Any reviews for the FX-4170 yet???

[full_out]

I have looked everywhere. Has anyone seen any reviews for the new FX-4170?

 

[geekapproved]

Guess there isn't any new reviews other than the old ones from when bulldozer originally dropped.

Are you for real dude?? There are tons of reviews.......have you not been following your own thread??

 

[Sandmand1986]

Did you read my post? That's all the review you need. Even at 4.5ghz it get's owned by a stock i3-2100.

The benchmark may suggest that, but in reality says a different story. I have the FX-4170 CPU and I can say it feels much faster than an i3-2100. The AMD FX-4170 just opens programs much faster. Gaming is also fast and stable with the FX. Sometimes you can't go by the benchmark. I doubt the accuracy in some of those.

 

[full_out]

Are you for real dude?? There are tons of reviews.......have you not been following your own thread??

A bunch of people saying "i3s are better!" aren't reviews. I want an actual review with the 4170, not the 4100. I've only been able to find one actual review. I like to have a few to look through so I'm not just getting one set of benchmarks hand picked by one site.

 

[geekapproved]

A bunch of people saying "i3s are better!" aren't reviews. I want an actual review with the 4170, not the 4100. I've only been able to find one actual review. I like to have a few to look through so I'm not just getting one set of benchmarks hand picked by one site.

Wow. This guy is slower than the average Tom's Hardware noober.

As if the THREE, modern game benchmarks at 1080p (reality) I posted, and the best budget gaming cpu article I posted are all one "handpicked" bench. LOL

The reason your not seeing 4170 benchmarks is cause they've already tested the 4100 at the same clock speeds and higher, so it would be absolutely pointless except to appease the tiny brain of someone like yourself who just doesn't get it.

Not only that, it uses 3-4x the electricity of the i3 while still losing badly and the platform (s1155 for you slow people) is compatible with the upcoming Ivy Bridge. AM3+ MAY be compatible with the upcoming PileDriver or PileOfDooDoo, which ever you prefer.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Let's knock off the insults!

 

[Cazalan]

The FX4100 needs to be about $75 to be priced competatively.

They could do that if the FX4100 wasn't truly a FX8100 with half the cores disabled.

The die would be smaller and cheaper to make.

 

[nekulturny]

Did you read my post? That's all the review you need. Even at 4.5ghz it get's owned by a stock i3-2100.

Really?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html

Well by your own post I see the gaming performance is almost IDENTICAL in overclocking conditions to the i3. With a 2 or 3 FPS difference. Oh yea.... FX is totally being owned.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not too thrilled with the FX processors either. But lets cut the crap, drop the childish insults and behave like adults.

Currently the i3 2105 and 2120 are priced aroud 135 bucks from Newegg, so lets look at a Cost vs Performance comparison.
The FX-4100 is 100... FX-4170 is about 140.

Yes, I'm cherry picking, but my reason for that is because you're cherrypicking your results too. Don't be hypocritical.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/7/ A handbrake benchmark The FX-4100 (not 4170) comes out on top against an i3-2105

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/8/ POV-Ray... Again.. the FX-4100 is the winner.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/9/ Cinebench.. They're about on-par with each other with very little practical difference.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/10/ PC Mark7.... FX-4100 beats the i3-2120 again, still on par.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/11/ 3D Mark Vantage- the FX-4100 performs dismally here. Just to be fair.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/12/ Resident Evil 5.. The FX-4100 has nearly 20FPS on the i3


Now, to reiterate, before you start disrespecting me like you've already done to others in this thread, I'm not a fan of the FX, I think AMD has a lot of work they need to do to improve them. But if you're going to bash something, do it accurately.

No, I don't want to hear about blah blah it uses more electricity. Its completely irrelevant considering in terms of your electric bill I'd be surprised if the difference managed to equate to 1 dollar a month. Lets call it the difference of running a 60 watt lightbulb, thats close enough to the wattage difference. With average electricity cost from Baltimore Gas and Electric that equates to about 11 cents a day if you were running your computer under load 24 hours straight.

 

[nforce4max]

A fanboy calling a fanboy a fanboy, typical of this forum.

How bout I just give you kiddies the facts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html


The facts are the AMD chips can't even hang with a Pentium G series in gaming. At 4.5ghz the 4100 lags behind the stock i3-2100, while the 2100 is consuming about 30w the 4100 is pulling about 130w.

Tom's Hardware:

With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point.

While it’s true that AMD’s multiplier-unlocked models appeal to tweak-happy power users, the company's overclocked game performance manages to either hang close to or fall just behind Intel's stock Core i3-2100. Pumping up voltage, multipliers, and, consequently, power usage seems like a futile exercise just to keep pace with an efficient $125 budget-oriented chip running at its default settings.

The biggest flaw with Intel's low-end offerings is that the Pentium family limits you to dual-core configurations. Our concern is that, outside of a game, you're going to find situations where the two cores hurt performance in other applications. Having said that, the Pentium G630- and G860-based machines were snappy throughout testing, and their lack of Hyper-Threading didn't negatively impact our experience.

AMD’s Phenom II X4 955 and FX-4100 could certainly appeal to buyers who insist on the ability to handle four threads at a time. At their $125 and $110 respective price points, however, they’re too close to the Hyper-Threaded Core i3-2100 to earn a distinguished recommendation. In our last sub-$200 gaming CPU round-up, we showed that the Core i3-2100 can match AMD's Phenom II X4 955, even while background tasks run in parallel with a game. So, we couldn't even speculate that Intel's Core-i3 2100 might disappoint in a real-world environment with applications running in the background.

Lets get real, the i3-2120 is yet 200mhz faster than the 2100, and usually running the same price or in some cases cheaper than the 2100, which makes it an even better choice. The FX4100 needs to be about $75 to be priced competatively.

As a huge AMD fan myself, nobody is disappointed by these FACTS more than I am.

I agree and more so that I am moving on. Instead of sidegrading I kept my p2 x4 820 (unlocked to 6mb) and just lived with it's weaknesses. Later put together a cheap 1156 build with an i5 760. Both hold up very nicely but I will never forget this disaster of confidence that AMD and Global Foundries have cursed us with. Crappy manufacturing process kept Llano from being what it should have been while inflating the power consumption of BD even further than it's design alone would have suggested.

 

[quilciri]

The 4170 is not an overclocked 4100. The 4100 is a 95w part, while the 4170 is 125w. You can get a 4100 to 4170 specs, and it might perform the same as a stock 4170, but it won't go much higher than that. I've got my 4170 running at 4.8 ghz on air right now, and that benches higher than the i3-2120 in everything I've thrown at it so far.

I'd Imagine the same holds true between the 6100 and 6200, being 95w and 125w parts respectively as well.

That having been said, the 4170 does need to be $15 or so cheaper. If I didn't already have an AMD board prior to bulldozer (originally had an x3 435 in), I would have gone with the i3.

 

[quilciri]

now you need to sell your (3 X HD 6770) and go for a stronger single card solution.
less power draw and heat I assume, wouldn't it.?
HD 7950 or better.

Not at all. the 3x6770 performs exactly the same as a 7950, for $330. By having 3 cards instead of 2, i can avoid microstuttering issues.

When I'm not gaming, I turn off crossfire, and it draws less power than the 7950 as well.

Also, the 6770 is about the fastest card you can get that's not hamstrung by 4 pci-e lanes.

 

[quilciri]

Admittedly, If you have the budget for resolutions above 1920x1080, then the 7950 is the better solution. The xfire runs into memory issues at 2550x1440. Since the data is replicated to all cards, the xfrire solution effectively only has 1 gb of memory.

 

[refillable]

Nice argument...

 

[expensivecomputer]

nice argument
+2

 

[esrever]

I'm gonna sound like kind of a hipocrite here but I would advise you to pass on the current FX cpu's. I used to have an FX-4100 @ 4.5Ghz and I would defend it against all the intel fanboys saying their i3 can beat up my FX. Well I finally came to the truthful realization that in most cases the i3 is a better CPU than the FX-4100 due to the fact the FX is not a true "quad core". So I went out and picked up a Phenom II 960T X4 for $99.99 from microcenter. These CPU's are a Thuban 6 core die with 2 cores disabled either because they were dis-functional or simply because AMD needed to fill a quad core quota. The chances of you getting an un-lockable chip are about 65%. If you can unlock this chip and throw a decent (3.6-4.0 Ghz) overclock on it you will sitting in i5 2500K territory when it comes to most everything. Even if you cant unlock the extra cores on the 960T just throw a decent clock on it and you will shitting your pants in public embarrass an i3-2100 while still saving yourself $25. Sit with the phenom until we see if piledriver is any good.

the core scaling of the bulldozer cpus is pretty much on par with phenom. The FX4100 will perform like any quad core cpu.

 

[refillable]

If AMD shrink Deneb and Thuban, and putting more transistor in it, imagine how fast it'll be. Phenom II sometimes are still catching up with SB in some cases, while if they shrink deneb and thuban, with putting more transistor, It's not hard for that to outperform SB...

 

[nekulturny]

If AMD shrink Deneb and Thuban, and putting more transistor in it, imagine how fast it'll be. Phenom II sometimes are still catching up with SB in some cases, while if they shrink deneb and thuban, with putting more transistor, It's not hard for that to outperform SB...

I think AMD has completely discontinued Phenom II. Anyone who wants one should pick one up while supplies last.

 

[amuffin]

AMD: Let's clock these cpu's up just a little bit more....
Average common consumer: Higher GHZ MOAR BETTER!!!
????
Profit. $$$$

 

[refillable]

I don't think it's purely like that. I think it's like where you get better clocks, like 1090T to 1100T. I don't see why you need to write that.

 

[cmi86]

the core scaling of the bulldozer cpus is pretty much on par with phenom. The FX4100 will perform like any quad core cpu.

The IPC of the FX processors is less than the phenom II's (or most any quad core for that matter) I owned an FX-4100 even at 4.5Ghz my 960T at 4.25Ghz stomps it in just about every way.

 

[esrever]

The IPC of the FX processors is less than the phenom II's (or most any quad core for that matter) I owned an FX-4100 even at 4.5Ghz my 960T at 4.25Ghz stomps it in just about every way.

The 2 cpu should be pretty much performing the same at those frequencies. There would be no real world difference between those.

 

[esrever]

IPC matters to a degree.

The bulldozer ipc is only 10% slower than phenom and at those speeds the scaling of bulldozer are much better than phenoms.

 

[esrever]

157 sec for bulldozer and 135 sec for phenom, 14% slower

about 7-8% slower

 

[esrever]

I would say the 980BE would be faster but you'd probably be hard pressed to find any difference just using the 2 computer unless you ran very specific benchmarks.

All I could fine was cinebench which doesn't run well on bulldozer. The 4100 OC'ed to 4.6 comes barely under the 980 at stock

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/16/

bulldozer cores have a very bad time on cinebench it seem as each core is only about 0.7 of a core. In many other apps the cores are much closer to the 0.9 you'd expect from real cores.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_bulldozer_scaling&num=1

 

[nekulturny]

AMD: Let's clock these cpu's up just a little bit more....
Average common consumer: Higher GHZ MOAR BETTER!!!
????
Profit. $$$$

Intel fanboy: My CPU r bettur cuz it plei game at 110 FPS and u AMD processer ony dew 73FPS

Informed Consumer: Orly? Whats the refresh rate on your monitor?

Intel fanboy: 60hz

Informed Consumer: *facepalm*

Disclaimer: Once again, I'm not a fan of Bulldozers either.

 

[cmi86]

side note YOU might find funny.
I have a build to do for someone and they want the 960T...
I for once didn't say anything and I'm going to play with it after-all.
for the first time.

I thought you would enjoy that...
we can compare bench, peacefully I hope.


IPC matters, no they don't..

Yeah man that would be really cool, let me know when you get the rig all built.