AMD FX-4130 CPU Could Finally Come to Market

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]doron[/nom]TDP != Power draw[/citation]
You think that these YOLO generation of fanboy kids know what that expression means? Or even what TDP stands for?
 
they are overpriced, but they are still better in performance. A Lamborghini outperforms a Honda civic, but it's still overpriced. The two are not mutually exclusive. I question strongly the validity of the article you just referenced also. But, Piledriver will make AMD competitive in the higher end market, even though the Lamborghini will always be able to outperform the civics of the world. Steamroller will surely be nice, but no one needs to wait that long.
 
The only thing about this, Is I don't know if it's needed. (No I'm not saying that intel is better or whatever blah blah blah) I mean that the high clock speeds make the 4170 great for gaming, and the 4100 is fine for all basic needs, so who needs this? I wish they would make a quad core in trinity though.
 
$100 or so, and it might be worth it

Folks are ready for new stepping/Piledriver cores and the furtherance of the HSA arch. The FX-4130 may be at the bottom of the bin for the Zambezi runs, and the price should reflect such.

Good news being (hopefully!), piles of Vishera Piledrivers are prepared to enter retail, and the AMD stradgedy (heh-heh) of a big Trinity OEM desktop launch with Win8 will make them a few dollahhhhhs.

 
Soooo many Intel fanboys in this article, commenting with no arguments about the actual architecture or performance, or even the price range of the FX cpus.

Im not gonna waste effort in educating these morons. If they are here, they should at least read the reviews without subjetivity. Jeez, the internetz
 
[citation][nom]spookyman[/nom]And yet the i5-2500k still beats it.[/citation]
Yes, but the fx 41XX series is around 100 dollars, and the i5 2500k is 200++ Dollars
 
[citation][nom]yobobjm[/nom]Yes, but the fx 41XX series is around 100 dollars, and the i5 2500k is 200++ Dollars[/citation]

Yup, that and the highest end FX8120 costs as much as an i5-2310 :)
Sometimes it under performs compared with a 2500k (near 100usd more) but sometimes it kicks its ass. Pick the CPU according the apps you use more commonly, and tada! you win.

IE:
Photoshop, WinRAR: AMD FX
Cinebench, Lame (and other converters): Intel i5-series
 
This could be a good thing since they have good performance in some applications. I'm going to be building PC's for my uncle and mother and they really don't need all the performance you get from an Intel chip. My mother mainly plays internet based games you'd expect to find on Facebook, and my uncle plays games like Runes of Magic. You don't need all the power of an i5 or I7. For my own build I'm using an i5 3570K, and AMD Radeon 7870, my uncle and mother's computers will have the cheaper FX 4100 and Radeon 7770 or 7750, all 3 of the computers I'm building will have 8GB of ram though. It's not just about the processing power of the chip you have to consider you also have to look at what the PC will be used for and a person's budget. If you don't play FPS games like CoD, BF, Crysis then you can get away with cheaper alternatives. I could have used cheaper components but I wanted to use more current hardware, that will last them longer.

Some of the posters seem to forget that there are other people out there besides hard core gamers who just want a decent PC that fits their needs/budget and gets the job done.
 
"First spotted by the folks over at CPU World, the quad-core processor is listed for $120.42 with no information when the processor will ship."

But... it's not a quad core CPU. It's a dual core with four ALU's. So ya can't really call it "quad-core"

Let me know when AMD releases a "quad-core" CPU with "four" complete cores (ALU+FPU) for the same price :)
 
[citation][nom]beoza[/nom]This could be a good thing since they have good performance in some applications. I'm going to be building PC's for my uncle and mother and they really don't need all the performance you get from an Intel chip. My mother mainly plays internet based games you'd expect to find on Facebook, and my uncle plays games like Runes of Magic. You don't need all the power of an i5 or I7. For my own build I'm using an i5 3570K, and AMD Radeon 7870, my uncle and mother's computers will have the cheaper FX 4100 and Radeon 7770 or 7750, all 3 of the computers I'm building will have 8GB of ram though. It's not just about the processing power of the chip you have to consider you also have to look at what the PC will be used for and a person's budget. If you don't play FPS games like CoD, BF, Crysis then you can get away with cheaper alternatives. I could have used cheaper components but I wanted to use more current hardware, that will last them longer.Some of the posters seem to forget that there are other people out there besides hard core gamers who just want a decent PC that fits their needs/budget and gets the job done.[/citation]


Sadly, your quoted systems for your aunt and uncle are complete overkill still.
 
[citation][nom]coder543[/nom]My IQ just dropped considerably. That was literally the worst comparative logic I've seen in many years.[/citation]

glad to be of service :)

who needs an IQ anyway :)
-========-=-=--==-=-=-=-=-=--=-==-=-=--=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

anyway while there is no industry standard of what a CPU core is, they are really pushing the limits of the definition. With the new FX chips, it is 1 core and a fraction of another core and they call it 2 cores, because of this most of the resources are shared between the cores. with a true quad core, going from 1 core to 4 gives you almost a 4 fold increase while with the AMD FX solution, you get a little bit more than 2 cores of performance (but not quite 3 core performance compared to the phenom II x4

and from benchmarks, you are better off getting a phenom II x4 instead of a "quad core" FX CPU

if you look at benchmarks in mulththreaded tasks and the performance boost as more threads are used, you will see that with a true quad core CPU, each time another thread is added, you get a 99 to 100% performance boost, while with the FX, you may get around a 30-60% boost.

when the components needed for actual processing are being shared, then the load on one core will impact the performance of another while with a true multicore (where no processing components are shared), 1 core can offer it's full performance to 1 thread while another core can offer it's full performance to another thread.

tomshardware did many reviews on this and have stated the same thing as to why the FX chips give lower per core performance
 

No, they stated the proper reasoning. Your explanation was both confusing and wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong about the performance aspect of it, but the physical composition aspect. A Bulldozer module contains two physical x86 cores that each have their own L1 cache. Those two cores share the FPU and the L2 cache. This is not 1 burger and a bun being advertised as 2 burgers, this is a double-decker being advertised as two burgers (granted, a double-decker is more appealing than two burgers whereas individual resources are more appealing to shared, but you get the point).

So no, it's not a "true" quad-core if you consider a "true" quad-core to have no shared resources beyond L3.

bulldozer-module.jpg
 
yep and the end results of the shared resources is less of a performance boost with each added core, eg compare the performance boost of taking a Phenom II x4 to an x6, or a Phenom II x2 and a x4, those performance boost with the traditional multicore a full cores worth of performance being added while when going from a Phenom II x6 to a 8 core FX chip and the performance boost is not even 1 core's worth for most benchmarks, with the only large improvement being when synthetic test that focus on pure number crunching and math, but for more balanced tasks where a wide range of components of each core is being used, then there is almost no additional performance (and in some cases (mainly gaming) performance actually goes down compared to a Phenom II x6 1100t and that is from a supposedly 8 core CPU that is running at a higher clock speed.
 
There's a time and a place for almost every chip design. The Bulldozer chips (specifically, the 8120) simply demolish everything else available for 3D rendering in mental ray for Maya. Yes, including the Intel chips. Yes, I've tested it extensively. Yes, I'm an asshole for pointing out the ONE area that BD takes the cake, but...

...guess what I do for a living? Maya.

Gotta have the proper tools for the job.
 
And yet there goes the entire world, thinking they need an i7 to be designers or engineers, or even gamers.
Ahhh, the power of advertising.
 
[citation][nom]spp85[/nom]I think we may wait for the 28nm Steamroller generation CPU for an alternative to Intel's overpriced CPUs.[/citation]I'd be happy to see some damn Piledriver-based FX chips. Compared to Bulldozer they would have slightly higher clocks at the same TDP, and also slightly better IPC. Hopefully some minor tweaking along the way will boost yield too, allowing for some competitive pricing.
 
hold on whats the difference between these new chips and the ones already out?

i mean from what ive heard a fx-8150 is just an overclocked fx-8120, so the fx-8170 and the fx-8140?
 

Apart from some slight binning (8150 has a larger overclocking window at stock voltage than 8120), the only difference is clock speeds.
 


Piledriver AM3+ cores and the next Turbo purportedly are much more efficient; greater than C2-->C3 Denebs, and 4 Deneb cores to 6 Thuban cores.

Those steps were roughly 10-15% improvements in leakage.




 
[citation][nom]spp85[/nom]I think we may wait for the 28nm Steamroller generation CPU for an alternative to Intel's overpriced CPUs.[/citation]


How are Intel's CPUs overpriced? From what I've noticed over the past, I dunno, 2 years or so, an AMD chip at a given performance level is about the same price as a comparable Intel chip. It's not necessarily that Intel's high end chips are overpriced (although their super high end ones are), so much as AMD doesn't offer any compelling CPUs over about $120...and even then the corresponding Intel chip at that price performs comparably overall while using less power. The Core i5 3570K can be had on newegg for $215 and, like any K series chip, can be overclocked to great effect. Considering that nothing AMD has can even come close to the stock performance of that chip, even if the AMD chip were overclocked, that's a pretty good deal even before you take overclocking into consideration.

By the way I generally support AMD...my current desktop may have a Pentium G850, but this is the first Intel rig I've built since the Pentium 4 days...even then I also had an Athlon XP. Since Intel chips run cooler, I put this thing together to replace my Phenom II X4 rig because my room gets hot enough here in the Texas summer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom