Smarter Thread Scheduling Improves AMD Bulldozer Performance

crookedvulture writes "The initial reviews of the first Bulldozer-based FX processors have revealed the chips to be notably slower than their Intel counterparts. Part of the reason is the module-based nature of AMD's new architecture, which requires more intelligent thread scheduling to extract optimum performance. This article takes a closer look at how tweaking Windows 7's thread scheduling can improve Bulldozer's performance by 10-20%. As with Intel's Hyper-Threading tech, Bulldozer performs better when resource sharing is kept to a minimum and workloads are spread across multiple modules rather than the multiple cores within them."

Comments

It was already beating all intel in highly threade

[unity100]

applications, like photosop cs5 or truecrypt, including some more :

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/1141562-practical-bulldozer-apps.html

also, if you set your cpuid to genuineintel in some of the benchmark programs, you will get suprising results :

try changing cpuid=genuineintel for +47% INCREASE IN SCORES.

changing cpuid to GenuineIntel nets 47.4% increase in performance:
[url]http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remove_quot_Cripple_AMD_quot_Function_from_Compiler_[/url]

PCMark/Futuremark rigged bentmark to favor intel:
[url]http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=135382#p139712[/url] [url]http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/atom-nano-review.ars/6[/url]

intel cheating at 3DMark vantage via driver: [url]http://techreport.com/articles.x/17732/2[/url]

relying on bentmarks to "measure performance" is a fool's errand. dont go there.

Re:no one got fired buying intel

[Kjella]

Well, it doesn't seem to apply when you get up to supercomputing levels at least. I checked the TOP500 list and it's 76% Intel, 13% AMD. As for Bulldozer, it has serious performance/watt issues even though the performance/price ratio isn't all that bad for a server. On the desktop, Intel hasn't even bothered to make a response except to quietly add a 2700K to their pricing table, with the 2600K left untouched. On the business side (where after all margins fund future R&D) then Sandy Bridge's 216mm2 is much smaller than Bulldozer's 315mm2. Intel can produce almost 50% more in the same die area, in practice the yields probably favor Intel more because the risk of critical defects go up with size. Honestly, I don't think Intel has felt less challenged since the AMD K5 days...