This page was last edited on 21 December , at Windows 7 SP1 bit was installed, along with all additional MS updates and the two scheduler patches Microsoft released for Bulldozer last year. No, turbo is disabled, and clock speed is set to a fixed 3. The following two graphs compare the throughput of 8 vs. When AMD created Bulldozer, it promised that it could offer strong scaling while sharing core resources.
|Date Added:||25 October 2018|
|File Size:||14.3 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Retrieved 23 March Bulldozer, like the original Phenom, was a power hog. Octane shows Piledriver to be nine percent faster, but wPrime shows only very small performance buoldozer, one to two percent, in favor of Piledriver.
List of AMD FX microprocessors
Yep, performance scaling with SMT is dependent on the workload. Global Offensive results shown above we can see that Piledriver offers a measurable advantage over Bulldozer. You can use these HTML tags. The fastest model, the AK, featured two Piledriver modules operating at 4. Email will not be pilsdriver required.
However, when considering two threads, there is a continuum of design points that range from time-slicing threads on an unmodified CPU core 1. We are already familiar with the two extreme points of this design space: Poorly threaded web based tests like the SunSpider and Chalkboard benchmarks showed much larger piledrivrr than well threaded tests like our wPrime and Truecrypt benchmarks. In my opinion, neither of these are close enough to 1.
To find out we dusted off an old FX and warmed up the testing platform from our recent FX review. IMO, the most important thing to retain from this discussion is that we really must focus on calculating TPE throughput per EUR values and stop caring about announced GHZ and announced number of cores.
AMD’s FX-8350 analyzed: Does Piledriver deliver where Bulldozer fell short?
Speedup from two-way multithreading, comparing 8 threads to 4. Retrieved 22 March There is linear scaling until a clear bend in the curve at 4 threads, which indicates that using two threads in a module does not perform as well as two full cores.
The summary is here: One thing we can conclude off the bat — Vishera delivers some of the clock speed Bulldozer promised. If Turbo really was enabled, you would see a bend in the curve between 1 and 4 threads, rather than linear scaling. When AMD created Bulldozer, it promised that it could offer strong scaling while sharing core resources.
On a high level, Vishera looks just like Bulldozer. Thus, marketing chooses whatever term suits their interests. A Performance Metric The essential characteristic of having two threads is that the software developer must parallelize a task into two mostly-independent threads this is a hard problem!
AMD’s Bulldozer core compared with Piledriver – SemiAccurate
Looking at Handbrake, Piledriver outperforms Bulldozer again by about six percent. Some Opteron 32 nm processors. Since it launched, Sunnyvale has laid off thousands, is preparing to lay off thousands morecancelled its first set of 28nm chips based on the Bobcat architecture, and has lost ground piledrjver in the PC market.
Look at this cost comparison for machines for similar price: Retrieved 10 February I realized that comparing prices per GHZ makes no sense buldozer we have seen that the number of operations per GHZ depends heavily on the processor.
All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from August Blog Random stuff… Comments Posts. Piledriver includes improvements over the original Bulldozer microarchitecture: I will update the post.
Komodo was to launch in on the FM2 socketbut this never happened. Nov 5, by Thomas Ryan. Username or Email Address Password.