Windows 7 Fx 8350 Patch
I have the same cpu as you on another PC i own but I only had windows 8 installed for a matter of minutes before pulling out half my hair and rage formating the drive and putting windows 7 back on so I can't recall if mine said this or not. Plus I only installed windows 8 and not 8.1.Its a god awful ugly and useless OS to use go back to windows 7 if you can.If i remember you can click on the area where the cpu is and it separates them into displaying the usage on each thread. Thats all that matters really is windows is using each thread. If anything its a bug in the way its displaying your cpu core there. Unless your using a intel i7 in disguise as an amd cpu. I have the same cpu as you on another PC i own but I only had windows 8 installed for a matter of minutes before pulling out half my hair and rage formating the drive and putting windows 7 back on so I can't recall if mine said this or not. Plus I only installed windows 8 and not 8.1.Its a god awful ugly and useless OS to use go back to windows 7 if you can.If i remember you can click on the area where the cpu is and it separates them into displaying the usage on each thread.
Amd Fx 8350 Eight Core
Thats all that matters really is windows is using each thread. If anything its a bug in the way its displaying your cpu core there. Unless your using a intel i7 in disguise as an amd cpu.You installed Windows 8 for minutes and decided it was useless?Good review there matey.do u do the same with games?
I have the same cpu as you on another PC i own but I only had windows 8 installed for a matter of minutes before pulling out half my hair and rage formating the drive and putting windows 7 back on so I can't recall if mine said this or not. Plus I only installed windows 8 and not 8.1.Its a god awful ugly and useless OS to use go back to windows 7 if you can.If i remember you can click on the area where the cpu is and it separates them into displaying the usage on each thread.
Thats all that matters really is windows is using each thread. If anything its a bug in the way its displaying your cpu core there. Unless your using a intel i7 in disguise as an amd cpu.Lol intel in disguise. First time I've heard of that.Well if it's a display bug, then I'm okay with that. All the threads are being utilized so it wouldn't make sense if it was 4 cores and 8 threads active on this type of architecture. I should bother MS about it.The reason I have windows 8.1 is because of next gen games and optimization. I could just use mods to change it to windows 7 start menu, which I will later.
The reason I have windows 8.1 is because of next gen games and optimization. I could just use mods to change it to windows 7 start menu, which I will later.Start8 is the best program to bring back the classic start menu, but to be honest, once I installed 8.1 I took Start8 off because I didnt really need it. The new menu works fine, I spend most of the time in the desktop anyway.I don't ever use the start menu, but that's just me. I like having all my tabs in one place, the task bar. If I had a tablet, I'd probably use it more often because it's quick and simple to use.
Is Windows confused by the 4 modules of the FX 8350? And no, FX 8350 is not like hyperthreading either.Compared to CPU-z it says 8 cores.
I have them enabled in my BIOS too and power settings to max. I also have it set to 8 in MSConfig. Do I need to update my BIOS? Is this inaccuracy normal for Windows 8.1?
Are there any registry hacks?It's thread locality scheduling issue i.e. For optimal performance, two related threads must be running on the same Piledriver module hence why MS treats AMD's Piledriver module like Intel's CPU hyper-threading. Is Windows confused by the 4 modules of the FX 8350? And no, FX 8350 is not like hyperthreading either.Compared to CPU-z it says 8 cores. I have them enabled in my BIOS too and power settings to max. I also have it set to 8 in MSConfig.
Do I need to update my BIOS? Is this inaccuracy normal for Windows 8.1? Are there any registry hacks?It's thread locality scheduling issue i.e. For optimal performance, two related threads must be running on the same Piledriver module hence why MS treats AMD's Piledriver module like Intel's CPU hyper-threading.They could just lie to us and say it uses 8 cores since they're active anyway.Instead it reads is by the modules and active threads which is confusing. Maybe core unparking would change it. I'm not sure.
Either way it runs a hell of a lot faster than my old Athlon processor. This is my first time having anything above 2 cores, and having a PC I built.:P. Is Windows confused by the 4 modules of the FX 8350? And no, FX 8350 is not like hyperthreading either.Compared to CPU-z it says 8 cores. I have them enabled in my BIOS too and power settings to max. I also have it set to 8 in MSConfig. Do I need to update my BIOS?
Is this inaccuracy normal for Windows 8.1? Are there any registry hacks?It's thread locality scheduling issue i.e. For optimal performance, two related threads must be running on the same Piledriver module hence why MS treats AMD's Piledriver module like Intel's CPU hyper-threading.They could just lie to us and say it uses 8 cores since they're active anyway.Instead it reads is by the modules and active threads which is confusing. Maybe core unparking would change it. I'm not sure. Either way it runs a hell of a lot faster than my old Athlon processor. This is my first time having anything above 2 cores, and having a PC I built.:PWith AMD Piledriver module, each core shares L1 and L2 cache and it would be optimal to treat them like Intel's hyper-threading i.e.
MS recycled Windows' Intel hyper-threading CPU affinity parking for AMD Piledriver module. Is Windows confused by the 4 modules of the FX 8350? And no, FX 8350 is not like hyperthreading either.Compared to CPU-z it says 8 cores. I have them enabled in my BIOS too and power settings to max. I also have it set to 8 in MSConfig. Do I need to update my BIOS?
Fx-8370
Is this inaccuracy normal for Windows 8.1? Are there any registry hacks?It's thread locality scheduling issue i.e. For optimal performance, two related threads must be running on the same Piledriver module hence why MS treats AMD's Piledriver module like Intel's CPU hyper-threading.They could just lie to us and say it uses 8 cores since they're active anyway.Instead it reads is by the modules and active threads which is confusing. Maybe core unparking would change it. I'm not sure. Either way it runs a hell of a lot faster than my old Athlon processor.
This is my first time having anything above 2 cores, and having a PC I built.:PWith AMD Piledriver module, each core shares L1 and L2 cache and it would be optimal to treat them like Intel's hyper-threading i.e. MS recycled Windows' Intel hyper-threading CPU affinity parking for AMD Piledriver module.Makes sense. I guess that's what that hot fix was for windows 7 did to change how windows sees it.Well, thanks for the informative info.