AMD Multicore CPUs - whats the crack?

[FatRakoon]

Can anyone actually explain to me what the crack is with AMD CPUs?

In particular, the 6 and 8 cores.

I mean, Im getting people telling me that they are not true cores, but similar to intels hyperthreading.

I have 2 hex cores and 2 octo core AMDs and this is possibly down to the motherboards, but in the 1090T, the 8120 and the 8350, I have in the BIOS, a setting that will let me assign a core to each CPU - WTFIT?

Anyway, I just thought Id ask.

 

[FatRakoon]

The Phenom II X6 were the ones that got 6 "real" cores.

Cool...

I did notice that when I upped my AMDx4 @ 3.2 to the AMDx6 @ 2.6 that it was able to handle more, but no faster. Some benchmarks put them pretty much together for the most part, so more cores but less speed.

When I then got a 3.2 Ghz HEX core, I found it to be a huge jump. I did also go from 4 to 8GB mind you

I think I will have another play comparing the 6 vs the 8 in terms of multiple stuff.

Blah Blah plus a link

I am reading the link and I came across this ... I found it pretty giggle worthy

"And then will come the ultimate AMD CPU, called Undertaker, and bury the company once and for all."

I certainly feel that there is justification in that.

----------

Ok guys, well cheers for this. Very much appreciated.

( Idiot mode is still on - I am typing this in notepad and looking for the POST REPLY button ???)

 

[FatRakoon]

I have done a bit of comparisons with my Daughter I7 ( 860 @ 2.93 ) and the AMDx8 and hers is still infinitely more responsive and faster when running multiple tasks.

Again, with Both setup with a 60GB SSD as C: and a 1TB as D: ( Thats how all my LAN PCs are setup ) and with them both running GSKILL 2x4GB RipJaws and Windows 7Pro ( Ok, naughtily NOT yet activated on the AMD ) I used ConvertX to DVD on 4 AVI Files from my GhostHunting collection.

I set them both up to use 2 cores per convertion. 1-2 3-4 5-6 and 7-8
The AMD was utterly dead to respond to anything while it was converting. I tried to double click on My computer but it failed to open it up for easily 10 to 15 minutes.

The intel never slowed down a single bit.

I then burned the content on my phone onto a CD and then I played a bit of Quake 4... When I finished playing, the Intel had finished the burn, and all 4 convertions of the videos and yet the AMD was not even 20% though on any of the video convertions and it was still not responding although the M<y Computer window had finally opened.

Ouch.

I am going to experiment with the BIOS CPU settings later to see how they help ... or not )

 

[FatRakoon]

Well, I did some comparisons of my 3 setups that are clock for clock the closest.

The AMD 1090T is 3.2Ghz and is a 6 core.
The 8120 is an 8 core but at 3.1
My daughters I7 is an 860 and thats 2.8 ( or 2.93 - it seems to be random )

But these are indeed the closest together and so I toyed about a little.

I do also have a 3.2Ghz Quad core AMD too, however, I am in a wheelchair and so 3 is bad enough to be sodding about with right now.

Anyway, I have found that if I force the BIOS on the 8 core to be 1-2 3-4 5-6 and 7-8 rather than AUTO, then it does handle basic multitaking a lot better. When using the setup as simply a straigh PC, its actually fairly nippy, however, unless I am sadly mistaken, the hexcore not only feels a hell of a lot quicker, but it handles multiple tasks a damned sight better too. Sure the hex is 3.2 over the octo being 3.1 but that should make absolutely no significant difference really.

I used Convert X to DVD v4 to convert a number of AVI files from my camera. The film in question, was some ghost hunting stuff, and I simply copied the same file over and over to each PC and the Hex core was perfectly able to handle 5 convertions, and let me play Dawn of War Soulstorm without much issues, ( I forced them to one core each ) but the 8 core started to fall over after 3 and by the time SoulStorm came up, It had been a good 10 minutes of me waiting.

The intel didnt seem to glitch at all, and I dont think that it was ANY different in loading up soulstorm to as if I didnt do any convertions at all.

However... Getting them to give all the cortes to a single task, the 8 core AMD really shone against the 6 core. Its still lost out to the intel however, but it did kill the AMDx6

Im annoyed with myself now, because I should have run more tests but the wife is moaning like hell at me, since my accident, I now have a bed an commode in the living room, plus 3 base units, and my laptops etc... So fair is fair, but over the next couple of weeks, I will be doing a whole series of tests properly one a one-by-one basis and that should be a laugh.

I have found some interesting things with AMDs in the last few days and learned a heck of a lot about them too I feel.

Thanks guys.



When convertin only

 

[FatRakoon]

I like the Workers idea. Seems to help me understand things a bit better in the way they may work.

I do wonder why AMD seems to have made REAL 6 core CPUs but then cut such corners with their 8 cores? Maybe they were putting too much faith into future coders?

 

[FatRakoon]

Incredible.

Im back on the AMD for a bit. This time, I am toying with the 8120.

I grabbed a whole bunch of AVI files, and converted them with the daughters I7 ( Socket 1156 860 @ 2.93 ) to get a benchmark and it gave me 9minutes and 45 seconds with using all 8 cores... Ok 4 plus HT then... You kmow what I mean.

So, on the AMD, I have just gone into the BIOS and I have set the CPU cores to "PAIR UP". and I set ConvertXtoDVD up to be the same as it is on her PC and I see its only showing 4 cores.

So, this is clearly what pairing has done and it is I think pretty much an AMD version of HT surely?

Anyway, all fun, its just finished the convertion and its done it in 07:58 so a smidge quicker on the AMD. I will have a plook with those CPU settings and then hopefully tomorrow I will have a go with my own I7 and 8350 and see what they produce.

Only thing is, that I noticed that while encoding, the AMD CPU usage was hovering at 53% to 61% so why wasteing all that CPU power?

I also remembered that my daughters PC is folding too! - that will affect the results surely?

 

[FatRakoon]

I think so yes? - of course I am probably wrong, but...

There is a CPU CORE CONTROL option and you can have MANUAL, AUTO or DIABLE

If you set it to manual, then you get the 8 cores but they kind of pair up so you only see 4 of them.

I have just gone back into the BIOS and set it to give me the 8 again and this time that convertion on 8 did it in just 6:18 so a huge difference again.

However... And this is killing me, but when I had it at 4, the system booted up and accessed the disk instantly and it was snappy as hell... Now on 8 its slow again? - cannot figure that one out?

 

[FatRakoon]

Wow... I think Im in love with this thing now!

yes, it was showing 8 then 4 then I put it down to 2 for a laugh.

Its now up to 8 and set to MANUAL rather than AUTO.

in earlier trials when I tried to swap my I7 for the 8350 I found that while I was not expecting the AMD to beat the Intel, I simply wanted to swap, but this is more than fast enough for my needs.

I have just run 4 copies of ConvertXtoDVD and after setting the affinity to 2 cores each, I was able to run them all just fine and not have any issues like I did before, so the BIOS is setup great at the moment.

Some more piddling and then Im going to play with the 8350.

 

[FatRakoon]

Get one.

PC Parts are getting so cheap these days.

Heck, I remember a while back, my favourite Mobo is the DS3 right. But I find out over the past few years that there is a few types.

I have for the Socket 775 is the 965P DS3. I also have a 935 and a 945 DS3, but at the time, I had 2 935 boards, and in my 965P, I have a Q9550 Intel.

Anyway, I wanted to try out an AMD since my last AMD at the time was the Opteron Socket 939 whatever and I offered out a Q6600 and the 935-DS3 for an AMD Mobo & CPU purely so I can say that I have a 9550 CPU in a DS3 Mobo in both Intel and AMD types.

Amazingly the 970 AM3 Mobo is another DS3.

Anyway, I keep buying this junk purely because I love messing about with PCs, and they are so cheap these days, its not THAT expensive to have a handful of spares handy.

Im just sad to have half a dozen half decent ones and another dozen semi decent, AND to have had my house eextended just to hold my PCs.

 

[FatRakoon]

Ah, missed your post.

Yes, I will compare some more... Im getting knackered now however... Im going to go to beddy-byes Im afraid.

I think I need to get both AMDs together and play with them to see the BIOSes and perhaps do a bit of clocking to bring them together and do direct head to head tests?

 

[FatRakoon]

Yeah, thanks for the link.

I found that I was getting very different results though. Maybe I simply misunderstood .. everything?

Since losing much of the use of my left hand, I can no longer play FPS games ( great excuse cos my son hammers me anyway ) and the only games I can play, is really the Dawn Of War series. I could perhaps offer some results on them games?

I help run a Ghost hunting club and I use my PC for mainly gettign everyones videos and plonking them all onto one DVD and I use ConvertXtoDVD since that lets me grab all kinds of Media files at once.

I have been using this for the benchmarking and for me, thats where the speed is more important than how well a game plays... Even though I usually play a game while converting and it finishes converting way befoe I finish the game, so in truth Id probably be happy with a Celeron...NAH.

So far, the most ridiculous thing I have found with this PC, is that if I pair up the cores and get 4 Cores, it boots up and access the disks very nicely. But, if I run all 8 cores then it does not.
Having all 8 cores only makes it a small ammount faster CPU wise, but having 4 makes the disk one hell of a lot quicker.

This is simply not possible, but its what is happening?

I dont have a good Disk benchmark ( Suggestions ) but the windows experience index is 7.3 on 4 and 4.7 on 8

Of course while I can disable cores, when I say 4 and 8, I mean 8x1 or 4x2 so its still doing 8 cores, but only 4 are visible.

The Motherboard being used is the Gigabyte 990XA-UD3 BIOS F13

 

[FatRakoon]

I have two of these. They are great boards, and rock solid. But I have Phenom II X6 in both.

Hmm..?

Well, mine I got off a mate a few weeks ago, and he had the 1090T in his ( Also aquired ) and that ran sweet as a nut.

I do have one issue with mine however, in that Its incompatible with my best RAM... If I want to use 4 sticksthen its generic junk, but if I want to use the good stuff, then I am stuck with only the far right slots. The UD3 also does this too, but not the 970A-DS3 ( All gigabyte )

It does do 4 sticks of Kingston however, but I only have 4x2GB.

Anyway, this forces me to buy massive sticks... I shoud simply STFU and buy a high end Mobo really.

 

[FatRakoon]

So, I am still confused?

When its showing up as 4 cores, is it ONLY running the 4 cores and getting great performance out of it because of the CPU no longer having to share...

Or is it sharing the cores and only showing up as 4

I am leaning towards the former

 

[FatRakoon]

I run two sticks of 4GB Kingston in each of mine, so 8GB per machine. I haven't tried 4 sticks.

Yes they do run sweet as a nut with the 1090t and 1100t that I have.

I need either one of my sons to grab the 4xkingston to have a play... The GSkill is Reaper stuff and does not fully fit under the CPU Cooler, but the Kingston stuff will. The Kingston is 2GB each, but if that works, then I will buy 4x4G and sell off the 4xGSkill to recoup some of the money.

It's making it go 1 core per module = greater performance due to not sharing resources.
Long and short of it.

But software should be doing that anyway now 1,3,5,7.

Its clear that AMD cutting that corner have hurt themselves then. The HEX Cores are being raved about and the 8 cores are being slated hugely... Says it all really.

I wonder how much better these CPUs will be if they didnt have to share?

Do AMD do such a CPU?

For me, I am simply going on the idea that its just like the 4 core I7... Its sort of a HT thing... Kind of.. Sort of..