AMD FX "Bulldozer" Review - (4) !exclusive! Excuse for 1-Threaded Perf.

[dess]

chew is proving 'B' and im taking his answer as being accurate.

I think you should study his results more closer...
Which answer?

for the games i was looking at 4/4 being faster than 4/8, i completely ignored 2/4 because thats comparing a 4100 to an imaginary 4/4 chip.

What's the point in doing so in case of games with 4 threads or less?

Max. turbo is enabled only if there are 2 active CU's. So, if you want to know if it's either max. turbo or unsharing that gives you more performance with 2-4 threaded games, it's indeed 4CU/4C vs. 2CU/4C that you should take for a comparison...

the perspective i was trying to show with point 'A' was the INCREASE in performance by chopping up an 8100's cores.

The whole topic is all about this (for programs with 2-4 threads), why do you think you need to try to show this?

(i have no idea what houdini 2 is, and based on details it looked like a multi-threaded program rather than a game)

AFAIK it's a well-threaded chess game.

i still belive the WoW example by TH was done by turbo alone. that game uses less than 3 full cores, but has 3 distinct threads, and the 2 weaker ones in total are weaker than the first one alone. so its possible they got it down to one CU and just let it max out at 4.2ghz.

You can get max. turbo with 2 CU's.

There are two probable scenarios:
- Execute the more demanding thread on the first CU alone, the two weaker ones on the second CU, get max. turbo activated, and let the other CU's go to sleep.
- Execute all three threads alone in 3 CU's, at all-cores turbo.

Now, I don't think it runs even on Win7 at stock 3.6 GHz all the time... Given it's only 3 threads, it can run partially even at max. turbo there, only there is some penalty because of changing cores and so switching frequencies, etc. At least all-cores turbo can be active most of the time. Thus, 10% gain Win7 vs. Win8 can't come alone from turbo.