News Tested: AMD CPUs Can Be 12x Slower in Windows 11

2Be_or_Not2Be

Distinguished
Aug 23, 2013
990
58
19,440
115
FYI: Your title says "Tested: AMD CPU Cache Latency Up to 12x Slower in Windows 11", but your actual article text says "As you'll see in our extensive CPU Benchmarks below, we found that AMD's L3 latency can be as much as six times higher in Windows 11 compared to Windows 10, "

So it looks like your title is wrong - it should be "cache bandwidth up to 12x less" instead of "cache latency."
 

Makaveli

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2001
1,171
236
19,670
4
"AMD recently issued its first Windows 11 patch "

From the article where did AMD release this patch?

AMD hasn't released anything because this is a fix coming from Microsoft and you are referring to MS pushing out update from patch tuesday.

The only thing AMD is going to release is the cppc driver update on Oct 21. The L3 fix is suppose to be coming from MS on Oct 19.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: phenomiix6

PaulAlcorn

Senior Editor
Editor
Feb 24, 2015
795
161
11,160
0
"AMD recently issued its first Windows 11 patch "

From the article where did AMD release this patch?

AMD hasn't released anything because this is a fix coming from Microsoft and you are referring to MS pushing out update from patch tuesday.

The only thing AMD is going to release is the cppc driver update on Oct 21. The L3 fix is suppose to be coming from MS on Oct 19.

I expect a little more accurate reporting from you guys.
Oops, that was a typo, thanks for the heads up. Corrected.
 
Reactions: Makaveli

Heat_Fan89

Prominent
Jul 13, 2020
258
98
770
4
This is why I held off moving up to Windows 11 on both my gaming rigs. I did install it on my Lenovo ThinkCentre M720q and it runs just fine but I had to drop a NVME SSD because it was painfully slow with a standard HDD.
 

2Be_or_Not2Be

Distinguished
Aug 23, 2013
990
58
19,440
115
"AMD recently issued its first Windows 11 patch "

From the article where did AMD release this patch?

AMD hasn't released anything because this is a fix coming from Microsoft and you are referring to MS pushing out update from patch tuesday.

The only thing AMD is going to release is the cppc driver update on Oct 21. The L3 fix is suppose to be coming from MS on Oct 19.
I thought I read somewhere that the fix might be released to Insider builds on Win11 already?
 
Oct 5, 2021
18
3
15
0
MS blocked unethical AMD microcode following identification. Windows 10 will be patched as well. AMD did try to patch the microcode (without you knowing about it).

Data collection and security bypasses to.. well.. collect data and inflate performance figures. Cough(Asus)Cough.
 
What is it about MS and ever other version of their OS. 3.1 good, 95 bad, 98 good, ME bad, XP good, Vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 looking pretty bad.
Except Windows 95 was generally considered to be good. It included a lot of major improvements and additions, and was the version that first introduced long-time interface features like the taskbar and start menu. It also removed a lot of the software limitations of 3.1's 16-bit DOS back-end, and offered better stability and performance. If anything, 98 was a little underwhelming, as it didn't really add a whole lot over 95. It was largely just a refined version of 95 with lots of minor improvements, much like a service pack, only not distributed for free.

That good-bad cycle didn't really begin until Windows Me was poorly received, then quickly followed by the positively-received XP a year later. Me was still largely based off the 95/98 code-base, just with a bunch of interface changes tacked on, and was generally considered to have poor performance and stability. It served as more of a stop-gap until XP arrived, which was based on the far-more-stable NT/2000 code-base.

I'm not sure 10 was all that positively received either. Compared to 8, sure, though that was more just backtracking on bizarre interface changes, much of which had already been addressed with the 8.1 service pack. I think many would still consider 7 to be superior in some ways, and 10 doesn't really do much that 7 didn't already do. Windows 10 has also felt a bit like it's always been in beta, with forced updates breaking things and generally feeling inadequately tested. Windows 11 makes some questionable changes, but it's largely still just Windows 10 with a coat of paint and some additional annoyances.

Really, I think Microsoft has just been struggling for the last decade to make significant improvements to an OS that already worked fine, and that people were familiar with. Their developers are tasked with changing the interface to make it feel fresh and new, but since the interface was already fairly well refined, many of those changes end up making things worse.
 
Apr 12, 2017
6
2
4,515
0
Window$... I haven't used it at home on any of my computers, not even my old 70+ year old parents use it for over 7 years now! They're on Ubuntu LTS

I've been on Linux for well over a decade now, my 5year old son's laptop is on Xubuntu and my Wife's Yoga is on Ubuntu. Our HTPCs are on ubuntu, my laptops are all on Ubuntu.

Tomshardware should have added a linux distro at least as one of the OS comparison's on their tests! Not really up to scratch professional wise with reviews if you don't have a desktop linux distribution added as one of the tests.
 

darthvidor

Distinguished
May 21, 2009
95
0
18,640
2
Usually these benchmarks don't matter to the real world but I did notice waiting a little longer for my Excel sheets during CPU crunch time after that 1st update to Windows 11 on my Ryzen 5 3600 PC.
 

wifiburger

Honorable
Feb 21, 2016
472
27
10,840
9
Usually these benchmarks don't matter to the real world but I did notice waiting a little longer for my Excel sheets during CPU crunch time after that 1st update to Windows 11 on my Ryzen 5 3600 PC.
While games & cinebench runs don't have issues with correct avg FPS / Scores. I feel the system is less responsive.

Running 1900IF/3800cl14 bdie with my 3900x and If I have to guess this Windows 11 feels like I'm running slow 1600IF/3200 memory in terms of OS response,input latency, 99% fps, etc

Even my nvme 4.0 drive shows exact numbers(ready,write) vs Widnows 10 but somehow programs open slower in windows 11.

Very weird problem & both AMD / MS are not offering details on what's exactly is broken with L3 and CPPC.
 
Oct 15, 2021
2
0
10
0
Question: would the upcoming "Ryzen-X with tripled L3 cache" perfrom better or worse than "regular Ryzen" due to this bug?
If Win11 has a fundamental problem with "AMD L3" - (you know there's a difference to how Intel and AMD design their L3, which probably led to this current issue - Win 11 scheduling (or whatever) was somehow designed (either purposefully or inadvertentley...) with Intels' L3 in mind) - then unless MS redesignes Win 11 to be "L3 vendor-neutral", I fear the latter.
That results, of course, in the complete waste of effort that AMD put in L3 stacking R&D and marketing - "triple the 'game-cache' for automatic 15% performance increase for the exact same CPU!"becomes "triple the ignored/disabled cache" (at best) or "triple the 'lag cache'" (at worst).

/sfbe
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
147,656
9,389
175,390
23,031
Window$... I haven't used it at home on any of my computers, not even my old 70+ year old parents use it for over 7 years now! They're on Ubuntu LTS

I've been on Linux for well over a decade now, my 5year old son's laptop is on Xubuntu and my Wife's Yoga is on Ubuntu. Our HTPCs are on ubuntu, my laptops are all on Ubuntu.

Tomshardware should have added a linux distro at least as one of the OS comparison's on their tests! Not really up to scratch professional wise with reviews if you don't have a desktop linux distribution added as one of the tests.
What does Linux have to do with a performance comparison of Win 10 vs Win 11?
 
Oct 3, 2021
10
7
15
0
Except Windows 95 was generally considered to be good. It included a lot of major improvements and additions, and was the version that first introduced long-time interface features like the taskbar and start menu. It also removed a lot of the software limitations of 3.1's 16-bit DOS back-end, and offered better stability and performance. If anything, 98 was a little underwhelming, as it didn't really add a whole lot over 95. It was largely just a refined version of 95 with lots of minor improvements, much like a service pack, only not distributed for free.

That good-bad cycle didn't really begin until Windows Me was poorly received, then quickly followed by the positively-received XP a year later. Me was still largely based off the 95/98 code-base, just with a bunch of interface changes tacked on, and was generally considered to have poor performance and stability. It served as more of a stop-gap until XP arrived, which was based on the far-more-stable NT/2000 code-base.

I'm not sure 10 was all that positively received either. Compared to 8, sure, though that was more just backtracking on bizarre interface changes, much of which had already been addressed with the 8.1 service pack. I think many would still consider 7 to be superior in some ways, and 10 doesn't really do much that 7 didn't already do. Windows 10 has also felt a bit like it's always been in beta, with forced updates breaking things and generally feeling inadequately tested. Windows 11 makes some questionable changes, but it's largely still just Windows 10 with a coat of paint and some additional annoyances.

Really, I think Microsoft has just been struggling for the last decade to make significant improvements to an OS that already worked fine, and that people were familiar with. Their developers are tasked with changing the interface to make it feel fresh and new, but since the interface was already fairly well refined, many of those changes end up making things worse.
The most important thing MS can do to make people (PC users) jump to a new OS is a new DirectX, otherwise windows 7 still good, windows 10 is more secure from 3rd parties.. from MS? not so much, with windows 10 I feel more naked when connecting to the internet windows XP will make you suffer to secure your PC from trojans and viruses but if XP had DirectX12 and high core count and high capacity RAM support and modern drivers I would never consider to upgrade
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY