Chiropteran
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2003
- 9,811
- 110
- 106
So an "improvement" from ~9.3ish to 9.47 is "awesome"?
For a simple software patch with no negatives, sure it is.
So an "improvement" from ~9.3ish to 9.47 is "awesome"?
For a simple software patch with no negatives, sure it is.
So an "improvement" from ~9.3ish to 9.47 is "awesome"?
lulz
yeah it is awesome since you have no clue what it takes to go from 9.3 to 9.47 in cinebench.
that gain I got is equivalent to a 250-300 mhz overclock.
so this awesome patch just made my 2600k act like its overclocked 300mhz.
LUZ omg lollll....clueless post and please next time try using cinbench and see what it takes to raise your score .17 points
So now a 2-300 Mhz OC is "awesome"...
The only place the word "awesomw" fits to this patch would be in AMD PR material...
So an "improvement" from ~9.3ish to 9.47 is "awesome"?
lulz
I would can that patch "meh"..okay at the most.
think about it.
If this where a new CPU driver...that changed FPS from 9.3 FPs...to 9.5 FPS...I would respond in the same way.
Awesome has a whole different meaning:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awesome
It's not impressive...it's not even the 10% people hyped tha patch up to be...so again:
lulz
So now a 2-300 Mhz OC is "awesome"...
The only place the word "awesomw" fits to this patch would be in AMD PR material...
As some of you know in some cases with hyperthreading you actually lose performance or when the program is threaded for it you can gain some performance so I decided to give the hot fix a try on my 2600k
I ran cinebench 2 times and got 9.51 and 9.52 and then installed hot fix and rebooted and ran it once and got 9.68 and then a blue screen on the second run.
Im doing some more testing now and it seems stable so far as my rig was setup to pull the least amount of watts so thats prolly why I got the blue screen at 5ghz
no, thats not all it does at all, but the full details on the patch are pretty much non existant.All the hotfix does is make windows less twitchy. Aka, it will keep a thread on a core longer without constantly shuffling it between cores to balance temperature. IIRC it also takes into account full core vs split core (HT or AMD's double cores).
no, thats not all it does at all, but the full details on the patch are pretty much non existant.
The first update simply tells Windows 7 to schedule all threads on empty modules first, then on shared cores. The second hotfix increases Windows 7's core parking latency if there are threads that need scheduling.
reducing twitchiness doesn't account for why slightly more performance is obtained when all the cores are peaked out.
except threads are pinned to cores in the case of cinebench![]()
the vast majority of programs do not pin threads to cores though.
However, indeed that would not explain the increase in cinebench performance. What about the other patch? prioritizing empty modules over shared cores/HT.