Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]oxford373[/nom]from the first i saw the bulldozer review there wasn't any benefit from bulldozer architecture at all .since the idea behind bulldozer is to drive efficiency like hyper threading do but the problem is bulldozer(cores in pairs) is 75% slower IPC ,so core i5 works as fast as almost 7cores AMD at the same clock ,would be happy if amd just forget about bulldozer architecture and make native cores like phenome, but i don't think that will happen after 3 years of researches and developing bulldozer architecture[/citation]

Sorry, but pretty much everything that you said is wrong. Bulldozer CPUs have only slightly lower performance per Hz than Phenom II, the six core FXs beat i5s in highly threaded performance, and Bulldozer's problems aren't the architecture, only the implementation. Bulldozer is a great architecture layout.

1. Bulldozer CPUs have a completely computer generated design. Computers know the fastest way to design a CPU, not the way to design the fastest CPU. This increases die size and power consumption by about 20% each and decreases performance by about 20% (a more than 40% drop in power efficiency aka performance per watt). Most CPUs have performance-critical parts hand-optimized to solve that problem.

2. Bulldozer CPUs have huge cache latencies. This is a problem that they share with Phenom II CPUs.

3. Bulldozer has a poor memory controller. It gives about 25% less memory bandwidth than a Sandy Bridge memory controller with memory of the same frequency and amount of channels. This is the same memory controller that is used in Llano.

4. Bulldozer CPUs have soft-edge flip-flops. This also hurts performance and power efficiency badly.

These here are all non-architectural problems and solving them could improve performance and power efficiency incredibly. Piledriver is making use of some improvements here (such as using hard-edge flip-flops and also improving branch prediction, prefetch, and scheduling) and we will likely see more improvements in Piledriver's successors, Steamroller and Excavator. Why abandon an architecture when the architecture isn't even the problem?

Also, Bulldozer has been in development for much longer than you seem to think that it has.

 

[oxford373]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Sorry, but pretty much everything that you said is wrong. Bulldozer CPUs have only slightly lower performance per Hz than Phenom II, the six core FXs beat i5s in highly threaded performance, and Bulldozer's problems aren't the architecture, only the implementation. Bulldozer is a great architecture layout.1. Bulldozer CPUs have a completely computer generated design. Computers know the fastest way to design a CPU, not the way to design the fastest CPU. This increases die size and power consumption by about 20% each and decreases performance by about 20% (a more than 40% drop in power efficiency aka performance per watt). Most CPUs have performance-critical parts hand-optimized to solve that problem.2. Bulldozer CPUs have huge cache latencies. This is a problem that they share with Phenom II CPUs.3. Bulldozer has a poor memory controller. It gives about 25% less memory bandwidth than a Sandy Bridge memory controller with memory of the same frequency and amount of channels. This is the same memory controller that is used in Llano.4. Bulldozer CPUs have soft-edge flip-flops. This also hurts performance and power efficiency badly.These here are all non-architectural problems and solving them could improve performance and power efficiency incredibly. Piledriver is making use of some improvements here (such as using hard-edge flip-flops and also improving branch prediction, prefetch, and scheduling) and we will likely see more improvements in Piledriver's successors, Steamroller and Excavator. Why abandon an architecture when the architecture isn't even the problem?Also, Bulldozer has been in development for much longer than you seem to think that it has.[/citation]

when i wrote 75%less IPC i wasn't talking about phenome II i was talking about ivy bridge vs FX and its 70%less IPC vs sandy bridge, and any one can go back to FX review to ensure per clock performance and this is the numbers at lame which its single threaded program i7-2600finished with(1:37)and phenome II at (2:15)and FX at (2:37)so at this time fx is 62% slower ipc vs sandy bridge,and with i tune which its also single threaded i7-2600 finished at (1:09) and phenome II at (1:35) and FX at (2:07) and this time FX is 84% slower ipc vs sandy bridge so what i wrote is truth ,use your calculator ,and memory bandwidth don't change any thing since CPUs come with integrated memory controller with DDR3.
finally amd must focus on ipc and nothing else. and after all i am someone waited bulldozer very long time until i shocked by its performance .

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]oxford373[/nom]when i wrote 75%less IPC i wasn't talking about phenome II i was talking about ivy bridge vs FX and its 70%less IPC vs sandy bridge, and any one can go back to FX review to ensure per clock performance and this is the numbers at lame which its single threaded program i7-2600finished with(1:37)and phenome II at (2:15)and FX at (2:37)so at this time fx is 62% slower ipc vs sandy bridge,and with i tune which its also single threaded i7-2600 finished at (1:09) and phenome II at (1:35) and FX at (2:07) and this time FX is 84% slower ipc vs sandy bridge so what i wrote is truth ,use your calculator ,and memory bandwidth don't change any thing since CPUs come with itegrated memory controller with DDR3. finally amd must focus on ipc and nothing else. and after all i am someone waited bulldozer very long time until i shocked by its performance .[/citation]

Having 25% less memory bandwidth changes plenty because it means that Sandy Bridge has a mroe than 30% bandwidth advantage over Bulldozer with the same memory. This does not help all workloads, but there are plenty of RAM-bound applications that many people normally use (such as decompressing and compressing) and other workloads where the benefit is smaller.

Having high IPC does not necessarily mean high performance. It is only one factor. If AMD simply made a new stepping with the changes that I listed, then the CPU would be far faster than Bulldozer or even Nehalem and Sandy Bridge and it might beat out Ivy Bridge (this is single/lightly threaded performance that I'm talking about, highly threaded wouldn't even let Intel come close). AMD could make those changes and there is even more that could be done. This new stepping could fight it out with Haswell.

What Bulldozer seems to have been is rushed. Despite the large amount of time that went into the architecture, AMD still used many methods in designing it that just scream rushed because there is no way that a sane AMD would have spent all that time on a CPU with so many poor design problems that should have been fixed by simply spending the time to hand-optimize the design.

 

[kyraiki]

I certainly don't mean any disrespect but I wouldn't use AMD as a benchmark of what a CPU should cost until their CPU's are...well...high performing. ...and from what I've experienced, compared to Intel, they're not. That's not meant to be a slight, its just calling it like I see it. AMD shouldn't have labeled Bulldozer FX, IMO. The original FX processors were great...what we have from them today...is not.

I am not a wealthy man by any means, but I just don't see $200 as anything but inexpensive for a powerful CPU. $600+ is getting expensive to me. See, its all relative.

I agree with this 100%; labeling those power-sucking, under performing leeches 'FX' made me sad.

 

[Guest]

I tried updating my BIOS but i still have the problem.

 

[shortbus9]

so I too Encountered this problem A few months ago But after flashing new BIOS I was able to play Portal 2, but then my bios chip failed and I had to return it for repair (GA-990XA-UD3) flash forward to today and again same problem I downloaded ARMA 2 so I could play the DayZ mod and BAM BSOD ( a clock interupt was not received on a secondary processor within the allocated time interval) BCCode 101. I have been trouble shooting the issue with strees test and driver updates evne the latest BIOS F12 but still same crash every time. I even bought a new game today on stean Batman Arkum Asylum and it too crashes with the same code. How is this problem still present? I can still play portal 2 and Diablo 3 with out a crash. Any help would be great.

 

[derbaschti]

I still have the problem with my new Predator G3120 from Acer with their own mainboard. It has an AMD FX-8120 CPU. I can´t play Portal 2 and Duke Nukem Forver on it, both are crashing to bluescreen. The BIOS is up to date, last update is from February.

 

[derbaschti]

[citation][nom]derbaschti[/nom]I still have the problem with my new Predator G3120 from Acer with their own mainboard. It has an AMD FX-8120 CPU. I can´t play Portal 2 and Duke Nukem Forver on it, both are crashing to bluescreen. The BIOS is up to date, last update is from February.[/citation]

I contacted Acer and they sent me a non-published Update for the BIOS. Installed it and everything works. THX for the article, wouldn´t have had this idea without this article.

 

[Guest]

Running Asus Crosshair IV formula with latest bios (3027) and still constantly blue screens on CS:GO start up.

CPU , FX-8150

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Ticklematoes[/nom]Running Asus Crosshair IV formula with latest bios (3027) and still constantly blue screens on CS:GO start up.CPU , FX-8150[/citation]

Try contacting Asus directly like derbaschti did. Maybe they have a non-published BIOS update that solves the problem.

 

[GeSunDheit]

yup.. i recently build AMD FX8350 with ASRock 990FX Extreme 4 P2.00 with OS Win7, when i finish setting & install, suddenly halt error & got blue screen at monitor.. then i reinstall Win8, within process install suddenly at monitor got blue screen & a comment that my computer have problem & it need to restart with small note say : cek online : "Critical Structure Corruption".. in manual book ASRock 990FX Extreme 4 remind that with OS Vista & later should use AHCI mode..