I am going to be running some beanchmarks on my 8150,before and after messing with settings in the bios,and i want to see how the changes will affect the 8150's multi threaded performance.
And i know that the 8150 did beat the 2600k is some tests(just not very many lol).
Not many. I read the benchmarks a few weeks ago and do not remember them, but the 2600K beat it in almost all. Both CPUs are unlocked which usually means that they have a nice base clock, but the 2600K is an i7, and many people share the opinion that any i7 can beat all the AMD CPUs.
2 maybe 3 synthetic benchmarks unrelated to gaming. Something about MP3 encoding and video conversion. Games don't use 8 threads properly. Games only get developed to the lowest common denominator being 2-4 threads, primarily 4 then patched to optimize code for dual cores. AMD's backwards compatability has been hurting their ability to compete performance wise for a few generations of CPUs, hence why people vouche for intel. AMD's first Hexcore was trounced by the 1156 i5 750.
And I don't see that changing until there's a new socket revision on their motherboards to accomodate any architectual advancement.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_processor_review,14.html
Handbrake is one of them, could check the rest of that review for more.
Don't expect to find too many though, you're comparing a $180 chip to a $300+ one.
Well i was going to do a test where i turn off 1 core per module,making it to where the 8150 is no longer sharing resources,which SHOULD improve single threaded proformance,then i found out my mobo only lets me turn off modules.
But if i was able to i was going to see if it still did good in the tests in which it be the 2600k at stock.
If any one on here has and 8150 and decides to do the test let me know,cause i would love to see it.
I really don't think turning off certain cores is going to make other cores stronger...
Well each modules is 2 cores which share resources,which is what some people say is the weak point of the 8150's single threaded proformance,some people think if you take a module and turn off the second core in it,so that the other core no longer has to share resources.
In theroy i think it could work.
@ Vortex88. Thinking / believing doesn´t equal knowing. Take a good look at this thread http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?275873-AMD-FX-quot-Bulldozer-quot-Review-%284%29-!exclusive!-Excuse-for-1-Threaded-Perf
If your motherboard doesn´t support locking & unlocking specific cores of said FX CPU then you can still use Windows 7 core affinty feature. There you can select a core affinity for each application that´s running.
Let´s say you´re running some Anno 1404 or Cinebench you simply turn on Windows Task Manager, right click on the application and select "Set affinity" There you can select which CPU cores should be used to run this very application.
The only difference would be that the unused cores would be idling or used for something else instead of being turned of completely if locked through BIOS settings.
That might work if you can figure out a way to do it, but I was under the impression that the 8150 was weak simply because the individual cores were weak, not because they had to share resources. I would find it hard to believe that AMD would bottleneck their own cores.
That's a completely different animal from just turning off cores and expecting better performance. If you allocate certain cores to certain tasks in an intelligent way, then you're obviously going to see better performance, but simply turning off a core won't make the CPU perform better.
I provided you with a link and you OBVIOUSELY haven´t even taken a look at it. It CLEARLY shows that using one core, to be more specific the first core, of each module the Quad-Core Performance increases compared to Quad-Core performance from 4 cores of two modules.
Why´s that? One doesn´t even have to look at the benchmarks to make the right guess. It´s because then the 4 active cores WILL NOT have to share any resources with their neighbouring cores.
The overall performance will, theoretically, not be better compared to all 8 cores being active, that´s true.
Why theoretically? Most applications don´t use more than 4 threads, in other words, 4 cores. So in fact, forcing it to work as a true Quad-Core without having to share any resources and also countering the scheduling issues it would become a better CPU for todays needs. Later on, when software is optimized for it 8 cores might come in handy.
Yet this way single threaded and Quad-Core performance will be increased and also energy would be safed since 4 course wouldn´t draw that much power.
Take as a simple example the AMD Phenom II X4 960T @ 3 GHz being a 95 Watt CPU and the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T @ 3GHz being an 125 Watt CPU. Two cores deactivated factory-wise and BOOM you´ve got a 95 Watt CPU.
The same goes for the 8000 series of FX CPUs.
Sorry, I've just never really seen the point in ever going with a Bulldozer CPU, since Intel chips that are similarly priced perform better with current applications. Throwing a bulldozer into a system just to be future proof isn't really an option, in my opinion, because as soon as mainstream programs and applications actually start utilizing 8 threads the Bulldozer CPU's will be obsolete or at least out of date.
Programmers aren't going to start utlizing more threads for their applications until 6 and 8 core CPUs become more mainstream, which means it probably won't happen until Intel starts coming out with 6 or 8 core CPUs that the average person can buy without breaking the bank. The reason I say this is because Intel is the leader in the CPU market. I'm sure some programmers may take more advantage of the Bulldozer CPUs at some point in time, but it won't become mainstream for quite a while, since Intel has a clear advantage in the market right now, and they don't have any 8 core CPUs out. They have some 6 cores, but those are still very, very expensive and not accessable for the average consumer.
As of now I´ve also not seen a point in buying a Bulldozer. It was just an idea I had in mind. The reason for this was mainly to show the Bulldozer´s weaknesses which is clearly the sharing of resources with its so called flexible FPU, Fetch, Decode units and lvl 2 Cache. I´ve even created a thread concering this locking/unlocking thing I was talking about.
However, no matter how "bad" AMD´s processors might look compared to Intel´s I would never support Intel. A couple of days I actually considered building an Intel system and even asked for advice on this very forum but I am a man of principles and I simply wouldn´t feel good about supporting criminals in any possible way, even if it´s just one of their CPUs.
There are two things that make me despise intel.
1. Bribing OEM retailers to delay AMD based OEM systems and therefore stifling the market
2. Selling a compiler which has got a non-Intel CPU cripple function without notifying neither developers nor the consumer market. Yes Intel can code their compiler the way they like BUT if they don´t notify devs, who´re paying for it and using this, and consumers who´re using software which has been compiled with this, then it is a crime.
Why´s that still relevant although Intel has been sued over this and lost and therefore had to release an unbiased compiler? Because for example benchmark applications such as Cinebench 11.5 have been compiled with Intel´s compiler. And according to my research this app hasn´t been recompiled yet. We all know that many consumers are making buying decision according to benchmark test results. This simply means that this is another way of Intel´s attempt to stifle the market.
The whole mess with the compiler happened during the days when AMD was actually better than Intel with their FX-60 CPUs etc. . Because of Intel´s deceptive business practicess AMD couldn´t really profit during that time and therefore couldn´t grow. With such actions Intel is not trying to kill its main competition. They´re just trying to keep them down, in other words, under control.
Never Intel, not because I am an AMD fanboy but because I hate supporting companies that don´t play fair whilst small and weak companies abied all rules, laws and regulations no matter how hard it might be.