Puff

衝吧！Faildozer！
老實講，Normal use 就真係無乜所謂。有特殊用途就真係... 搵 啦。FX 只係用黎超頻自 High 用。


咦，出錯 Logo

[ 本帖最後由 Puff 於 2012-4-3 20:40 編輯 ]

Puff

引用:

原帖由 dom 於 2012-4-3 22:20 發表
有人話 Trinity 好大進步喎

Single Thread  A10 只係 Athlon II X2 @ 3.4GHz 級數
咁都叫 "進步"
人地 Intel Ivy Bridge 又推多 10% 啦!

就算係 10% 也是進步。

Puff

引用:

原帖由 dom 於 2012-4-3 22:06 發表
一 Disable "HT" 就現形

只有  270 級數

正常呀，你話佢 Fake HT，咁佢得 Dual-core 270 級數唔合理咩。Time will tell la. Frequency 唔會一直都可以升上去。要講既話，Bulldozer 十足個唔夠 budget 的第一代實驗品設計。唔係講緊錢錢錢錢。

Puff

引用:

原帖由 dom 於 2012-4-4 01:43 發表


After the test , plus reading lots of Bulldozer Review
AMD really "FAIL" , Bulldozer in concept sounds "awesome"
but in reality , AMD they screwed up the front end ........

One module have OK perfo ...

Are you talking about cores? This is an issue of how AMD is telling Microsoft to profile its Bulldozer for desktop applications. And the flaw is not about the front-end at all, as one core is still enjoying a full front-end when another core is idle.

The flaw is more likely the cache part or the execution part. Try to test the single-thread performance among different kinds of workload by setting processor affinity (turning the Another Core on and off). It should still be a bad even the Another Core is off.

[ 本帖最後由 Puff 於 2012-4-5 01:16 編輯 ]

Puff

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2012-4-5 01:49 發表

for certain there is something wrong in front-end

I only know that there is some limitation related to AVX-256. Is there anything else?