Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
It has better utilization because the scheduler is bouncing the threads on various modules in 8350 . On 4300 there is not many destinations,either module 0 or module 1. BTW it's not a given to have much better performance on 4M/4T affinity vs 2M/4T . Some apps/games can see tangible benefits(~20%) while others see close to zero. And those that see close to zero are not benefited when threads bounce on 4 modules like a ping pong ball.
are you trying to troll me... when there is one thread only used it should be fully utilized on any of the cpus, regardless how many cores/moduels thread the cpu has. Especial when it happens on cpus with less core counts.

1 Thread
AMD/Intel up to 4 cores -> ~85-100% load
AMD/Intel more then 4 cores -> ~50-80% load

there has nothing changed in the workload, just the numbers of core on the cpu itself.


It would be logical to see a decline of utilization the more threads you run, since a game can never saturate all cores to it fullest, but when the game is limited to one care and loads on a quadcore one thread to 100% and then a hexacore only 80%, while nothing significant has changed there is something wrong with the game itself.

If anything if you compare the AMD FX series, the single thread utilization shouldn't show such huge difference, especial between the FX6300 and the FX8350. The turbo max frequency difference is only 100mhz (so ~2,5%) where everything is the same should not account to 20% difference in load.

The picture given here lacks consistency.