AMD fx 8350 and Quad fx cores (unparking cores in win 7) is a must..

[rebelyell17225]

I have found that many people running the AMD 8 core and quad core fx dont realize that half of their cores are parked in win 7. in other words not being used. you can check this by going into task manager then resource monitor, look to the right side and see if any cores say parked, which they most likely will be 4 with an 8 core and 2 with quad core cpu AMD only. intel got there hot fix but amd will not. you must manually install the hot fix to use all cores. if you look at cpu-z and it says 4 cores and 4 threads then yes you are using 4 cores. since intel uses 4 cores and has 2 threads per core and AMD uses 8 cores and 1 thread per core, same with quad fx.

their is a simple fix for this on microsoft.com and you will see a huge difference unleashing all the power of Amd fx. please understand that if you have win 8 this is uneaded. win 7 users only. here is the link to install both the kb2645594, and kb2646060 .

1st download the kb2645594 and install then reboot then repeat for kb2646060. windows should guide you thru the easy installation.

I am posting this since i found out the hard way and wondered why the performance was so low. and now i have the 8350 FX at 4.6 ghz out performing the I7 3770. I hope this helps everyone. peace
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2646060

 

[Nathan Willis]

Cool info! This will be helpful to someone with this problem.

 

[JOOK-D]

Outperforming the i7 3770 in what exactly?

I've seen the hotfixes before. I believe it only applies to bulldozer CPUs and the problem was fixed with piledriver. However if the patches worked for you then it can only be a good thing.

 

[rebelyell17225]

actually the piledriver has the same issue. the problem lays in windows 7 for the amd. when you read about the hot fix it relates to the bulldozer since it was written at the prime time of the bulldozer but it is for all FX quad and 8 core amd cpu's . this issue was fixed in windows 8, its just the fact that microsoft wasnt prepared for AMD or shaking hands like they do with intel. : )

clocked at 4.6ghz the fx 8350 w/ hypertransport @ 2600mhz and cpu nb @2600mhz using passmark it averages out better than the I7 3770. also the physics and sorting of the 8350 is way better if you look at the breakdown of all the specs.

asrock 970 pro 3r2
AMD fx 8350
G.skill 16gb 1866mhz oc'd 1904mhz tridents
64 bit mobo and windows

yes win 7 had 4 of my cores parked on the piledriver and these hot fixes fixed the issue and a big difference i saw right away. more than likely it will work for the 6 core aswell. its just because windows wasnt ready for an actuall 4,6,8 core with 1 thread each. intel has 4 cores and 2 threads each. the hot fix just allows the win 7 to recognized the Fx architechture.

 

[coolcole01]

this is good stuff and it does make a difference thats why its in my signature

 

[coolcole01]

no when i do a fresh install i always have to apply the hot fixes

 

[Calculatron]

This site has done an article on this, and found the gains not world-changing: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119.html

 

[JOOK-D]

actually the piledriver has the same issue. the problem lays in windows 7 for the amd. when you read about the hot fix it relates to the bulldozer since it was written at the prime time of the bulldozer but it is for all FX quad and 8 core amd cpu's . this issue was fixed in windows 8, its just the fact that microsoft wasnt prepared for AMD or shaking hands like they do with intel. : )

clocked at 4.6ghz the fx 8350 w/ hypertransport @ 2600mhz and cpu nb @2600mhz using passmark it averages out better than the I7 3770. also the physics and sorting of the 8350 is way better if you look at the breakdown of all the specs.

asrock 970 pro 3r2
AMD fx 8350
G.skill 16gb 1866mhz oc'd 1904mhz tridents
64 bit mobo and windows

yes win 7 had 4 of my cores parked on the piledriver and these hot fixes fixed the issue and a big difference i saw right away. more than likely it will work for the 6 core aswell. its just because windows wasnt ready for an actuall 4,6,8 core with 1 thread each. intel has 4 cores and 2 threads each. the hot fix just allows the win 7 to recognized the Fx architechture.

Ah, synthetic tests. 😉 Personally not a fan of them, glad you're getting great performance out of a cheaper chip though. Good info for other users too.

 

[rebelyell17225]

actually the piledriver has the same issue. the problem lays in windows 7 for the amd. when you read about the hot fix it relates to the bulldozer since it was written at the prime time of the bulldozer but it is for all FX quad and 8 core amd cpu's . this issue was fixed in windows 8, its just the fact that microsoft wasnt prepared for AMD or shaking hands like they do with intel. : )

clocked at 4.6ghz the fx 8350 w/ hypertransport @ 2600mhz and cpu nb @2600mhz using passmark it averages out better than the I7 3770. also the physics and sorting of the 8350 is way better if you look at the breakdown of all the specs.

asrock 970 pro 3r2
AMD fx 8350
G.skill 16gb 1866mhz oc'd 1904mhz tridents
64 bit mobo and windows

yes win 7 had 4 of my cores parked on the piledriver and these hot fixes fixed the issue and a big difference i saw right away. more than likely it will work for the 6 core aswell. its just because windows wasnt ready for an actuall 4,6,8 core with 1 thread each. intel has 4 cores and 2 threads each. the hot fix just allows the win 7 to recognized the Fx architechture.

Ah, synthetic tests. 😉 Personally not a fan of them, glad you're getting great performance out of a cheaper chip though. Good info for other users too.

good things about using the hot fix also is all cores run smoother without huge spikes on 1 core and not the others if a background program kicks on ETC. if you watch your resource moniter you'll see the difference. if intel can use all their cores on their cpu's AMD should and can use all of theirs since the consumer is buying a cpu with more cores im sure they would like to be able to utilize what they purchased.

 

[rebelyell17225]

actually the piledriver has the same issue. the problem lays in windows 7 for the amd. when you read about the hot fix it relates to the bulldozer since it was written at the prime time of the bulldozer but it is for all FX quad and 8 core amd cpu's . this issue was fixed in windows 8, its just the fact that microsoft wasnt prepared for AMD or shaking hands like they do with intel. : )

clocked at 4.6ghz the fx 8350 w/ hypertransport @ 2600mhz and cpu nb @2600mhz using passmark it averages out better than the I7 3770. also the physics and sorting of the 8350 is way better if you look at the breakdown of all the specs.

asrock 970 pro 3r2
AMD fx 8350
G.skill 16gb 1866mhz oc'd 1904mhz tridents
64 bit mobo and windows

yes win 7 had 4 of my cores parked on the piledriver and these hot fixes fixed the issue and a big difference i saw right away. more than likely it will work for the 6 core aswell. its just because windows wasnt ready for an actuall 4,6,8 core with 1 thread each. intel has 4 cores and 2 threads each. the hot fix just allows the win 7 to recognized the Fx architechture.

Ah, synthetic tests. 😉 Personally not a fan of them, glad you're getting great performance out of a cheaper chip though. Good info for other users too.

good things about using the hot fix also is all cores run smoother without huge spikes on 1 core and not the others if a background program kicks on ETC. if you watch your resource moniter you'll see the difference. if intel can use all their cores on their cpu's AMD should and can use all of theirs since the consumer is buying a cpu with more cores im sure they would like to be able to utilize what they purchased.

on another note AMD is cheaper mainly due to the fact that they dont have to pay the giant corporate offices that intel has.

 

[vmN]

No, background programs wont run on additional cores. Why? Windows scheduler.

And no, that is not the reason why AMD is cheaper.(Or not the big part)
Intel have is own fab, is manufacturing their own product, have much more advertisement than AMD. This is the major reasons.

 

[8350rocks]

No, background programs wont run on additional cores. Why? Windows scheduler.

And no, that is not the reason why AMD is cheaper.(Or not the big part)
Intel have is own fab, is manufacturing their own product, have much more advertisement than AMD. This is the major reasons.

Windows scheduler will run background programs on alternate cores...not sure where your (mis-)information came from...but that is not reality.

 

[vmN]

That is certainly not true, as windows will try to schedule the processes to run on the fewest cores.
Which is why true mutlicore performance wont occour on windows.
A program would need to be specificly programmed to use more cores/threads.

 

[rebelyell17225]

That is certainly not true, as windows will try to schedule the processes to run on the fewest cores.
Which is why true mutlicore performance wont occour on windows.
A program would need to be specificly programmed to use more cores/threads.

windows likes to use the 1st core unless the cpu is under a heavy load then it will spread out. you can always set affinity for windows schedular to run on which ever cores you think is rarely used (personal choice). either way i use system mechanic to eliminate cpu core spikes.