Amd FX8350 is not using all 8 cores

X

XeRo_Dark

Gawd
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
1,006
Just updated to windows 10 x64 pro from win 7 x64 ultimate-n. Ive been having nothing but problems with win 10, its showing my cpu is running between 2.2ghz-2.81 and keeps changing actively. Also its showing in both the task manager and in cpuz, as 4 cores opposed to 8 and its showing a lower l1 and l2 cashe than what the cpu has. Everything is taking a month to load, much longer than windows 7 did in every way. From boot times to opening any system process; sound/gpu options/disc cleanup/HDD properties/task manager/etc. It also wont load allot of things on my computer. Frequent crashes in gaming, as well. Ive had to deactivate my crossfire on several games in order for it to run, which it does in the slowest way possible. Only reason i upgraded to 10 was because of dx12 support and rumors that it will increase performance spreading operations to all cores of my cpu and better utilizing a multi-gpu system. Ive had nothing but problems. First things first though. How do i get my cpu to register as an 8 core cpu opposed to a quad core? i disabled all my overclocking that i had set on windows 7. Have also adjusted the power plan to default thinking this may be a compatibility problem with the OS.

System specs.
Amd fx8350
Asus Sabertooth R2.0 FX990
32gb DDR3 1800 crucial balistix udimms
2x msi 7870's crossfired
watercooling blocks on cpu gpu and northbridge stable @5.2ghz OC'd at 32C.

all overclocking is completely disabled right now, everything is running at stock speeds.
 
try checking for a bios update and/or reset the bios and start fresh. see if that helps. I have had a fx-4100 and a fx-8120 both oc'd to 4560 that would jump around like that. all cores stayed active but the fsb and MHz would bounce. resetting my bios fixed it.
 
I think resetting the bios and running everything at stock first would be a good idea. If everything works then, just set your overclock back and see what happens.
 
My 8350 will jump around the clock speed, if I am idle, not when loading windows or under any kind of load however.

Some of the power savings options could be doing this, as well as other bios options. As others have said that is a really good place to start.
 
Do a clean install of Win 10 and see if it helps. Can get the iso from the Media Creation Tool.
 
ran everything at stock speeds. no difference. also rest the CMOS, about to try a bios flash and see what happens.
 
kirbyrj said:
Do a clean install of Win 10 and see if it helps. Can get the iso from the Media Creation Tool.
Click to expand...

Definitely recommend doing a clean install.

I had all sorts of weird issues on my laptop when upgrading my windows 8.1 to windows 10.

all issued cleared up when I did a clean install.
 
I did the same upgrade as you. Went smooth. Try looking in msconfig in boot, advanced options and make sure the number of processors box is not checked. You can set the number of cpus the OS will report and use there. I didn't have to do this but who knows worth a try.
 
Win10 was OK with my FX8350+Sabertooth R2.0 /w BIOS 2501. It also showed only 4 cores/8 threads at 4.0/4.1 GHz and throttled just fine. I ran W10 just out of curiosity, then deleted it. Now it only gets a guest VM in my Linux system just for lolz.
 
Windows 10 and 8 detect it as a 4 core cpu. Probably because half the cores share parts with the other half. It recognizes it as 8 threads or logical cores and that's all that matters. The cpu changes its clock speed according to load. No idea on the cache I never paid much attention to that.
 
AMD uses "Clustered Multithread" in architectures Bulldozer and on...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)

Windows 8 was the first Windows (I think) to enumerate the "modules" as "cores" (as in an 8-core FX CPU having 4 modules and 8 cores/threads). Some call it marketing doublespeak, but nowhere in the rulebook does it say that every integer core has to have its own dedicated floating point unit. From a performance standpoint it wasn't AMD's greatest idea, but was it enough to deny the FX the title "octocore"? I don't think so.
 
The above posters are correct. Windows 7 will detect the CPU as a true 8-core CPU. Windows 8.1/10 will detect it as a 4 core/8 thread CPU. This is just fluff...it is still utilizing all 8 cores. It is just with the Bulldozer CPU, since they are called modules the newer OS's will detect it as such. You should not lose any performance.
 
buzzbomb said:
Some call it marketing doublespeak, but nowhere in the rulebook does it say that every integer core has to have its own dedicated floating point unit. From a performance standpoint it wasn't AMD's greatest idea, but was it enough to deny the FX the title "octocore"? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

In the entire history of the x86 architecture, nobody has done such a thing before, so it's been pretty much a defacto rule that all cores must be self contained and not share resources with other cores. The only exception is cache snooping for coherency.

The Cobra said:
The above posters are correct. Windows 7 will detect the CPU as a true 8-core CPU. Windows 8.1/10 will detect it as a 4 core/8 thread CPU. This is just fluff...it is still utilizing all 8 cores. It is just with the Bulldozer CPU, since they are called modules the newer OS's will detect it as such. You should not lose any performance.
Click to expand...

The FX8000 series ARE quads, it's marketing fluff that calls them octa core parts because they can execute 8 threads at a time. They just avoid telling you the part about the performance penalties for heavy FP use on both threads at the same time, which is most everything these days.

I haven't looked at Windows 8+ on an AMD CPU, but Microsoft is probably doing now what Linux started doing several years ago, which is fill the first thread on all cores with the most demanding applications and then go back and backfill the second thread with background applications that don't use much to avoid resource contention.
 
Last edited:
My windows 10 says AMD FX(tm)-9370 Eight-Core Processor That's what my windows windows 7 said also.

...edit and also check task manager, performance resource monitor and see if 8 threads are showing. The guys above are wrong. Win 7 and 10 show as 8 core cpu. If your resource monitor is only showing 4 cores then there is something wrong. If cpuz is only showing 4 then ill bet windows is the same.
 
Last edited:
1/2 bent said:
My windows 10 says AMD FX(tm)-9370 Eight-Core Processor That's what my windows windows 7 said also.

...edit and also check task manager, performance resource monitor and see if 8 threads are showing. The guys above are wrong. Win 7 and 10 show as 8 core cpu. If your resource monitor is only showing 4 cores then there is something wrong. If cpuz is only showing 4 then ill bet windows is the same.
Click to expand...

Please post a screenshot of the Windows 10 resource monitor.
 
1/2 bent said:
My windows 10 says AMD FX(tm)-9370 Eight-Core Processor That's what my windows windows 7 said also.

...edit and also check task manager, performance resource monitor and see if 8 threads are showing. The guys above are wrong. Win 7 and 10 show as 8 core cpu. If your resource monitor is only showing 4 cores then there is something wrong. If cpuz is only showing 4 then ill bet windows is the same.
Click to expand...
It should show 4 cores and 8 threads. I have one ITX APU build here task manager shows two cores and four threads/logical cores.
 
Tup3x said:
It should show 4 cores and 8 threads. I have one ITX APU build here task manager shows two cores and four threads/logical cores.
Click to expand...

Yup, because realistically each core that has one FPU and two integer units. This is one of the biggest reasons these chips are so much slower than Intel's i-series chips.
 
reb00tin said:
Win10 was OK with my FX8350+Sabertooth R2.0 /w BIOS 2501. It also showed only 4 cores/8 threads at 4.0/4.1 GHz and throttled just fine. I ran W10 just out of curiosity, then deleted it. Now it only gets a guest VM in my Linux system just for lolz.
Click to expand...

I have the same hardware as the OP. Come to think of it, who cares what Win10 says, my Linux kernel shows 8 cores. So don't worry about it.
 
Quix said:
Yup, because realistically each core that has one FPU and two integer units. This is one of the biggest reasons these chips are so much slower than Intel's i-series chips.
Click to expand...

Not really.

It contributes to the problem, but it is a minor part to it. Even if you do a single threaded comparison (where this should have no impact at all, because you are only loading one of them, so there is no sharing), the AMD architecture is WAAAAY behind. Just look at any single threaded benchmark, and you'll find AMD's FX architecture performing as little as HALF the performance, clock for clock, compared to Sandy Bridge and newer Intel chips.

I'm no AMD fan boy/apologist. Bulldozer and on has been a total failure. However, I think this particular aspect of it has been overblown.

Sure, the two cores in a module share an FPU, but it is a 256bit FPU, and it has the ability to split itself into two dedicated 128bit FPU's, one dedicated to each integer core.

So, unless you are running code heavy in 256bit floating point math, this will have no impact what so ever.

The rumors that AMD is working on a new architecture with one floating point unit per core is probably good, but that alone won't make up very much in the performance deficit to intel. They need a radically redesigned and optimized architecture, shrunk to a smaller process (Intel is on 14nm now for crying out loud! The FX series is 32nm, that SEVERAL GENERATIONS behind...)
 
Quix said:
Yup, because realistically each core that has one FPU and two integer units. This is one of the biggest reasons these chips are so much slower than Intel's i-series chips.
Click to expand...

I say the reason is that they took 125% of the number of transistors in a Phenom II core to make a 2 core bulldozer module making both cores have less processing power.
 
Right, when AMD announced the Bulldozer architecture people were scratching their heads in confusion. The key differences form it's predecessor the Phenom II were:

33% less integer execution units per core (this hurts the most).

~50% less FPU throughput per-core (not as bad as the above)

Shared decoders reduces fully-loaded scaling by a further 10% versus Phenom II.

And high-latency big caches are designed for running at high clock speeds, but cost you some throughput versus a low-latency cache.

So the architecture was designed to get LESS done per clock, add slightly more cores, and clock the thing at 5+ GHz at a reasonable power level (to get higher performance than the Phenom II using less resources). Only two out of three of those things actually happened, so we were blessed with the trainwreck that was Bulldozer at 3.5-4 GHz.

By comparison, Haswell can execute up to 4 integer instructions per clock. And it can get very high utilization of those units thanks to the high bandwidth, low-latency cache architecture, plus the hyperthreading to feed the unused units when the first thread can't.

AMD can certainly build a core with similar integer IPC to Intel, but I doubt it. They'd probably be starting out at around Sandy Bridge in terms of performance per clock.
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
AMD can certainly build a core with similar integer IPC to Intel, but I doubt it. They'd probably be starting out at around Sandy Bridge in terms of performance per clock.
Click to expand...

Even that would be a HUGE welcome leap compared to what we have now.
 
My bad on win 10 it does say 4 cores / 4 logical. My win 7 did not and I upgraded from that to win 10. Now my laptop with an a10 7300 does say 4 cores/ 4 logical..... weird?
Capture.png
 
@ 1/2 Bent the 8350 in comparison should say 4 cores, 8 logical processors
 
Zarathustra[H];1041858803 said:
The rumors that AMD is working on a new architecture with one floating point unit per core is probably good, but that alone won't make up very much in the performance deficit to intel. They need a radically redesigned and optimized architecture, shrunk to a smaller process (Intel is on 14nm now for crying out loud! The FX series is 32nm, that SEVERAL GENERATIONS behind...)
Click to expand...

I don't think it will ever happen. Intel has more money then any other semiconductor company. The only reason they would not be able to achieve something is because of ambition. And that is exactly what happened during the Pentium 4 days and is the only reason AMD ever had a chance to prevail.

AMD didn't succeed because they were more savvy then Intel, it was because Intel was too complacent, and got lazy. This allowed AMD the opportunity to step up. Once Intel saw the error of their ways, they have been trail blazing ever since. And now they have their eyes on ARM.

I expect the only the company that could unseat Intel, is a company that comes up with something fundamentally different then the current semiconductor processor. And that's assuming Intel doesn't do it first. They have the money AND they have the facilities to do it.

Also, I think the AMD64 license is what really saved AMD's ass from being completely annihilated by Intel.
 
westrock2000 said:
I don't think it will ever happen. Intel has more money then any other semiconductor company. The only reason they would not be able to achieve something is because of ambition. And that is exactly what happened during the Pentium 4 days and is the only reason AMD ever had a chance to prevail.

AMD didn't succeed because they were more savvy then Intel, it was because Intel was too complacent, and got lazy. This allowed AMD the opportunity to step up. Once Intel saw the error of their ways, they have been trail blazing ever since. And now they have their eyes on ARM.

I expect the only the company that could unseat Intel, is a company that comes up with something fundamentally different then the current semiconductor processor. And that's assuming Intel doesn't do it first. They have the money AND they have the facilities to do it.

Also, I think the AMD64 license is what really saved AMD's ass from being completely annihilated by Intel.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping you are wrong here, but I do agree, AMD has a tough path ahead.

The only saving grace for them is the very fact that each successive generation is more difficult to engineer than the next, due to working against physics with die shrinks.

What this means is that - theoretically - it should be easier to catch up with a market leader, than it is to be a market leader, as the market leader is ALWAYS working on a much more difficult project than the company trying to catch up.

The truth is, even if AMD caught up to Sandy Bridge with Zen, that would be a huge improvement. They might still be several generations behind Intel, but each generation has such a small performance gain these days, due - in large part - to the difficulty of eking out more performance as we approach the limits of silicon that a Sandy-Bridge performing AMD part would probably be enough to keep them alive.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041869021 said:
The truth is, even if AMD caught up to Sandy Bridge with Zen, that would be a huge improvement. They might still be several generations behind Intel, but each generation has such a small performance gain these days, due - in large part - to the difficulty of eking out more performance as we approach the limits of silicon that a Sandy-Bridge performing AMD part would probably be enough to keep them alive.
Click to expand...

But can they do it, and be power-competitive?

The last time AMD had the same process node as Intel and similar performance was the 45nm Phenom II. Both companies had a promising architecture shrunk from 65nm and tweaked. And when they were tested, the Phenom II nearly matched the Core 2 Quad 45nm, but took 30w more power to make it happen:

http://techreport.com/review/16147/amd-phenom-ii-processors/12

But then 6 months later Intel released Lynnfield, which had 95% of the performance and features of the i7 920 without the extra 30w of overkill platform I/O power:

http://techreport.com/review/17545/intel-core-i5-750-and-core-i7-870-processors/13

So, the Phenom II is as close as AMD ever got post-Conroe to being competitive with Intel, and that's back when they had mountains of cash to throw around. So for about 6 months they could smack around the Core 2 Quad and charge $250 for the x4 965, and then they got destroyed by the $200 i5 750. They never recovered from that smackdown.

Today the number of people buying high-end desktops has completely cratered from 2009. So AMD aiming this processor at the gamers/workstation/server large form factor markets is even more of a risk than Bulldozer was in 2011. And Intel already has a 12 thread i7 for under $400, and I seriously doubt this AMD processor will be faster, or lower power.

All Intel would have to do to kill this thing dead is to bring out a Broadwell-E 8 core priced at $550, just like the Ivy-E 6-core price drop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top