ooh AMD being sneaky with CPU's.

filmoret

Not sure if many people know this and IDK how many different models this happens with.  But AMD advertising their quad core processors really only have dual cores.  They are being hyperthreaded into 4 cores.  It would be like intel calling their i7's 8 core processors simply because they are being hyperthreaded.  Wasn't too happy to learn this about my cpu.

Quizzical

You are mistaken.  Current AMD CPUs do not support hyperthreading.  No past AMD CPUs have ever supported hyperthreading.  Zen will be the first AMD CPU ever to support hyperthreading.

AMD's Bulldozer and Piledriver cores (FX-series, plus some older A-series APUs that are now off the market) did have two CPU cores share a scheduler, but it had two separate physical integer cores sharing that scheduler.  AMD's recent higher end CPUs (FX-series plus all but the low end A-series APUs) have two cores share a floating point unit.  There are enough resources there for both cores to use the floating point unit simultaneously unless one of them needs an AVX instruction, in which case, the other can't use it at the same time.

Hyperthreading does basically the opposite of what AMD did:  it has two separate scheduling units for a single physical core.  Because there is only one core, both schedulers can't have something execute at the same time.  Because AMD has two physical cores in a module, both can execute completely independent things at the same time, just as you'd expect from two CPU cores.

The two cores in a module do share an L2 cache.  But a Core 2 Duo had both cores share the L2 cache, too; surely that didn't mean it was really a single core CPU.

filmoret

Thats strange.  So why is windows saying my AMD only have 2 cores?  And it never says that my i7 has 2 cores.

Dakeru

You and Malabooga should really put this foolishness behind you already.

filmoret

Well this is the reason AMD cpu's are much slower then intel's.  They are using half the cores and presenting them as though they aren't.  Even though what Quiz said was correct.  It does behave like a hyperthreaded core and performs like one as well.

Quizzical

filmoret said:

Well this is the reason AMD cpu's are much slower then intel's.  They are using half the cores and presenting them as though they aren't.  Even though what Quiz said was correct.  It does behave like a hyperthreaded core and performs like one as well.

No, the reason AMD's CPUs are slower than Intel's is that the individual cores are slower.  If you run a single-threaded benchmark that can only use one core, an Intel Sky Lake desktop CPU will tend to be much faster than anything AMD has.

Vrika

filmoret said:

Well this is the reason AMD cpu's are much slower then intel's.  They are using half the cores and presenting them as though they aren't.  Even though what Quiz said was correct.  It does behave like a hyperthreaded core and performs like one as well.

AMD loses to Intel above all in single-thread speed tests. When the test uses more than 4 threads, the difference in favor of Intel is much smaller:

  http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-FX-9590/3647vs1812


EDIT: Quizzical posted a his answer a bit faster /EDIT

Vrika

filmoret said:

And it never says that my i7 has 2 cores.

I think all desktop I7 processors have at least 8 threads. It would be strange for Windows to count that as 2 cores.

I can't comment on how Windows counts the number of cores on your AMD processor because I've got no idea which AMD processor you have.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Malabooga

Oooh dam, guy who cant troubleshoot his own PC want to discuss things lol

Tell you what, when you write an decent essay on AMD CPU architecture......you might actually sidcuss things lol

filmoret

Vrika said:

filmoret said:

And it never says that my i7 has 2 cores.

I think all desktop I7 processors have at least 8 threads. It would be strange for Windows to count that as 2 cores.

I can't comment on how Windows counts the number of cores on your AMD processor because I've got no idea which AMD processor you have.

If you disable hyperthreading it shows the number of cores.   The i7 will show 4 cores and the amd processors will only show 2 cores.  

filmoret

Well the problem is the way AMD is splitting the core.  They are really running on 1/2 a core which is why their cores are being displayed as weaker then the intel ones.  I'm willing to wager that with HT disabled you will see the AMD core running up to par with Intel.


@Malabooga don't look like you were able to help at all with that troubleshooting so you have no room to talk.

Malabooga

Dakeru said:

You and Malabooga should really put this foolishness behind you already.

What does his nonsense has to do with me, he refuses to educate himself, and well thats his right. But at least his posts are great source of comedy lol

filmoret said:

Well the problem is the way AMD is splitting the core.  They are really running on 1/2 a core which is why their cores are being displayed as weaker then the intel ones.  I'm willing to wager that with HT disabled you will see the AMD core running up to par with Intel.


@Malabooga don't look like you were able to help at all with that troubleshooting so you have no room to talk.

no no, elaborate in great detail how "AMD is splitting the core" lol

*thats what im talking about

i told you the first step, you refuse to listen, so.....thats all the time i want to invest for somene who has no clue what hes doing but still insists on...well...not doing anything but complain lol

filmoret

Malabooga said:

Dakeru said:

You and Malabooga should really put this foolishness behind you already.

What does his nonsense has to do with me, he refuses to educate himself, and well thats his right. But at least his posts are great source of comedy lol

filmoret said:

Well the problem is the way AMD is splitting the core.  They are really running on 1/2 a core which is why their cores are being displayed as weaker then the intel ones.  I'm willing to wager that with HT disabled you will see the AMD core running up to par with Intel.


@Malabooga don't look like you were able to help at all with that troubleshooting so you have no room to talk.

no no, elaborate in great detail how "AMD is splitting the core" lol

*thats what im talking about

i told you the first step, you refuse to listen, so.....thats all the time i want to invest for somene who has no clue what hes doing but still insists on...well...not doing anything but complain lol

Because they are sharing resources just like you would if you were hyperthreading.  Sure its different in a sense because they are sharing different resources but its still sharing.  If they were fully utilizing everything instead of sharing it would be faster.  Not that hard to figure out really.   here some explanation from an expert


"  AMD uses cores with shared components so every 2 cores share many of the parts making them more like 1.5 cores. This does not mean heavily threaded programs do not get a boost just like they do from Intel HT"

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2757163/intel-perform-amd-cores-clock-speed-cache-mem.html


And since you decided to insult everyone who tried to help me with my computer problem.  Why don't you explain the solution that so easily evaded the 100 people trying to help?

Malabooga

Funny, heers the WHOLE response

"AMD and Intel use radically different cores.

AMD uses cores with shared components so every 2 cores share many of the parts making them more like 1.5 cores. This does not mean heavily threaded programs do not get a boost just like they do from Intel HT.

Clock speed only means so much because every core type does so much work per clock cycle. Because at current Intel does more work per clock cycle. They can be faster with less clock speed.

It was the opposite when AMD released the Athlon64 that was faster at 2.0-2.2 ghz than Intel cpus running a 3.0ghz and higher.

Software can be designed to take more advantage of a core feature or instruction sets may also perform better on one core type than another.

This also happens with Video cards, Some favor Nvidia core designs while others favor AMDs. "

you couldnt even read through whole 10 lines lol and at that time, AMD 1.8 GHz Athlon perfomed same s 3+ GHz Intel, its was so bad that AMD had to invet "PR (pentium rating) because people like you didnt have a clue about that lol

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 3200+ - ADA3200DAA4BW (ADA3200BWBOX).html

Athlon64 3200+ (2000 MHz) -> performs like 3200+ MHz Intel chip, "3200+" is PR aka "pentium rating" lol


And its actually you who insulted everyone trying to help you by refusing to do anything that anyone suggested lol THATS why i dont want to help you, you have no clue what youre doing but still insist on just complaining lol

13lake

How then is the performance of amd FX-8370 (fake 8 core) almost exactly the same as i7-5960x (true 8 core) ?? And in DX11 none the less.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_infinite_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,8.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

Maybe the only difference is single-core IPC  ???

Malabooga

Many games perform better on 6+ Intel core CPUs (in some games even 4 cores) when you turn off HT because HT is getting in the way. Its quite interesting phenomenon.

filmoret

13lake said:

How then is the performance of amd FX-8370 (fake 8 core) almost exactly the same as i7-5960x (true 8 core) ?? And in DX11 none the less.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_infinite_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,8.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

Maybe the only difference is single-core IPC  ???

Its not.  You are looking at a game there which is lucky to use 4 cores.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2332&cmp[]=2347

That more closely resembles a real score.

Malabooga

And? it just means passmark if full of crap lol

so everyone who plays passmark should buy intel chips

filmoret

13lake said:

How then is the performance of amd FX-8370 (fake 8 core) almost exactly the same as i7-5960x (true 8 core) ?? And in DX11 none the less.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_infinite_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,8.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

Maybe the only difference is single-core IPC  ???

And if you also look the fx-8370 actually has 4 cores.  Its not like some of their other chips which have 2 cores but they call it 4.  Like this for example.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2332&cmp[]=2347&cmp[]=2721


Like I said in the OP I wasn't sure what chips they are doing this tricky thing on but the x4 845 is advertised as a quad core and it clearly is not.

filmoret

Malabooga said:

And? it just means passmark if full of crap lol

so everyone who plays passmark should buy intel chips

8 core processors are made for running servers not games.  You cannot compare a 4 core processor which is made for gaming with an 8 core processor which is made for running a server.  But you already knew that because you are a so smart.

Malabooga

Funny, i clearly see 8 cores....in an actual application rofl



 as i said.....decent essay on AMD architecture...until then...usual comedy gold from "filmoret" character rofl

when all 8 cores are used



pretty darn good for 100$ CPU lol, beats Intels 6/8/10 core CPUs lol

AND x4 845 has 4x32KB L1 chache. Why does it have 4 L1 caches if it only has 2 cores huh genius lol

Quizzical

Dren_Utogi said:

AMD up to FX series used hyperTransport which was their answer to hyperthreading. FX series chips that are billed for 8 cores in fact have 8 logical cores. The Anthlon is not an FX, it is not in the same league as an FX nore will it come close in performance to an FX.

 

You are mistaken.  HyperTransport has nothing to do with hyperthreading.  The former is to connect different chips entirely, while the latter is something that happens internally withing a single CPU core.  HyperTransport is more analogous to Intel's Quick Path Interconnnect or (now-deprecated) Front Side Bus, or perhaps to PCI Express.  It is a relatively high-throughput, low-latency connection, so it can be used in some situations where SATA or USB would be inappropriate.

Quizzical

filmoret said:

Well the problem is the way AMD is splitting the core.  They are really running on 1/2 a core which is why their cores are being displayed as weaker then the intel ones.  I'm willing to wager that with HT disabled you will see the AMD core running up to par with Intel.


@Malabooga don't look like you were able to help at all with that troubleshooting so you have no room to talk.

AMD's single-threaded problems have more to do with having fewer ALUs per core, narrower instruction decode, and higher latency caches than Intel.  But it's complicated, as there are many contributing factors.

Quizzical

13lake said:

How then is the performance of amd FX-8370 (fake 8 core) almost exactly the same as i7-5960x (true 8 core) ?? And in DX11 none the less.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_infinite_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,8.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dishonored_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

Maybe the only difference is single-core IPC  ???

That's because the CPU isn't the bottleneck in those situations.  The two CPUs would probably perform the same in storage benchmarks, too.

filmoret

Malabooga said:

Funny, i clearly see 8 cores....in an actual application rofl



 as i said.....decent essay on AMD architecture...until then...usual comedy gold from "filmoret" character rofl

when all 8 cores are used



pretty darn good for 100$ CPU lol, beats Intels 6/8/10 core CPUs lol

AND x4 845 has 4x32KB L1 chache. Why does it have 4 L1 caches if it only has 2 cores huh genius lol

Because they aren't sharing caches.  They are sharing something else.  And AGAIN I will tell you that 6/8/10 core cpu's aren't for gaming.  So using gaming results to compare them is just plain silly and absurd.  

Oh and BTW that i7 4790k is a 4 core processor.  That AMD processor on that chart is doing fairly well.