Conclusions
So the BIOS-based workaround for the TLB erratum can have quite an effect on performance. How close were the estimates we've heard of a 10% performance drop? Let's summarize our results and consider the percentage differences.
| No TLB patch | TLB patch | Difference | |
| Sandra cache and memory bandwidth | 6527 | 5932 | 9.6% |
| Sandra memory bandwidth - FPU | 5403 | 3650 | 38.7% |
| Sandra memory bandwidth - ALU | 5401 | 3648 | 38.7% |
| CPU-Z memory access latency | 59 | 99 | 50.6% |
| WorldBench - Microsoft Office 2003 SP-1 | 369 | 399 | 7.8% |
| WorldBench - Adobe Photoshop CS2 | 521 | 595 | 13.3% |
| WorldBench - Firefox | 298 | 536 | 57.1% |
| WorldBench - Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9.0 | 248 | 272 | 9.2% |
| WorldBench - WinZip 10 | 305 | 321 | 5.1% |
| picCOLOR overall score | 9.74 | 7.21 | 29.9% |
| Valve Source engine particle simulation benchmark | 62 | 55 | 12.0% |
| Valve VRAD map build time | 182 | 191 | 4.8% |
| SiSoft Sandra Multimedia Integer x16 | 130697 | 130648 | 0.04% |
| SiSoft Sandra Multimedia Floating Point x8 | 169434 | 169373 | 0.04% |
| Total average difference | 19.8% | ||
| Average difference without memory subsystem tests | 13.9% | ||
Across every test we ran, the difference between the Phenom 9600 with and without the TLB patch averages out to 19.8%. However, if we rule out the synthetic memory tests and consider only the application tests, that difference drops to 13.9%.
The most troubling results here are the applications where we see large performance drops with the TLB erratum workaround active, including the Firefox web browser and the picCOLOR image analysis tool. If one happens to spend a lot of time running an application whose memory access patterns don't mix well with the TLB patch, the result could prove frustrating. The BIOS-based workaround for the TLB erratum may achieve its intended resultsystem stabilitybut it comes at a pretty steep price in terms of performance.
For the average retail PC consumer, this price might not be unacceptable. After seeing the Firefox test results, I spent some time browsing the web with our Phenom-based test system, and it didn't feel noticeably sluggish to me compared to most modern PCs. Then again, I doubt whether the average sort of consumer is likely to purchase a system with a quad-core processor. One wonders where that leaves AMD and the PC makers currently shipping Phenom-based PCs. I'm not sure a recall is in order, but a discount certainly might be. And folks need to know what they're getting into when purchasing a Phenom 9500 or 9600-based computer this holiday season. Caveat emptor, indeed.
In fact, a credible source indicated to us that at least some of the few high-volume customers who are still accepting Barcelona Opterons with the erratum are receiving "substantial" discounts for taking the chips. One would hope consumers would get the same consideration. The trouble is, I doubt AMD would have shipped Phenom processors in this state were it not feeling intense financial pressure.
AMD's other major concern here should be for its reputation. The company really pulled a no-no by representing Phenom performance to the press (and thus to consumers) without fully explaining the TLB erratum and its performance ramifications at the time of the product's introduction.
As we've reported elsewhere, AMD does plan to fix the TLB erratum with a new revision of its quad-core chip due some time in mid-to-late Q1 of 2008. Once the new revision is available, the Phenom 9500 and 9600 will be replaced by the 9550 and 9650, with the -50 suffix denoting the updated silicon and higher performance. Most users will want to wait until those new Phenom models are available before paying full price for a Phenom processor or a system based on one.
-
211 comments —
Last post by pluscard at 9:34 AM on December 21, 2007 - Email the author(s): Scott Wasson
- Sign up to receive notices when we publish new articles
- Or go back to TR's front page
-
Intel's Core i7 processors
Core i7 processors have secretly been shattering records in Damage Labs for the past few weeks. Now we can tell all. Read on for the low-down on Intel's new system architecture and CPU. Read more...
212 comments —
Last post by indeego at 7:32 PM on November 19, 2008 -
Live blog from Justin Rattner's R&D keynote at IDF
Peek in on us as we peek in on Intel's research and development horizons—live from IDF San Francisco. Read more...
10 comments —
Last post by bfellow at 3:34 PM on August 25, 2008 -
Live blog from the Gelsinger-Perlmutter IDF keynote
We're coming to you live from the Pat Gelsinger-Dadi Perlmutter keynote, where we're expecting to learn more about Nehalem and upcoming Intel tech. Listen in as we commit typos in real time. Read more...
25 comments —
Last post by Meadows at 7:15 AM on August 22, 2008 -
Live blog from Craig Barrett's IDF keynote
Read along as we type live from Craig Barrett's IDF keynote. Read more...
9 comments —
Last post by HurgyMcGurgyGurg at 4:35 AM on August 20, 2008 -
Via's Nano L2100 takes on Intel's Atom 230
They're small, low-power, and cheap. The Atom from Intel and Nano from Via are both all-new CPU architectures, and they both push the frontiers of low-cost computing and mobility. How do they match up? Here's our first look. Read more...
47 comments —
Last post by swaaye at 5:05 PM on August 20, 2008 -
Today's processors: the value angle
Join us for take two of our look at processor value—this time with tri- and quad-core Phenoms, 45nm Core 2 Quads, and more. Read more...
99 comments —
Last post by TurtlePerson2 at 4:50 PM on September 22, 2008 -
AMD's Phenom X3 processors
Good things often come in powers of two, especially in computers. Two, four, eight, or sixteen copies of a common resource—rendering pipelines, megabytes of memory, processors—are instantly recognizable quantities that will most assuredly lead to additional goodness. But three? Not so much. That's about to change, though. Read more...
60 comments —
Last post by greeny at 4:11 PM on August 19, 2008 -
Intel's Core 2 Quad Q9300 processor
The Core 2 Quad Q9300 is Intel's most affordable quad-core processor, and it promises to supplant a long-time favorite of ours, the Core 2 Quad Q6600, by offering additional goodness at the exact same price. Here's how it fares. Read more...
60 comments —
Last post by LoneWolf15 at 2:48 PM on April 23, 2008

