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.
210 comments — Last by at 3:30 PM on 12/30/07
|1. GKey13 - $650||2. JohnC - $600||3. davidbowser - $501|
|4. cmpxchg - $500||5. DeadOfKnight - $400||6. danny e. - $375|
|7. the - $360||8. Ryszard - $351||9. rbattle - $350|
|10. Ryu Connor - $350|
|Intel's Xeon E5-2687W v3 processor reviewedHaswell-EP brings the hammer down||114|
|AMD's FX-8370E processor reviewedEight threads at 95W||146|
|Intel's Core i7-5960X processor reviewedHaswell Extreme cranks up the core count||198|
|AMD spills beans on Seattle's architecture, reference serverCache networks and coprocessors||46|
|Intel's Broadwell processor revealedThe 14-nm Core M aims to upend the tablet market||86|
|AMD's A10-7800 processor reviewed..and the A6-7400K, too||115|
|Android on x86: A quick look at Asus' Memo Pad ME176C tabletA 7" Bay Trail quad for $149||50|
|Core i7-4790K 'Devil's Canyon' overclocking revisitedCan a retail chip and a fancy MSI MPower mobo go further?||51|
|The TR Podcast 162: Apple's biggest and Nvidia's fastest||0|
|Micro Center selling AOC's 24'' G-Sync monitor for $450||9|
|Steam storefront revamped with Discovery Update||11|
|Reversible, USB Type-C cables can pass DisplayPort signals alongside data and power||39|
|Early deal of the week: Delicious SSD discounts||17|
|New Gmail accounts no longer require Google+||22|
|Acer's G-Sync-infused 4K monitor priced at $800||53|
|Some of Samsung's TLC SSDs are slow to read old data||34|
|Corsair releases RGB peripherals, intros Corsair Gaming division||33|
|You married well.||+51|