Does the Bulldozer hotfix really work?

p000n-tang_be4r

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2011
171
0
18,690
Hey all,
i was doing some reading and i saw that there was an update for windows that apparently makes bulldozer allot faster... is this true??? Or does it not work and there are lots of problems with the fix? If it really does work as well as what i have been reading then i might just upgrade to bulldozer.
 

whatsthatnoise

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2011
595
1
19,060
There are no problems with the "fix". It just doesn't really fix something. It makes a (small) difference for some applications, but most are basically the same. Windows was just supposed to include that fix. Not sure if it did, since I stopped bothering about AMD's FX CPUs quite some time ago ...
 

p000n-tang_be4r

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2011
171
0
18,690
I found a benchmark table and its showing that the 8120 is getting equal fps to the i7 2600k. I just thought this was interesting because its now convincing me to buy a bulldozer.

c71cfd2d_benchmarks.jpeg


What do you think? I just dont know what to believe with the BD anymore, i hear people say its good and i hear people say its garbage...
 

whatsthatnoise

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2011
595
1
19,060
That chart doesn't make sense to me, looking at the specs of the FX CPUs.

4100 is clocked @3.6, Turbo 3.8, 2 cores, 2 threads
6100 is clocked @3.3, Turbo 3.9, 6 cores, 6 threads
8120 is clocked @3.1, Turbo 4.0, 8 cores, 8 threads
8150 is clocked @3.6, Turbo 4.2, 8 cores, 8 threads

All feature the same architecture, except for the number of cores/threads.

Common sense dictates that the fastest clock should win, yet the 8120 is the fastest, it should at least lose against the 8150, because they got all the same specs (including cache), but the clock speed.

No idea how they benched it, if they actually did several runs of the benchmark for each CPU or just one. If it was just one, the bench is easily flawed, which could explain the results.

So even if the fix works for B3, it doesn't prove that it works well for everything else, too. Like I said, some applications benched right after the fix was introduced were running a little bit faster, just not all. Same goes for games.

Looking at the price tags a 8120 is just 25-30 bucks less than an i5, which would put you on the safe side. No matter what.

I just wouldn't go so far judging the performance of BD from just one bench, from just one game. Have you got more info on this?

Besides AMD CPUs aren't garbage so to say, but as a matter of fact you get more bang for the buck with intel, atm. That's the whole point. :)
 


GPU bottleneck? SP BF3 and other DX11 titles are MUCH more GPU heavy, and tend to bottleneck the GPU. Even Toms benchmarks showed BF3 was one of the two games [the other being Dirt3] that BD pulled even with SB. In all the other tested games, BD was clearly slower.

Battlefield3.png


Clear GPU bottleneck on display.
 
At some point yes but all they are saying is this is not a good game to compair CPU's as it needs more GPU power. If you look at other benches you will see tha BD is not the way to go... I have a 1090T so I am not biased but Intel is the way to go this Gen.

Thent
 

loneninja

Distinguished
Something is wrong with that chart, the 8120 should not be faster than the 8150. It's also worth noting BF3 can actually use 8 threads, it's one of the only games where Phenom II X6 out performs Phenom II X4, FX 8 core out performs FX 4 core, and I7 actually out performs I5. In most games, an I3 out performs the FX processors.
 

Blahman11

Distinguished
May 23, 2011
205
0
18,710
Well it would bottleneck it a little less, but really if you have the money get an i5. The unlocked ones can nearly overclock as fast as a bulldozer on air if not faster with a decent cooler (I've seen shops selling overclocked bundles at 4.8ghz), and are faster per clock. Bulldozer is AMDs netburst, All heat and no speed.
 


BF3 uses some 60+ threads, according to process explorer. The DX11 API however ensures it will be a GPU bottleneck for the near future, however.

Seriously, people really need to learn the difference between a thread and CPU core scaling.
 

ElMoIsEviL

Distinguished

Actually his post makes sense.

If BF3 uses 60+ simultaneous threads then it is only logical that it does use the full "8 actual processor threads" he is claiming. Essentially BF3 loves CPUs with more threads because as you stated it can afford too running 60+ simultaneous threads.
 

ElMoIsEviL

Distinguished
As for the OP... I can't help but be skeptical of your intentions.. forgive me if my intuition appears misplaced.

Here it is...

The link you posted here:
c71cfd2d_benchmarks.jpeg


Well BF3 favors CPUs that can handle more simultaneous threads. CPUs with more Physical/Logical Cores are better at this task... for the most part. But BF3 is also demanding on the speed of execution of threads and that's Intel's home turf (for now). But, as others have pointed out, the fact that the 8120 is faster than the 8150 puts the whole graph into question.

Other games, however, are not so generous to the FX processors.
See Here

But one has to take into consideration that once more those tests were done with the following:

The Test
Motherboard: ASUS P8Z68-V Pro (Intel Z68)
ASUS Crosshair V Formula (AMD 990FX)
Hard Disk: Intel X25-M SSD (80GB)
Crucial RealSSD C300
Memory: 2 x 4GB G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 9-9-9-20
Video Card: ATI Radeon HD 5870 (Windows 7) <------- Old GPU 1GB Framebuffer
Video Drivers: AMD Catalyst 11.10 Beta (Windows 7)
Desktop Resolution: 1920 x 1200
OS: Windows 7 x64 SP1 w/ BD Hotfixes

Over at TweakPC.de they found that the fix didn't do much for gaming: Click Me!

Hope that answers your questions.
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860

And some people are stuck on technical wording. If you want to use this analagy, then BD is technially a quad core cpu with CMT.

In general laymans terms, a highly threaded game can utilize its threads to maximum potential, ie spreading threads across multiple cores. Just because a game has multiple threads doesn't automatically mean it will be good on multiple cores, and vice-versa. It also heavily depends on how the scheduling is handled.

Civ V's end game benchmark runs 889 threads but only heavily uses 2 cores.

35kr7tu.jpg
 

loneninja

Distinguished


I said 8 threads because an I7 is a 4 core 8 thread processor and the game can actually use all of it's threads unlike most games. There is actually improved performance with Hyperthreading, something usually not seen in games when compared to an I5. But thanks for getting all technical.
 

p000n-tang_be4r

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2011
171
0
18,690
Thanks gyz your pretty much answered my question. But now that your all talking about the difference between hyperthreading, the difference between different kinds of cores lol i start to get a little confused haha :lol: i haven't really done any research into that kind of thing yet