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
|AMD's Ryzen 5 2500U APU reviewedToward a more perfect fusion||166|
|Intel's Core i5-8250U CPU reviewedKaby Lake Refresh rides in on Acer's Swift 3||113|
|AMD's Ryzen 7 2700U and Ryzen 5 2500U APUs revealedInfinity Fabric ties Zen and Vega together||175|
|Intel's Core i7-8700K CPU reviewedSix shots of Coffee Lake, please||369|
|Intel's Core i9-7980XE and Core i9-7960X CPUs reviewedDid somebody say more cores?||176|
|The Tech Report System Guide: September 2017 editionHog heaven at the high end||100|
|Intel kicks off eighth-gen Core with four cores and eight threads in 15WMore of the good stuff||89|
|AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Ryzen Threadripper 1950X CPUs reviewedI'm rubber, you're glue||126|
|TR's 2017 Christmas giveaway: four days left and counting||2|
|Go frameless with AOC's G90 FreeSync gaming displays||2|
|Intel delivers huge bandwidth boost to Stratix 10 MX FPGAs with EMIBs||1|
|Samsung CHG displays are the first to net DisplayHDR 600 certification||5|
|Acer details specs and prices of its Ryzen Mobile-powered Swift 3s||18|
|Google Project Tango is dead—long live ARCore||10|
|Thermaltake Sync box bridges RGB LED walled gardens||3|
|Intel tips off potential 960 GB and 1.5 TB Optane SSD 900Ps||8|
|Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX Vegas put a big chill on spicy-hot chips||27|
|TR Santa was kind to me last year, so in lieu of entering I wish you all a happy RNG!||+10|