretty important in terms of a datacenter environment... kvm / vmware is pretty much all multi.
    " Business is Binary, your either a 1 or a 0, alive or dead." - Gary Winston ^^



    Asus rampage III formula,i7 980xm, H70, Silverstone Ft02, Gigabyte Windforce 580 GTX SLI, Corsair AX1200, intel x-25m 160gb, 2 x OCZ vertex 2 180gb, hp zr30w, 12gb corsair vengeance

    Rig 2
    i7 980x ,h70, Antec Lanboy Air, Samsung md230x3 ,Saphhire 6970 Xfired, Antec ax1200w, x-25m 160gb, 2 x OCZ vertex 2 180gb,12gb Corsair Vengence MSI Big Bang Xpower

  19. #344
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    235

    So there really are some performance problems they try to solve.

    But these fixes are coming too late. (too small too?) First impression is the thing that matters and bd seems crap at launch
    Plus can these things be fixed in Windows?

  20. #345
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by god_43 View Post
    ...lol wtf how did your comment end up quoted before you made it? who here is versed in temporal mechanics?
    hahaha, he used a Bulldozer. Thats why his post came before my
    Computer 1: AMD Vishera FX-8350 - Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z (AM3+) - Zotac GF 560Ti 448 Core - 8GB (2x4GB) G.Skill TridentX 2400MHz - Samsung 500GB - Samsung 1TB - Western Digital 1TB - Motherboard Sound - Bitfenix Ghost - BenQ XL2410T
    Computer 2: AMD Phenom II x6 1100T BE - Asus M4A79T Deluxe (AM3) - Sapphire 5870 - 8GB 1600MHz Corsair Vengeance - Western Digital 500GB - X-FI XtremeGamer - Antec 300 - Samsung SyncMaster 204B

  21. #346
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    952
    Something is not right here..I am confused about a few things:

    1. How can a company make a new product which is lower/equal to the older product line. I dont see OCZ coming out with a Vertex 4 which is slower than the Vertex 3, unless there is some significant change in life of the said SSD

    2. How are the planning to price it at 285 USD, if most reviews have shown it to be equal to or below PH II?

    3. If the discussed performance is true, then should AMD have marketed this as a 4 core, 8 thread chip?

    On 1, I have no answer, but I guess if anything changes then it will be on launch date ...maybe..

    On 2, I have heard the number of chips available is going to be extremely low on launch...could this be the reason for the high prices? Low supply, normal to high demand??

  22. #347
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    5,485
    Quote Originally Posted by looncraz View Post
    Not sure if ordained reviewers have been given access to the MS patch, but I'd imagine (and hope) so! Last I saw, the Linux kernel patch was still being worked on by AMD (publicly) and Linus was showing some distaste for the method used to address the issue. One comment questioned the performance cost but had received no replies... but you don't go re-working kernel memory mapping for anything less than 5-10%... just not worth it!
    the queston was answered, amd said ~3%

    On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:57:45AM -0400, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > Out of curiosity, what's the performance impact if the workaround is
    > not enabled?

    Up to 3% for a CPU-intensive style benchmark, and it can vary highly in
    a microbenchmark depending on workload and compiler.
    http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1172226

  23. #348
    Aussie God
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    4,596
    3% isnt enough to save this.
    Competition ranking;
    2005; Netbyte, Karise/Denmark #1 @ PiFast
    2008; AOCM II, Minfeld/Germany #2 @ 01SE/AM3/8M (w. Oliver)
    2009; AMD-OC, Viborg/Denmark #2 @ max freq Gigabyte TweaKING, Paris/France #4 @ 32M/01SE (w. Vanovich)
    2010: Gigabyte P55, Hamburg/Germany #6 @ wprime 1024/SPI 1M (w. THC) AOCM III, Minfeld/Germany #6 @ 01SE/AM3/1M/8M (w. NeoForce)

    Spectating;
    2010; GOOC 2010 Many thanks to Gigabyte!


  24. #349
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spain, EU
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by kobaltrock View Post
    if all these benchmarks are legit (and, at this point there is very little reason to doubt them since multiple people got pretty much the same results), the the only thing we are going to see the next few days is lots of spin control.

    Jf-amd will have his work cut out for him, going into full damage control mode.
    Quote Originally Posted by olivon View Post
    good to see that there's some light in the lavatory pan !

    Somebody seen rintamarootta, 2good4you or even jf
    QFT
    Friends shouldn't let friends use Windows 7 until Microsoft fixes Windows Explorer (link)


    Quote Originally Posted by PerryR, on John Fruehe (JF-AMD) View Post
    Pretty much. Plus, he's here voluntarily.

  25. #350
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,823
    Quote Originally Posted by -=DVS=- View Post
    Some dude is doing live stream benching Bulldozer , with 8 threads he got 24 GFLOPs in LinX 0.6.4
    because last LINX dont stress this CPU now, u need PRIME
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i9-7900X, i9-9900K, i7-6950X, i7-5960X, i7-8086K, i7-8700K, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-2700X, 4x R5 2600X, R5 2400G, R3 1200, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

Page 14 of 30 FirstFirst ... 41112131415161724 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •