TLB fix..... Shocked!

ShadowMyth · *Last edited by ShadowMyth; 08-18-2009 at 13:48.*

I couldn't for the life of me figure why my computer was running Far cry 2 so slow. I knew the TLB fix would slow performance, but when I disabled the TLB fix I was shocked! I went from 18-32 fps on Far Cry 2 @ 1360x768 to 45-84 fps once disabled. My gaming performance has more than doubled. I just thought I'd post this for anyone else having issues and by the way, since I have disabled it I have had no computer issues. Thanks to all for their posts in helping helping me nail down this issue.

DrHycodan · 08-18-2009, 13:50 | posts: 347 | Location: Houston, TX USA | User is Online

why dont you just get a phenom II, they work on that board too

deltatux · 08-18-2009, 13:52 | posts: 7,219 | Location: Toronto, Canada | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowMyth

I couldn't for the life of me figure why my computer was running Far cry 2 so slow. I knew the TLB fix would slow performance, but when I disabled the TLB fix I was shocked! I went from 18-32 fps on Far Cry 2 @ 1360x768 to 45-84 fps once disabled. My gaming performance has more than doubled. I just thought I'd post this for anyone else having issues and by the way, since I have disabled it I have had no computer issues. Thanks to all for their posts in helping helping me nail down this issue.

it's known that the TLB fix does affect performance. However, without it, you may encounter the TLB bug and will catastrophically crash your system (afaik).

Best to get a TLB-free 9x50 processor or get a Phenom II.

deltatux

ShadowMyth · 08-18-2009, 14:06 | posts: 963 | Location: West Chester, PA | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrHycodan

why dont you just get a phenom II, they work on that board too

My board only supports a 95w Phenom II. May get the Phenom II 95w 945 in a few months. Once I disabled the TLB fix, I'm pretty happy with what I have. I can run any game out there including Crysis maxed out at 1920x1080. But I am getting the itch to upgrade. I hope they release some more 95w chips.

deltatux · 08-18-2009, 14:25 | posts: 7,219 | Location: Toronto, Canada | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowMyth

My board only supports a 95w Phenom II. May get the Phenom II 95w 945 in a few months. Once I disabled the TLB fix, I'm pretty happy with what I have. I can run any game out there including Crysis maxed out at 1920x1080. But I am getting the itch to upgrade. I hope they release some more 95w chips.

I doubt it, I think AMD is a lil' more concern with i5 than shrink the wattage. Remember, the 810 is also a 95W chip and if you have a SB710/750 you can unlock the disabled cache too (not just cores).

deltatux

Mega_Death · 08-18-2009, 15:36 | posts: 867 | Location: Michigan | User is Offline

The X3 720 would be a very nice performance boost with a very low cost, and it's 95W. Easy to hit 3.2GHz with it.

Psychlone · 08-18-2009, 19:44 | posts: 3,108 | Location: near...very near | User is Offline

...nothing bad happens because of an xx00 CPU with the TLB Bugfix [Disabled] - in fact, even by AMD's own admission, it's an extremely rare scenario that the errata even shows up.
It's there, and that's why there was such a fuss over that architecture when it was new - but something that most people never caught was that it takes a specialized set of circumstances to even see that errata happen. (specialized really should be B/I/U because I've not seen a single instance of it showing up in literally hundreds of tests on that architecture, even when I tried to replicate exactly what the focus group was saying showed it)

Anyway, congrats on your newfound power! That just may hold you over until you get yourself a new PhenomII!

Psychlone

ShadowMyth · 08-18-2009, 20:07 | posts: 963 | Location: West Chester, PA | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychlone

...nothing bad happens because of an xx00 CPU with the TLB Bugfix [Disabled] - in fact, even by AMD's own admission, it's an extremely rare scenario that the errata even shows up.
It's there, and that's why there was such a fuss over that architecture when it was new - but something that most people never caught was that it takes a specialized set of circumstances to even see that errata happen. (specialized really should be B/I/U because I've not seen a single instance of it showing up in literally hundreds of tests on that architecture, even when I tried to replicate exactly what the focus group was saying showed it)

Anyway, congrats on your newfound power! That just may hold you over until you get yourself a new PhenomII!

Psychlone

Thank you, I just think it might.

vbetts · 08-18-2009, 20:29 | posts: 7,004 | Location: Toledo Ohio | User is Offline

The first Phenom series isn't all that bad. If games use quad core, then that's where it'll shine. Sort of like the HD 2900 series. They sucked on their own, but in Crossfire they scream.

deltatux · 08-18-2009, 21:03 | posts: 7,219 | Location: Toronto, Canada | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by vbetts

The first Phenom series isn't all that bad. If games use quad core, then that's where it'll shine. Sort of like the HD 2900 series. They sucked on their own, but in Crossfire they scream.

lol, man, the R600 GPU imo really sucked. The R700 is so much better, glad that I got rid of mine (and gave it to my bro =P ... then again his monitor is much smaller than mine 17" vs. my 22").

deltatux

vbetts · 08-18-2009, 21:15 | posts: 7,004 | Location: Toledo Ohio | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltatux

lol, man, the R600 GPU imo really sucked. The R700 is so much better, glad that I got rid of mine (and gave it to my bro =P ... then again his monitor is much smaller than mine 17" vs. my 22").

deltatux

On it's own, yes. But as I said, in crossfire is where it really showed what it could do.

But it should never come to adding more gpus to get performance like that though imo.

deltatux · 08-18-2009, 23:18 | posts: 7,219 | Location: Toronto, Canada | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by vbetts

On it's own, yes. But as I said, in crossfire is where it really showed what it could do.

But it should never come to adding more gpus to get performance like that though imo.

apparently that's going to be the trend because like CPUs, you can only make them go so fast on their own there's going to be a deadend really soon and I think AMD has figured that out for the DX11 chips as that's what's being reported.

deltatux

vbetts · 08-19-2009, 07:32 | posts: 7,004 | Location: Toledo Ohio | User is Offline

Ehh, I don't like it still. It works fine for cpus, but for GPUs, it's not the best idea...

Markgpl · 08-19-2009, 07:48 | posts: 483 | User is Offline

Not as long as they can't share memory and other resources, take notice that gpu are hugely parallel so they should work better than cpu on multicore deployment. But that need to happen via hardware (drivers should see one big gpu) and not software via drivers, too costly.
Of course they would do that if it where possible.

ice445 · 08-19-2009, 09:15 | posts: 1,157 | Location: Toledo, Ohio | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltatux

apparently that's going to be the trend because like CPUs, you can only make them go so fast on their own there's going to be a deadend really soon and I think AMD has figured that out for the DX11 chips as that's what's being reported.

deltatux

Nope, not a dead end anywhere in sight. When they've constructed CPU's/GPU's molecule by molecule on a 1nm fabrication process, then you can correctly say we're near the end.

Markgpl · 08-19-2009, 09:23 | posts: 483 | User is Offline

Not quite, the paradigm of transistors could be build around photon states or all kind of exotic things that let you switch 0's and 1's, but still the problem is that shrinking cmos transistors has become difficult and investment return time window shorter.