FX 4100 - 4 Cores become 2? :S

[hellohappy22]

Hi Guys,

I was taking a look at System Information and noticed this:-

Dose this mean that only 2 cores are working? Or am I getting this wrong?

Any help would be great cheers!

 

[jerm1027]

Hi Guys,

I was taking a look at System Information and noticed this:-

http://i49.tinypic.com/2rqlemh.png

Dose this mean that only 2 cores are working? Or am I getting this wrong?

Any help would be great cheers!

It's kind of a sticky area. The FX-4100 has 2 Bulldozer modules, each module has 2 x86 engines, but they share a lot of resources/components within the module. It's kinda halfway between a full traditional core and something like hyper-threading. All 4 cores are working, as indicated by recognition of "4 logical processors"

 

[hellohappy22]

It's kind of a sticky area. The FX-4100 has 2 Bulldozer modules, each module has 2 x86 engines, but they share a lot of resources/components within the module. It's kinda halfway between a full traditional core and something like hyper-threading. All 4 cores are working, as indicated by recognition of "4 logical processors"

That's for the fast, precise and helpful answer. Cheers buddy

 

[rds1220]

Hi Guys,

I was taking a look at System Information and noticed this:-

http://i49.tinypic.com/2rqlemh.png

Dose this mean that only 2 cores are working? Or am I getting this wrong?

Any help would be great cheers!

The so called quad core Bulldozer is really a dual core CPU. Everything is working fine.

 

[gamerkila57]

Lets just put it like this

Its a Dual Core cpu with a AMD type of hyperthreading so

2C/4T not 4C/4T

 

[yummerzzz]

What are you guys all talking about? This is NOT normal.
Should say

System Type x64-based PC

Processor AMD FX(tm)-4100 Quad-Core Processor, 4300 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4
Logical Processor(s)

BIOS Version/Date American Megatrends Inc. 1003, 26/03/2012

SMBIOS Version 2.5

Update your Windows 7/Whatever to the newest version an this should change, I had the same problem.

 

[gamerkila57]

What are you guys all talking about? This is NOT normal.
Should say

System Type x64-based PC

Processor AMD FX(tm)-4100 Quad-Core Processor, 4300 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4
Logical Processor(s)

BIOS Version/Date American Megatrends Inc. 1003, 26/03/2012

SMBIOS Version 2.5

Update your Windows 7/Whatever to the newest version an this should change, I had the same problem.

this is normal. you don't know what your are talking about. a FX 4100 is not a true quad core its a dual core just like a FX 6100 isn't a true six core and a FX 8100 isn't really a true 8 core.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)

 

[jerm1027]

The so called quad core Bulldozer is really a dual core CPU. Everything is working fine.

Lets just put it like this

Its a Dual Core cpu with a AMD type of hyperthreading so

2C/4T not 4C/4T

Then you don't know what hyper-threading is. The goal behind hyper threading is to utilize other-wise idle resources in a single core. A Bulldozer module actually has two dedicated x86 processing engines with dedicated caches amongst other dedicate resources. The sharing of resources within the module, in theory, with proper software, is suppose to increase efficiency, not necessarily performance. However, with Windows 7 inability to tell the cores apart, it doesn't schedule threads accordingly (threads that share data can greatly benefit from shared resources) which can mean up to a 20% performance hit (This is not an issue on Linux). Hyper-threading is the opposite. Again, more of a halfway. While I agree calling it a dual core is misleading, I still think the module is closer to a "true" dual-core vs a hyper-threaded single core.

See here:

 

[yummerzzz]

this is normal. you don't know what your are talking about. a FX 4100 is not a true quad core its a dual core just like a FX 6100 isn't a true six core and a FX 8100 isn't really a true 8 core.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)

Do some more research please.
http://i.imgur.com/ImEmP.png

EDIY : Ignore clock speed, mine is OC'd.

 

[gamerkila57]

Do some more research please.
http://i.imgur.com/ImEmP.png

i have a FX 4100, FX 6100, and FX 8120

 

[yummerzzz]

i have a FX 4100, FX 6100, and FX 8120

http://imageshack.us/a/img191/4526/geekbench251.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img845/673/cinebench115j.jpg

Then you have the same issue as OP....
I don't see your point?
http://i.imgur.com/xgJFJ.png

EDIT : Gimme 15 mins and I'll show you what that Cinebench SHOULD look like.

 

[mocchan]

If I'm not mistaken, a certain Windows 7 Bulldozer patch made Windows recognize Bulldozer Modules as a 'core' and the Integer units inside as the threads. Thus an FX-4100, with two Bulldozer modules, will be recognized as a 2 core 4 thread CPU.

This was all done to 'help' Windows work with the new architecture much like how Intel's Hyperthreading technology works.

 

[rds1220]

Then you don't know what hyper-threading is. The goal behind hyper threading is to utilize other-wise idle resources in a single core. A Bulldozer module actually has two dedicated x86 processing engines with dedicated caches amongst other dedicate resources. The sharing of resources within the module, in theory, with proper software, is suppose to increase efficiency, not necessarily performance. However, with Windows 7 inability to tell the cores apart, it doesn't schedule threads accordingly (threads that share data can greatly benefit from shared resources) which can mean up to a 20% performance hit (This is not an issue on Linux). Hyper-threading is the opposite. Again, more of a halfway. While I agree calling it a dual core is misleading, I still think the module is closer to a "true" dual-core vs a hyper-threaded single core.

See here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Bulldozer_block_diagram_(CPU_core_bloack).PNG

I think it is you that doesn't understand AMD's module design. The so called quad core is really a dual core a six core is really a three core and an 8 core is really a quad core. There are two half cores in each module. So a so called eight core would look like this [1/2+1/2] [1/2+1/2]. The last time I checked 1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2 equals four not eight.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/the-myth-of-cmt-cluster-based-multithreading/

 

[gamerkila57]

Then you have the same issue as OP....
I don't see your point?
http://i.imgur.com/xgJFJ.png
http://i.imgur.com/xgJFJ.png

its not an issue some programs notice it for its real 2C/4T where as others see it as a 4C/4T

 

[mocchan]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1309989/is-it-really-that-bad-bulldozer/100#post_18264351


So look at it this way.
Will a Intel 2600k beat a 2500k clock VS. clock?
Windows 7 and 8 sees the Bulldozer FX-8150 chip like a 2600k.
Meaning
FX-4*** like 2c/4t
FX-6*** like 3c/6t
FX-8*** like 4c/8t
Comparing Intel to AMD is like compairing apples and oranges.

-dixson01974, OCN

 

[yummerzzz]

its not an issue some programs notice it for its real 2C/4T where as others see it as a 4C/4T

No..If that were the case then our System Informations would be the same.

 

[gamerkila57]

No..If that were the case then our System Informations would be the same.

looks the same to me

http://www.overclock.net/t/1309989/is-it-really-that-bad-bulldozer/100#post_18264351


So look at it this way.
Will a Intel 2600k beat a 2500k clock VS. clock?
Windows 7 and 8 sees the Bulldozer FX-8150 chip like a 2600k.
Meaning
FX-4*** like 2c/4t
FX-6*** like 3c/6t
FX-8*** like 4c/8t
Comparing Intel to AMD is like compairing apples and oranges.

-dixson01974, OCN

^^^^^^

 

[yummerzzz]

looks the same to me


http://imageshack.us/a/img38/3062/pumk.png





^^^^^^

I said System Information, NOT the two programs I didn't say.
And that quote is void because mine and many others show this.

 

[mocchan]

Have you installed the hotfixes for Win7? If not, once you install it, you will most likely see a 2C, 4T in most applications.

Regardless of what your system information shows, OP is NOT going to suffer any performance issues.

 

[yummerzzz]

Have you installed the hotfixes for Win7? If not, once you install it, you will most likely see a 2C, 4T in most applications.

Regardless of what your system information shows, OP is NOT going to suffer any performance issues.

Yes this is what it should say AFTER the hotfixes.

http://imgur.com/NRiPu

EDIT : I know he won't see any performance loss, I wasn't saying that.

 

[mocchan]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5251/microsoft-releases-hotfix-to-improve-bulldozer-performance

VR-Zone is claiming that Windows sees one Bulldozer module as a single multi-threaded core, similar to an Intel Hyper-Threading core. Basically, your 8-core FX-8150 is seen as a quad-core, 8-thread CPU—just like Intel's i7-2600K for instance. This goes against AMD's design and marketing because Bulldozer is closer to an 8-core CPU.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/microsoft-comes-to-amd-bulldozer-rescue-windows-update-speeds-up-things/14256.html

This patch updates the thread management logic in the OS at the kernel level for the Bulldozer, and - interestingly - proclaims it as a multithreading feature. With this update, Windows sees each BD dual core block as A SINGLE MULTITHREADED CORE, contrary to AMD's official positioning. Therefore, BD is seen as a 4-core, 8-thread chip, rather than a fully 8-core processors.

 

[mocchan]

Yes this is what it should say AFTER the hotfixes.
http://imgur.com/NRiPu
http://imgur.com/NRiPu

EDIT : I know he won't see any performance loss, I wasn't saying that.

In that case, I don't get the point on what this fuss is about :lol:

 

[yummerzzz]

In that case, I don't get the point on what this fuss is about :lol:

It's about that not being normal for OP to show that
Those posts are from 2011 so like I said you need to update Win7 to the NEWSEST version.

EDIT : Also that VVV

 

[dudewitbow]

the difference is how i see(visually) how intel and AMD is approaching their cpus is more like:

o = core
. = hyper thread
{cluster} //where whats inside it shares stuff

Phenom x4/I5
{o}{o}
{o}{o}

I3
{o.}{o.}

i7
{o.}{o.}
{o.}{o.}

Fx-4xxx
{oo}{oo}

FX-6xxx
{oo}{oo}
{oo}

FX-8xxx
{oo}{oo}
{oo}{oo}

 

[jerm1027]

I think it is you that doesn't understand AMD's module design. The so called quad core is really a dual core a six core is really a three core and an 8 core is really a quad core. There are two half cores in each module. So a so called eight core would look like this [1/2+1/2] [1/2+1/2]. The last time I checked 1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2 equals four not eight.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/the-myth-of-cmt-cluster-based-multithreading/

You have yet to make a valid argument. The article you linked to has factual discrepancies and compares AMD to Intel's solutions and uses the performance discrepancy to discredit AMD's technology, which is apples and lettuce (forget oranges). The two have vastly difference architectures. And where did you get the 1/2 number?