German tech website TweakPC did a before-after comparison of applying Microsoft's recently-released KB2645594 + KB2646060 Windows updates, which intend to improve performance of systems running AMD FX processors, by improving the way in which the OS deals with Bulldozer cores, using a top-of-the-line FX-8150 processor. The reviewer put FX-8150 through synthetic tests such as AIDA64 (CPU benchmarks, FPU benchmarks), Cinebench 11.5, MaxxPi (multi-threaded PI calculations), WPrime, Twofish AES, 3DMark (Vantage and 11), ComputeMark; and some real-world tests such as WinRAR, Resident Evil 5, and Battleforge. Barring Resident Evil 5, where the patched FX-8150 produced 4% higher performance and WinRAR, where it produced 3% higher performance, there were no significant performance gains noticed. The review can be accessed at the source.

165 Comments on AMD FX-8150 Tested with Latest Windows Hotfixes, Still No Improvement

1 to 25 of 165 Go to Page 1234567 PreviousNext

#1 Damn_Smooth

So you really can't make a turd a rose. Who would've figured? Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 3:01 Reply

#2 mtosev

more fail for amd. scrap bulldozer and start working on a new cpu. Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 3:03 Reply

#3 LDNL

Why wont they just put this horse down and focus more on the next best thing so they wont f it up aswell. Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 3:04 Reply

#4 Suhidu

The patch does what it was supposed to do. It was never meant to speed up all applications a significant percent in benchmark scenarios, but it does remove a core-scheduling handicap of BD. Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 3:10 Reply

#5 Sihastru

Well, that's because that's not what the hotfixes... hmmm... fix.



You will not see an improvement when all 8 threads are used, you will not see a great improvement when 4 threads are used (but there should be some, for cases when the modules were not loaded correctly, although most of the times they were), and you will not see an improvement when just 1 thread is used.



People read the title of the previous article, they saw that "10%", and automatically assumed that it would automagically make the CPU faster. That's not the case. There are just a few situations where the hotfixes will work. Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 3:11 Reply

#6 NC37

lol, my 945 beats an FX in the 4T Cinebench...ha! Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 3:27 Reply

#7 RejZoR

Resident Evil 5 ? That's like testing a Ferrari on a construction site... I'm not saying this CPU has certain problems but i don't think they could pick any worse game to set an example... Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 3:42 Reply

#8 entropy13

RejZoR Resident Evil 5 ? That's like testing a Ferrari on a construction site... There's a 4% improvement in the game. So if your analogy holds through, testing a Ferrari on a construction site would also entail some improvement? There's a 4% improvement in the game. So if your analogy holds through, testing a Ferrari on a construction site would also entail some improvement? Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 3:50 Reply

#9 seronx

NC37 lol, my 945 beats an FX in the 4T Cinebench...ha! Well no duh SSE2 performance dropped with Bulldozer







But don't expect it to do better in real world applications that use SSE4.1 which your CPU can't really do for feasible performance gain



It will be fixed with Vishera or by 40h-4Fh Steamroller the SSE2 performance Well no duh SSE2 performance dropped with BulldozerBut don't expect it to do better in real world applications that use SSE4.1 which your CPU can't really do for feasible performance gainIt will be fixed with Vishera or by 40h-4Fh Steamroller the SSE2 performance Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 3:52 Reply

#10 RejZoR

entropy13 There's a 4% improvement in the game. So if your analogy holds through, testing a Ferrari on a construction site would also entail some improvement? It did gain tiny bit on those few meters of brand new asphalt. In most cases the perfromance even degraded. Like it would when using Ferrari on a construction site... not exactly impressed. It did gain tiny bit on those few meters of brand new asphalt. In most cases the perfromance even degraded. Like it would when using Ferrari on a construction site... not exactly impressed. Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 4:10 Reply

#11 meirb111

a song for amd :



"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good



Oh Lord please don't let me be misunderstood" Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 4:28 Reply

#12 qubit

Overclocked quantum bit Oh well. Makes you wonder why Microsoft bothered, doesn't it? Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 4:57 Reply

#13 air_ii

mtosev more fail for amd. scrap bulldozer and start working on a new cpu. While BD may not be what everyone wanted it to be, maybe further iterations of the architecture will bring improvements. Maybe there is a potential in the architecture. Look what became of R600 -> RV770. While BD may not be what everyone wanted it to be, maybe further iterations of the architecture will bring improvements. Maybe there is a potential in the architecture. Look what became of R600 -> RV770. Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 4:58 Reply

#14 mtosev

air_ii While BD may not be what everyone wanted it to be, maybe further iterations of the architecture will bring improvements. Maybe there is a potential in the architecture. Look what became of R600 -> RV770. by the time they get it right intel will still be ahead of amd. at least AMD err... ATI knows how to make graphic cards by the time they get it right intel will still be ahead of amd. at least AMD err... ATI knows how to make graphic cards Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 5:03 Reply

#15 qubit

Overclocked quantum bit air_ii While BD may not be what everyone wanted it to be, maybe further iterations of the architecture will bring improvements. Maybe there is a potential in the architecture. Look what became of R600 -> RV770. That wasn't a framerate performance improvement (not much). It simply made the chip smaller and use less power. That wasn't a framerate performance improvement (not much). It simply made the chip smaller and use less power. Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 5:08 Reply

#16 laszlo

mtosev more fail for amd. scrap bulldozer and start working on a new cpu. why fail? there are improvements and they are free;maybe we'll see a better patch which more improvements why fail? there are improvements and they are free;maybe we'll see a better patch which more improvements Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 5:13 Reply

#17 Dent1







Below are quotes from another thread, trusted people from this community whom are saying the patch DID improve things. omagic Well i only had time to check Crysis CPU Benchmark

Before 47 fps

After 56 fps



So quite nice boost. Ill try some more games after the work



FX-8120 8GB RAM HD6870

1680x1050 all maxed Tweety Windows CPU score went from 7.4 to 7.5... for free :) screamer980 Here's my result. Before Patch 7.15. After 7.23 pantherx12 Got the same 7.6% increase in cinebench single core as the leaked patch, this time with no hit to multicore performance : ] n0tiert My Futuremark 3DMark11 test on FX-8150 / 6990



as you can see , it slightly raised the PhysX score a bit and the Total score is arround 50 points higher Link: What people have to remember is, they only tested a few applications and games. This review is a very small sample and does not reflect the patch as a whole. If people look back at the other Bulldozer "patch" thread you would see that members in this very forum are reporting upto 7% performance increase. So it's really application dependant, and no review can cater for every application.Below are quotes from another thread, trusted people from this community whom are saying the patch DID improve things.Link: www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2514812#post2514812 Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 5:15 Reply

#18 moonlord

"there were no significant performance gains noticed" Well.. i know that , those hotfixes are a waste of time. Bad investment :banghead: Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 5:22 Reply

#19 Dent1

moonlord "there were no significant performance gains noticed" Well.. i know that , those hotfixes are a waste of time. Bad investment :banghead: Read my post above. Read my post above. Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 5:25 Reply

#20 moonlord

Dent1 Read my post above. My WEI is still 7.7, maybe this patch improves other configurations, but for my software and games makes no difference. My WEI is still 7.7, maybe this patch improves other configurations, but for my software and games makes no difference. Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 5:35 Reply

#21 Zubasa

moonlord My WEI is still 7.7, maybe this patch improves other configurations, but for my software and games makes no difference. LOL like WEI matters :shadedshu LOL like WEI matters :shadedshu Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 5:52 Reply

#22 mtosev

laszlo why fail? there are improvements and they are free;maybe we'll see a better patch which more improvements fail because an i7 2600/K costs less and is still faster fail because an i7 2600/K costs less and is still faster Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 5:54 Reply

#23 pantherx12

I got a single core and dual core performance boost.



Nothing at 10% thus far but still a wee boost for free aint bad : ]



I wouldn't say it was no improvement due to that website only testing multi-core stuff.



The patch was designed to fix threads jumping from one core to another which should fix up turbocore and the second patch designed to stop processors going into sleep mode whilst a thread was active on them. ( Caused stuttering like effect in games)



That it comes with a lil boost as well is nothing but a good thing. Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 6:08 Reply

#24 Horrux

mtosev fail because an i7 2600/K costs less and is still faster Not in SSE 4.1.



I have no idea what that is, except any code heavy with these kinds of functions in it will fly on the BD compared to a 2600k. Maybe in the future there will be more such code? Not in SSE 4.1.I have no idea what that is, except any code heavy with these kinds of functions in it will fly on the BD compared to a 2600k. Maybe in the future there will be more such code? Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 6:22 Reply

#25 seronx

Horrux Not in SSE 4.1.



I have no idea what that is, except any code heavy with these kinds of functions in it will fly on the BD compared to a 2600k. Maybe in the future there will be more such code? SSE4.1 is for transcoding



Bulldozer prefers the traditional ideology Integer does Transcoding and it would make sense because there is 2 Integer Pipes per Core(Ignoring the AGLUs which can make it 4) and 3 Integer Pipes per Floating Point Unit



Sandy Bridge aims for floating point to do it....but ultimately it is easier to implement Bulldozer as the best transcoding beast in the world because it is easy to make it transcode and it is very fast at transcoding



Encoding and Decoding <3s Bulldozer as it is pretty much a big DSP



Also FMA can replace a majority of MAC instructions making Bulldozer faster in those areas



forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1533501&postcount=1732



I'll just leave this link here... SSE4.1 is for transcodingBulldozer prefers the traditional ideology Integer does Transcoding and it would make sense because there is 2 Integer Pipes per Core(Ignoring the AGLUs which can make it 4) and 3 Integer Pipes per Floating Point UnitSandy Bridge aims for floating point to do it....but ultimately it is easier to implement Bulldozer as the best transcoding beast in the world because it is easy to make it transcode and it is very fast at transcodingEncoding and Decoding <3s Bulldozer as it is pretty much a big DSPAlso FMA can replace a majority of MAC instructions making Bulldozer faster in those areasI'll just leave this link here... Posted on Jan 13th 2012, 6:47 Reply