Posts: 4.504
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation:
89
02-19-2013, 04:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2013, 04:43 PM by nosisab Ken Keleh.)
(02-19-2013, 03:21 PM)miseru99 Wrote: Just want to add that in case of AMD those "superior" instruction sets doesn't really look soo bright like in intel, AFAIK AVX implementation in Bulldozers(aka faildozers;p) is tragic/even slower than SSE2 and supposedly it didn't really changed in PileDriver either.=_=; But anyway people overestimate the importance of those, it's just few % max, depending on game and your limitations it could not result in any speed gain at all. Faster architecture, better temps and related things matters much more for pcsx2 than those instruction optimalizations.
Actually AMD Bulldozer does not have problems with those "superior" instruction sets, its problems actually come from poor workload in the core usage per module what deals with integer operations.
When designing Bulldozer seems they focused so much in multithreaded operations that
totally forgot that many applications are still lightly threaded... ces't la vie.
PS: At least till now I can rest assured AMD is not "actively" trying to get into my backdoor and implementing features that CAN be used to enslave the machine and through it, the user. For this reason alone> "Vive long and prosper AMD"
Imagination is where we are truly real
Posts: 4.504
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation:
89
(02-19-2013, 05:22 PM)metalmallow Wrote: wat
Two words "vPRO" and "TC"
Imagination is where we are truly real
Posts: 2.128
Threads: 8
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation:
112
Neverthless the reason(I totally lost interest in BD after first tests;p, PD apu's are cool, but still not really an upgrade either @_@), from practical tests avx code is slower than sse2 for those AMD cpu's that has it and it applies to pcsx2 as well.
Obviously nothing of that applies to OP, but good to know for all those BD/PD users out there who always thought AMD is slower only couse having less instructions.(And we always had people asking for support for AMD SSE3 and SSE4a thinking it was lack of those the cause of worser performance;p.)
Posts: 4.504
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation:
89
02-20-2013, 12:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-20-2013, 12:12 AM by nosisab Ken Keleh.)
(02-19-2013, 11:19 PM)pgert Wrote: This is a BIOS issue, yes?
http://communities.intel.com/message/71676
No, it's a CPU "issue".
PS: Anyway the whole thing is broader and a shared effort from the TCG what includes among others (AMD included): Intel, Sony and MS as most active members.
@metalmellow
If you think it is an insignificant feature that means you have no idea of what it "can" do today and what it may become.
About optional... don't rely on it.
Besides, it is not designed to be controlled from inside but from outside.
Now, let's stop here, this is not the thread topic, I already regret have brought it on.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Posts: 8.013
Threads: 133
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation:
96
Location: Delft, The Netherlands
Btw not to drag AMD down, cause I love their CPU/GPUs, but wasn't the Phenom IIs better at first then the bulldozers?? Not sure if that changed though.
