AMD Launches FX-4130, Reduces Desktop CPU Prices

Page 3 - 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]Tomfreak[/nom]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.[/citation]

Where does Intel have a CPU that can replace that Pentium Dual-Core @3.2GHz with a significant performance boost? Not until the Pentiums in the $60-100 range and a Phenom II x2/x3 or an Athlon II x3/x4 can fit in the bottom of that price range and the Phenom II x4s can easily fit near the top of it. All of these can be superior to the SB Pentiums in one way or another, especially the Phenom IIs that can beat the Pentiums in pretty much everything with some overclocking.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103888
$40 Sempron. Unlock the second core and give it a good overclock and the similarly priced Celerons G530 and G540 won't come close. Heck, bring it up to say just 4GHz and it would probably beat everything from Intel until the Pentium G640 and even then, not until the i3s would it suffer a significant defeat. Yet again, even then, only in triple and quad threaded performance and in that case, the much cheaper Phenom IIs and even Athlon IIs and FX-4100 will beat the i3s in that.

So, the entire sub $100 CPU market is effectively dominated by AMD if you overclock. It isn't until the i5s that AMD stops dominating at all price points if you overclock and such because only then can Intel leverage overclocking against AMD. Again, even then, not until the i5-2500K and the i5-3570K does Intel actually not get beaten by AMD's FX-8120. If you actually think about it, AMD is the performance winner here, not Intel. Intel only truly wins in stock lightly threaded performance and power efficiency until the i7s and even then, the non-modded FX-8120 and 8150 can make quite the mark in the highly threaded workloads that they don't do as well in when they have only one active core per module. We need to go above here to LGA 2011 six-core i7s and better for Intel to truly meet or beat AMD in every aspect of CPU performance. That still brings Interlagos in and if there was an AMD board that supports Interlagos and overclocking, even if only BLCK overclocking, then Intel would have been in some trouble here too.
 
I dont do Overclocks, u should stop telling people to OC their CPUs, unlock cores etc. I am saying stock clock. neither have any good replacement after those Pentium Dual-Core are selling soo long. The casuals do not OC their CPUs. Overclockers are minority group. Stop trying to compare an OCed AMD CPU vs a stock Intel ones. AMD itself does not guarantee u an OCed CPU. Intel however does guaranty u a stock speed CPU. You need to wake up from ur illusion and face the reality AMD does not beat Intel on all front on stock. And that mean something as majority casual user out there do not OC.

And I am not saying the Pentium G. I am saying the Pentium Dual-core 775 which is selling @ new unit ~$40-50 for at least 1yrs already only to be recently pulled out from store.
 
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]I dont do Overclocks, u should stop telling people to OC their CPUs, unlock cores etc. I am saying stock clock. neither have any good replacement after those Pentium Dual-Core are selling soo long. The casuals do not OC their CPUs. Overclockers are minority group. Stop trying to compare an OCed AMD CPU vs a stock Intel ones. AMD itself does not guarantee u an OCed CPU. Intel however does guaranty u a stock speed CPU. You need to wake up from ur illusion and face the reality AMD does not beat Intel on all front on stock. And that mean something as majority casual user out there do not OC. And I am not saying the Pentium G. I am saying the Pentium Dual-core 775 which is selling @ new unit ~$40-50 for at least 1yrs already only to be recently pulled out from store.[/citation]

I know the difference between the Pentium G CPUs and the Pentium Dual-Core CPUs on the older LGA 775 socket and everything that I said was with that distinction in mind.

Most of us here at Tom's aren't the majority whom don't overclock, so I really don't give a crap about stock performance when overclocking is an option. Anyone who doesn't think to increase one, two, three, maybe four settings for extra free performance doesn't give a crap about their performance anyway and/or is too ignorant of computers to do such a simple thing with them (doesn't necessarily mean that they're stupid, just not well-versed with computers in such a way).

Why shouldn't I tell people that overclocking is a great option? To not tell anyone who cares about more performance at a lower price is just stupid. Just because you, for whatever reason, don't do it doesn't mean that I shouldn't tell people about it. Also, overclocking does have guarantees. You are quite literally guaranteed to get something out of it. It is rare to not get a lot out of most of AMD's CPU models. That this works is no illusion or else it wouldn't work.
 
Which further imply that AMD does not beat Intel at all. Overclock is a hit and miss, u cannot guarantee it will work flawlessly for longer term usage. OC also does not do well on power saving on idle. Usually u need to disable power saving feature and use Manual voltage. Sandy bridge have the Off set OCing, but it doesnt scale well with the min volt requirement, u often get too high voltages on load or too low voltage on idle depending on ur settings which isnt optima.

There is still nothing that replace Core 2 duo 3GHz system @ the price I mentioned that is a worthy upgrade. I have been using AMD to upgrade my old system without too much investment thanks to lower min price of AMD CPUs/mobo, But sadly this is not an option any more as Llano are low clocks, and the Athlon X2 are just a mirror of Core 2 duo.
 


Overclocking is far less of a hit or miss than you claim (especially if you're experienced with it with the CPU model that you're overclocking) and at this point, would seem to be the only way to get what you want at a price that you want. I've already stated what I think about AMD versus Intel here and given quite sound reasoning for it, what you do with that (if anything) is your choice.

Also, is it Core 2 Duo @ 3GHz or Pentium Dual-Core 3.2GHz or do you have both? You're kinda all over on that at this point.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Overclocking is far less of a hit or miss than you claim (especially if you're experienced with it with the CPU model that you're overclocking) and at this point, would seem to be the only way to get what you want at a price that you want. I've already stated what I think about AMD versus Intel here and given quite sound reasoning for it, what you do with that (if anything) is your choice.Also, is it Core 2 Duo @ 3GHz or Pentium Dual-Core 3.2GHz or do you have both? You're kinda all over on that at this point.[/citation]I have both waiting for a worthy upgrades, with Pentium dual core 3.2 is only 1.5yrs old ago @ $50. And theres isnt a worthy ones at these price range from AMD to get me upgrade unlike what I had enjoyed very long ago. AMD pricing these days arent as aggressive as those days.
 
That's because the AMD CPUs that are really that low end are all 2-4 years old and thus almost as old as those LGA 775 CPUs that you have. You don't really expect them to be priced anything but accordingly, do you?

If you want better, then you'd have to watch for discounts and other deals to get a better price on a truly superior CPU.
 
[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]

You keep moving the goal posts, if a person is buying on budget why not get a APU and asymetrical crossfire dedicated card which will beat a said Pentium/i3 with similar card hands down and cost less for the performance.

Lollies.....fanboism.............somebody please tell me he is not serious.
 
[citation][nom]willard[/nom]The 8150 at ~$180 is actually a pretty good deal. Sure, it will get trounced by a 2500k/3570k, but you're saving 20%.[/citation]

Where are you buying hardware? MC sells 2500K's for around 150$.
 
[citation][nom]sarinaide[/nom]You keep moving the goal posts, if a person is buying on budget why not get a APU and asymetrical crossfire dedicated card which will beat a said Pentium/i3 with similar card hands down and cost less for the performance.Lollies.....fanboism.............somebody please tell me he is not serious.[/citation]

On which planet does an A8 beat a SB i3 2100 in any benchmark besides power consumption?
 


Microcenter's FX prices aren't much better than retail. However, the 8120, which is every bit as good as the 8150 (same binning, dunno why AMD doesn't bin the CPUs much other than what has faulty parts and needs to be dropped to a lower model because it can't work at all as a higher one), is at $140 at Microcenter and the i5-2500K is at $160, not $150. I just checked to be sure. The i5-3570K is at $190 and gives a better perspective for AMD, although the 8120 is still pretty good compared to the 2500K in this scenario.
 


Highly threaded and more when overclocked. Also, A Llano A8 plus a Radeon 6670 (dual-graphics CF) is far better than the more expensive i3 plus Radeon 6670 in gaming performance. A Trinity A10 would really spell trouble for the i3 and those FM2 Athlon IIs could spell serious trouble for the i3 when overclocked.
 


They are. They have eight integer cores. The only confusion is that they have one FPU per module rather than one FPU per core and some people don't know that those aren't the actual cores, so they mistakenly think that FX uses some form of SMT or whatever when this actually isn't true. Fx is pretty much actually the opposite of Intel's Hyper-Threading solution because each module, compared to a single Hyper-Threaded core, has two integer cores to make better use of a shared front end whereas Hyper-Threading is a beefed up front end to make better use of a single core. Heck, you could have a modular architecture that also has Hyper-Threading if you wanted to and that might cause some more serious confusion.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Highly threaded and more when overclocked. Also, A Llano A8 plus a Radeon 6670 (dual-graphics CF) is far better than the more expensive i3 plus Radeon 6670 in gaming performance. A Trinity A10 would really spell trouble for the i3 and those FM2 Athlon IIs could spell serious trouble for the i3 when overclocked.[/citation]

MC's FX prices are much better than retail since they give a 40$ discount when purchased with a motherboard. There's just no reason to purchase an FX chip. I was ready to drop cash on one last weekend until looking at some benchmarks (I falsely assumed the price makes up for poor performance). You're joking when comparing any i5 SB or higher to anything AMD makes in the same price range right?

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Highly threaded and more when overclocked. Also, A Llano A8 plus a Radeon 6670 (dual-graphics CF) is far better than the more expensive i3 plus Radeon 6670 in gaming performance. A Trinity A10 would really spell trouble for the i3 and those FM2 Athlon IIs could spell serious trouble for the i3 when overclocked.[/citation]

Fascinating.

Of course I could just run a single 560 ti on an IB i3, not be stuck with 3 options in full size ATX motherboards and be done with it.

 


The only tested improved thread scheduling, not actual disabling of cores, and it doesn't even look like they did that properly with the games. Keep in mind that the CPU must be the limiting factor in gaming tests to prove for sure that this works and they give so little info about the specifics of the tests that they're hardly useful at all. For all we know, they didn't even use settings that would show a significant difference between the stock 8150 and the i5-2500K @ 4.5GHz. If we don't know the specifics of the tests, then they are useless to us as evidence to prove anything.
 
[citation][nom]h4ndsome[/nom]On which planet does an A8 beat a SB i3 2100 in any benchmark besides power consumption?[/citation]

On a planet where they read the threads before commenting.....we were talking about the iGPU performance, and budget orientated graphics performance..........cuz honestly no serious gamer will ever use either but more so the i3 or Pentium and the fuddy duddy HD.
 


Read my above posts about how to properly use AMD's CPUs, especially the 8120 and 8150 (never get the 8150, it's not even binned better than the much cheaper 8120 and is thus a waste of money regardless of Intel's position).

Please don't bother with an argument about how you shouldn't have to jump through hoops with AMD's CPUs to get decent performance out of them. I agree, you shouldn't. However, you can, so it shouldn't be ignored out of laziness. If someone is willing to overclock, then they should be willing to disable a few cores and also overclock the CPU/NB frequency. It's not much more work than overclocking. Also, even if they didn't work (they do, but bear with me), the i5s would lose in highly threaded performance, so your point where there is no reason to buy FX at all is wrong no matter how you look at it.

So, no, I'm not joking. Furthermore, being able to run the 560 TI on the i3 (IB i3? There is no such thing as a desktop IB i3 right now, nor is it even planned fromso that's ridiculous, to say the least) doesn't matter in a comparison to the A8s being able to use the 6670 to beat the similarly priced i3s in gaming because the 560 TI alone would be more expensive than the A8 and the card combined, let alone adding the cost of the i3 that would make it more than 50-75% more expensive and would also require a more expensive PSU to power the 560 TI than what the Llano system could manage just fine with.
 
Nice move from AMD , specially when Ivy prices are on the roof a lot of people will consider to get a good board + an 8150 instead of just paying even more for a 3700k, besides this also means piledriver it's at the corner
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]They are. They have eight integer cores. The only confusion is that they have one FPU per module rather than one FPU per core and some people don't know that those aren't the actual cores, so they mistakenly think that FX uses some form of SMT or whatever when this actually isn't true. Fx is pretty much actually the opposite of Intel's Hyper-Threading solution because each module, compared to a single Hyper-Threaded core, has two integer cores to make better use of a shared front end whereas Hyper-Threading is a beefed up front end to make better use of a single core. Heck, you could have a modular architecture that also has Hyper-Threading if you wanted to and that might cause some more serious confusion.[/citation]
lol then why does that picture show "six-core" processors? Or are there 6 module ones as well?
 
[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]lol then why does that picture show "six-core" processors? Or are there 6 module ones as well?[/citation]

What are you talking about? I never said that there are 6 module FX CPUs. There aren't any. There are six-core FX CPUs, but there aren't any with six modules (12 cores).

The FX-4xxx CPUs have two dual core modules (quad-core CPU), the FX-6xxx CPUs have three dual-core modules (hexa-core CPU), and the FX-8xxx CPUs have four dual-core modules (octa-core CPU). If a picture says otherwise, then it is wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom