AMD Launches FX-4130, Reduces Desktop CPU Prices

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]antegravity[/nom]Pretty much no one but hardcore AMD fanboys or Intel haters are going to buy Bulldozer shit when Intel is rocking the house with Sandy/Ivy Bridge. Sorry AMD, hope you get your shit together and give Intel some proper competition next generation. We will probably need it.[/citation]

I agree. AMD offers nothing over Intel right now. You can't even say "but AMD is good for the price to performance" anymore. You can do a cheap Intel build with a cheap 1155 motherboard and a Pentium or I3 and it will it out perform the Bulldozer and APU's. There really is no point in buying an AMD CPU or APU.
 
WTG AMD!!!! Finally starting to compete in the price per performance race. No they don't have anything in the high end, but now the FX-4100 is priced a little lower than the i3-2120 which are about the same performance level.

Just when it looked like they were dead in the water, they show some life. Hope it works out well for them in the market.
 
I'll like to support AMD but their price/performance on my area is pretty much make me an automatic Intel fanboy.

FX-8150 is selling $299 a pop here, while 3770non-K/2600K are also selling at the same price. as far as I know Fx-8150 is not able to complete against 3770/2600K.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]FX-8120 and FX-8150. Disable one core per module, eliminating the sharing of resources and allowing each core to then use all of the resources within a module......(text) .........one core per module disabled. It would be a better setup than having to do this manually.[/citation]


has anyone done this in depth or atleast to some extent? should be an interesting read
 
[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]WTG AMD!!!! Finally starting to compete in the price per performance race. No they don't have anything in the high end, but now the FX-4100 is priced a little lower than the i3-2120 which are about the same performance level.Just when it looked like they were dead in the water, they show some life. Hope it works out well for them in the market.[/citation]

They don't have anything in the lowend either, Like I said you can do an Intel build for the same price or cheaper than an AMD build and get much better performance from the Intel build.
 
[citation][nom]rds1220[/nom]They don't have anything in the lowend either, Like I said you can do an Intel build for the same price or cheaper than an AMD build and get much better performance from the Intel build.[/citation]

Compare any Pentium to a Phenom II x4 with some overclocking in any CPU-bound game (heck, even games that generally aren't known to be excruciating on the CPU) and the Phenom II x4 will get a win. In very CPU-bound games, it can be a very significant win. Similar price too. Going further down, the Celerons and lowest Pentiums are still well-combated by Phenom II, Athlon II, and in some cases, even Semprons once you unlock the second core (something like an approximately 100% success rate with the Semprons; it's far more likely to work with a Sempron than any other AM3 AMD CPU).

Going further up, I've already made my point there. Intel only wins if you don't consider AMD's options at all up until the i7 range where AMD simply doesn't compete. Even then, all that would take is making a CPU die with 12 cores for the one core per module trick to get two more modules that have a single active core. Basically, taking a twelve core Interlagos CPU and doing this and then overclocking wold make for an excellent competitor for SB-E's six-core CPUs while also having quad-channel memory too.

It's not a perfect competition and Intel is decisively ahead in some ways, but integer performance, even integer performance per core, is not too far off whatsoever if you know how to utilize the AMD CPUs. I can admit that it shouldn't be necessary to be an expert to get anything done withe them properly, but I won't ignore this because of that.
 
You just sidestepped the whole thing to try to make your point. I'm not talking about about Pentium /I3 vs Phenom II. That's pretty much irrelevant now since AMD decided to stop making Phenom II's. I'm talking about Pentium's/I3's vs their newest CPU's the Bulldozer and APU vs the Pentium and I3 the both Intel CPU's win out. If you are trying to go cheap there still is no point in going AMD because again an Intel build can be done for just as cheap and give better performance.
 
[citation][nom]abitoms[/nom]has anyone done this in depth or atleast to some extent? should be an interesting read[/citation]

In-depth, unfortunately, not really at all that I'm aware of. However, there have been some minor/moderate explorations into it. I'm kinda surprised about the extreme lack of interest in it, especially even from many AMD fans who should be almost dying to see AMD succeed. Maybe people don't really care much about the truth of how well AMD actually competes (I can't blame them much considering that even AMD ignores this).

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

Here, we can see that the improved thread-scheduling was enough to give the CPU an on-average 10-20% boost in performance (usually closer to 20%) despite having a considerably lower frequency (due to Turbo being kinda fail on AMD's part) and it being a simple thread scheduling fix in the benchmark rather than complete disabling of the cores. My performance estimates are probably actually a little unfair to AMD given that I'm not able to accurately account for how much difference true disabling of the cores would improve performance and exactly how much increasing the CPU/NB frequency would help either.
 
[citation][nom]rds1220[/nom]You just sidestepped the whole thing to try to make your point. I'm not talking about about Pentium /I3 vs Phenom II. That's pretty much irrelevant now since AMD decided to stop making Phenom II's. I'm talking about Pentium's/I3's vs their newest CPU's the Bulldozer and APU vs the Pentium and I3 the both Intel CPU's win out. If you are trying to go cheap there still is no point in going AMD because again an Intel build can be done for just as cheap and give better performance.[/citation]

For desktops, the Llano APUs are a little better than Athlon II CPUs (especially for overclocking if you get the right motherboard) and once Trinity comes out for desktop, it will probably be as good as Phenom II. Also, whether or not AMD is making Phenom II CPUs doesn't matter because those CPUs are still being sold at many online retailers and even on-site by businesses such as Microcenter. Heck, CPUs from ten years ago still have a lot of stock in some places, so the chances of Phenom II truly disappearing from the net any time soon are slim to none.

I'd take even the FX-4100 over the Pentiums if I had to. With overclocking, it would be a power hog, but it could perform far better. Not even the i3s can keep up with the 4100 in CPU-bound games such as BF3 MP and outside of such well-threaded games, the FX keeps up very well with a significant overclock. If you're trying to go cheap, AMD can be and still is a great option for many people.
 
Meh no point in arguing with a fanboy. You'll never see me get another AMD CPU or APU especially if they stick with this garbage architecture. I'm not buying into AMD's 4 module 8 core SMT scam / half-ass design piss poor implementation.
 
[citation][nom]rds1220[/nom]Meh no point in arguing with a fanboy. You'll never see me get another AMD CPU or APU especially if they stick with this garbage architecture. I'm not buying into AMD's 4 module 8 core SMT scam / half-ass design piss poor implementation.[/citation]

There is literally nothing really wrong with the architecture. The modular architectures is one of the best-performing architectures yet, if not the best. It's probably a helluva lot better than Haswell. The implementation of the architecture is what hurts AMD. Crap (high latency) cache, crap (high latency and low bandwidth; the FX memory controller [also used in Llano] gets about 25% less bandwidth out of the same memory configuration than a Sandy Bridge CPU) memory controller, crap design methods (computer-generated die masks are about 20% larger and more power-hungry than a die mask that is designed transistor-by-transistor with expert engineers in addition to being about 20% slower, a more than approximately 40% power efficiency drop on its own), soft-ended flip-flops (another power-consumption increasing mistake), and much more.

Those aren't architectural mistakes, they are design implementation mistakes.
Also, i'm not a fanboy, I'm simply a realist. You don't like logic, well, that's your issue.

Furthermore, AMD's isn't using SMT tricks. There really are two integer cores per module. They are simply very tightly linked to reduce redundant transistors in a design (although the crap implementation of the architecture pretty much negates the benefits of this at this time).

Simply fixing the mistakes made in the current implementation altogether could grant a more than doubling of performance and an even greater improvement in power efficiency and a considerable improvement in die area by the time AMD finally scraps this modular architecture or makes significant architectural changes to evolve it.
 
LOL yea your not a fanboy that's why you fanatically defend AMD in every article that is written. A realist lol you think a 4100 beats out an I3 and you think the Bulldozer architectnchure is great, nothing more needs to be said. An I3 will beat a Bulldozer in all but a few games. Bulldozer is a joke and it's an absolute piss poor performer in all but a few programs.
 
I wouldn't argue with RDS or any of the naive folk that claim that what the APU's offer would take a Pentium or I3 over. Consider an APU's strength and selling point is integrated graphics performance at 20" resolutions if you will take an i3 or pentium/celeron over a llano you will be a complete idiot. IGPU performance the Llano's well and truely beat the 3770K with HD4000, lest we not forget Trinity is out soon, its like cherry picking what you want to believe, APU's for integrated GPU's and budget, add to that the Asymetrical crossfire which means that you will need a proper higher spectrum GPU to make a i3 or Pentium more worthwhile which will cost more.....then again as before the llano is not bought with discrete graphics in mind. Compare apples with apples please.

As for the others even the said Bulldozer is capable of high end performance, albeit slower than Intel's offerings games don't really optimize the fundamental strength of AMD processors so yeah if you are building a gaming rig a Bulldozer is not first choice but at the pricing point it still offers good value.
 
You would have to be an idiot to buy an AMD CPU when most Intel CPU's will beat it out. Sure the APU graphics are better than Intel but in terms of CPU power the APU is weak. Even at that the APU integrated graphics aren't that great you still can't play on high setting with just integrated graphics.APU's are pointless you would be Its better off getting a faster phenom II x4 and a dedicated video card. APU's offer nothing more than onboard graphics just like Intel has for years. All they did was move the chip from the motherboard, to the CPU. IMO its a waste of money buying a CPU with integrated GPU when you will most likely have a dedicated GPU if you are into playing games. Crossfiring low end gpu's creates insane microstutter, and doesnt even give the performance of a good mid-range 6850. I would much rather have a good CPU and good dedicated GPU for what it would cost to get a crappy athlon x4 equivelant and a crappy low end crossfire setup.
 
[citation][nom]rds1220[/nom]LOL yea your not a fanboy that's why you fanatically defend AMD in every article that is written. A realist lol you think a 4100 beats out an I3 and you think the Bulldozer architectnchure is great, nothing more needs to be said. An I3 will beat a Bulldozer in all but a few games. Bulldozer is a joke and it's an absolute piss poor performer in all but a few programs.[/citation]

I try to be polite (not that I always succeed, but still), but this is ridiculous. Sandy Bridge is about 50% faster per Hz in integer work than FX is in its default core configuration. Bring the 4100 to about 4.5GHz (you could even do that on the stock cooler) and it'll match the i3-2100 and nearly the i3-2120 in single threaded performance while beating both significantly in anything that uses at least three or four threads. FWI, a lot of games nowadays can use three or four threads quite well.

Bulldozer isn't a joke at all except for its implementation. Heck, like I said, taking the 8120 or the 8150 and *modding* it like I said will let it compete with the i5s very well even when both are overclocked to the max. Comparing the FX-6100 currently about the same price as the 4100) to the i3s when the *mods* are in use with overclocking is almost as bad for the i3s as comparing them to the i5s.

You obviously aren't well-versed with chip design. Whether or not the architecture is great can have far less of an impact than you seem to think. You didn't even read my post if you think that what you said makes any sense.
 
[citation][nom]rds1220[/nom]Meh no point in arguing with a fanboy. You'll never see me get another AMD CPU or APU especially if they stick with this garbage architecture. I'm not buying into AMD's 4 module 8 core SMT scam / half-ass design piss poor implementation.[/citation]

Well TH did the overclocking of a 3870K and compared performance vs a i3/Pentium with and without a discrete card, the however failed to activate asymetrical crossfire with the HD 6670 card and the A8 which would have blown the i3/pentiums gaming performance well out the water at a lower cost.

You are still on the 4 core, 8 thread arguement have a look at CPU-Z its a 8core, 8thread processor not a 4 core and 8 thread processor. Integer cores are cores nontheless and if you bothered to read NOOB2222 link taking AMD modulation vs Intel HT showed just how superior AMD's SMT is to Intels archaic HT technology.

As for architecture design, you make it sound like its such a easy process, you also seem to be oblivious to the fact that Intels R$D alone is more than AMD's net capital. But to embrace your quelms Bulldozer like Prescott has flawed architecture, too many shared resources, deep pipelines all add to really poor latency and errors, the single FPU per module was a rather strange decision but at the end of the day that is past and AMD have to roll through it like Intel did with P4 and Pentium D untill you get the right process.

As before the FX chips are still very capable of high end performance in gaming at a low price point, not better than Intel but more than happy to keep a battlefielder happy.
 
[citation][nom]rds1220[/nom]You would have to be an idiot to buy an AMD CPU when most Intel CPU's will beat it out. Sure the APU graphics are better than Intel but in terms of CPU power the APU is weak. Even at that the APU integrated graphics aren't that great you still can't play on high setting with just integrated graphics.APU's are pointless you would be Its better off getting a faster phenom II x4 and a dedicated video card. APU's offer nothing more than onboard graphics just like Intel has for years. All they did was move the chip from the motherboard, to the CPU. IMO its a waste of money buying a CPU with integrated GPU when you will most likely have a dedicated GPU if you are into playing games. Crossfiring low end gpu's creates insane microstutter, and doesnt even give the performance of a good mid-range 6850. I would much rather have a good CPU and good dedicated GPU for what it would cost to get a crappy athlon x4 equivelant and a crappy low end crossfire setup.[/citation]


You clearly don't know anything about an APU and asymetrical crossfire and how well it works, perhaps you should do some research instead of splurting out utterances boardering insanity if not comic amusement.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]

......

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

........

.[/citation]

thank you !! interesting read as expected. left me thirsting for more. if....amd had made a CPU with 4 integer and 4 FP cores, performance might have been similar to what is shown in the TR article.

I think, however, AMD took this module-based approach keeping in mind the possibility of GPUs supporting FP computations
 
[citation][nom]sarinaide[/nom]You clearly don't know anything about an APU and asymetrical crossfire and how well it works, perhaps you should do some research instead of splurting out utterances boardering insanity if not comic amusement.[/citation]

What I find amusing is your die hard fanboyism. Like I said I would much rather have a good CPU and good dedicated GPU for what it would cost to get a crappy athlon x4 equivelant and a crappy low end crossfire setup.
 
[citation][nom]rds1220[/nom]You would have to be an idiot to buy an AMD CPU when most Intel CPU's will beat it out. Sure the APU graphics are better than Intel but in terms of CPU power the APU is weak. Even at that the APU integrated graphics aren't that great you still can't play on high setting with just integrated graphics.APU's are pointless you would be Its better off getting a faster phenom II x4 and a dedicated video card. APU's offer nothing more than onboard graphics just like Intel has for years. All they did was move the chip from the motherboard, to the CPU. IMO its a waste of money buying a CPU with integrated GPU when you will most likely have a dedicated GPU if you are into playing games. Crossfiring low end gpu's creates insane microstutter, and doesnt even give the performance of a good mid-range 6850. I would much rather have a good CPU and good dedicated GPU for what it would cost to get a crappy athlon x4 equivelant and a crappy low end crossfire setup.[/citation]

APUs have a lot more value than a Phenom II x4 with a similarly performing video card because they'd be far cheaper. Also, the Llano CFX implementation doesn't have nearly as bad micro-stutter as many other low-end multi-GPU setups tend to have. At any given price point, they can easily meet or beat Intel in performance (winning in power efficiency against Intel is out of the question) in one way or another. i3s can't even match Athlon II x4s in highly threaded performance and the Trinity APUs are a highly upgraded form of Bulldozer that gives Phenom II a run for the money (and even beats FX-41xx CPUs) despite lacking L3 cache.

Once the FM2 socket CPUs and APUs hit the market (with motherboards and such, of course), the i3s will lose on several fronts if Intel doesn't finally update them.

You say that AMD's APUs and CPUs are for idiots because Intel beats them even though this isn't true unless you cherry pick comparisons and the reverse works just as well for AMD (oftentimes, it works better). There is no price point in which AMD loses in highly threaded performance for the money. There is no price point below the i7s that AMD can't compete in against Intel single and highly threaded performance for the money exceptionally in some way.

At $30-100. AMD has Semprons, Athlon IIs, and Phenom IIs, and maybe the 4100 if prices drop. The Semprons can easily meet or beat the similarly priced Celerons with a little overclocking and a core unlocking, two very easy and simple things to do that are both extremely likely to work. Athlon IIs and Phenom IIs often have unlockable parts (although not all do and not all that do can unlock them), but even ignoring those parts, they can easily compete with Intel given some overclocking that Intel is almost completely incapable of at this price point. Intel doesn't even come close to the highly threaded performance of the triple and quad core parts at this price point. Any six-core parts are so far ahead of Intel in this price range that it's not even funny.

At about $100-150, there are FX-61xx CPUs that wipe the floor with everything from Intel that isn't at least an LGA 1155 i5 in performance when the *modding that I've mentioned is considered with overclocking and even then, the non K editions aren't in a very good position against them.

Above that is the FX-8120, a huge value CPU that can fight with even the i5 K editions in overclocking performance if given the chance like I've explained in my previous posts here.

At what point does AMD stop being a good option and become an idiot's choice? None of these price points are that point.
 
Even though i disagree with blazorthon most of the time i simply can't this time. RDS why do you hate on Amd so much yes they are in a lot of crap right now and i wish they would really turn their design around instead of saying things like "it wasn't supposed to be a high end design" or "were not competing in the high-end" these things are bad because they spent over 3 years making bulldozer and made a LOT of hype and i question to my self if its not supposed to be a high-end design then why was the money and time spent on engineering bulldozer.

But at the same time you need to understand something and that is NOT EVERYONE BUYS A PC FOR GAMES! Bulldozer is such a huge disappointment when it comes to gaming it really is Amd fans play the waiting game and they get this, Not only that but when it comes to servers Amd needs better power consumption as well. BUT for video editing/Video encoding with GOOD SOFTWARE performs just as well on a 8150 as it does on a 2600K for half the cost. Also makes a good virtual machine.

On top of this i own a Llano laptop and i must say i love it sure its a little slower then a I3 but who in the hell is going to notice i can play Sims 3 and Age of empires 3 as well as COD all at 720P with decent settings for a price tag of 430$! Not only that but its also WAY more efficient then a I3+Nvidia or Amd graphics card and yes i do care about that.

You sound dumb when all you can say is games games games everyone only cares about gaming. oh look i can get 100FPS with intel over 60FPS with Amd but i have to spend more and its slower at everything else but gaming per dollar.

"The modular architectures is one of the best-performing architectures yet, if not the best. It's probably a helluva lot better than Haswell. The implementation of the architecture is what hurts AMD."

+1
 
[citation][nom]rds1220[/nom]What I find amusing is your die hard fanboyism. Like I said I would much rather have a good CPU and good dedicated GPU for what it would cost to get a crappy athlon x4 equivelant and a crappy low end crossfire setup.[/citation]

Come on what i find amusing is your die hard fanboyism its clear your a Intel fanboy now tell us your not like most fanboys do.
 
My problem is still the lowest segment AMD CPU arent capable of replacing core 2 Duo Setup. Pentium dual-core 775 socket @ 3.2GHz still quite pack a punch vs the Athlon X2 since both are similar clock for clock performance. I wanna upgrade my Core 2 setup as they are just barely enough for 70% of my console port games. These Athlon X2 are not an Upgrade. Perhaps if AMD should start selling the FX-4100 in 775 price range.

it would seems to be AMD are only good in mid end segment. Other than that its Intel all the way.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom