AMD FX 4100 Bulldozer Benchmarks

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

that's complete BS i had my FX 4100 oc'd at 4.4GHz on a MSI 760GM-P21 with no problems on stock cooling for 2 1\2 months until i decided i wanted to CFX then i got a new motherboard a day ago ?

2 whole months? WOW!!! That's, like, forever.



Your CPU will hugely bottleneck those HD 6950s, BTW.

 

[inf64]

Yeah skip on the posts that prove you were full of it .
The FX4100 does not need voltage to OC. It does it on stock Vcore and stock cooler. When you grasp this little fact than you can come back here again. And it won't blow up 4+1 phase boards even you make (reasonable) Vcore adjustment. If you go all crazy and push 1.55+ Volts on it and go for 5+Ghz on air without properly cooling the PWM on the board it will probably kill it. But this goes for all CPUs and not for FX only. SO no,you are still full of it and even worse,you are in denial.

 

[Durvelle27]

2 whole months? WOW!!!



Your CPU will hugely bottleneck those HD 6950s, BTW.

if you want i can buy another FX 4100 and put it in my old board and let it run for some years then i could come back and show it still runs perfectly. and if it does bottleneck i'll just get a FX 8120 duh.

Edit: also it was 2 1/2 months 24/7 as i never shutdown my pc

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

if you want i can buy another FX 4100 and put it in my old board and let it run for some years then i could come back and show it still runs perfectly. and if it does bottleneck i'll just get a FX 8120 duh.

Edit: also it was 2 1/2 months 24/7 as i never shutdown my pc

Whatever you say.

You could just buy a faster Core i3 instead.

And no, a 4+1 phase board will not last years running an overclocked FX.

 

[Durvelle27]

Whatever you say.

You could just buy a faster Core i3 instead.

And no, a 4+1 phase board will not last years running an overclocked FX.

wow one game really smh and i can test your theory i'll keep my FX 4100 running oc'd for as long as possible like my P4

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Yeah skip on the posts that prove you were full of it .
The FX4100 does not need voltage to OC. It does it on stock Vcore and stock cooler. When you grasp this little fact than you can come back here again. And it won't blow up 4+1 phase boards even you make (reasonable) Vcore adjustment. If you go all crazy and push 1.55+ Volts on it and go for 5+Ghz on air without properly cooling the PWM on the board it will probably kill it. But this goes for all CPUs and not for FX only. SO no,you are still full of it and even worse,you are in denial.

I thought it was you guys touting 4.6GHz overclocks. That requires over-volting and a third-party cooler. Even if you can get 4.4GHz on stock voltage you'll still need a better cooler because the stock one will be screaming at 3000RPM. And the reason it'll be screaming away is it'll be trying to not let the CPU overheat.

Fact is, if you want to overclock:
1. you need a decent cooler (no, the stock 95W cooler AMD gives you is not "decent")
2. you need a good power supply
3. you need a good motherboard

If you can't understand that it's hopeless.

 

[Durvelle27]

I thought it was you guys touting 4.6GHz overclocks. That requires over-volting and a third-party cooler. Even if you can get 4.4GHz on stock voltage you'll still need a better cooler because the stock one will be screaming at 3000RPM. And the reason it'll be screaming away is it'll be trying to not let the CPU overheat.

Fact is, if you want to overclock:
1. you need a decent cooler (no, the stock 95W cooler AMD gives you is not "decent")
2. you need a good power supply
3. you need a good motherboard

If you can't understand that it's hopeless.

wrong again on stock cooling at 4.4GHz temps never went over 60c and i never heard my computer and i ran my whole system with a Kentek 600W PSU with no problems and the psu only costed $10 on ebay and i still have it to ?

 

[inf64]

Denial is a difficult condition. But hope dies last .

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

wrong again on stock cooling at 4.4GHz temps never went over 60c and i never heard my computer and i ran my whole system with a Kentek 600W PSU with no problems and the psu only costed $10 on ebay and i still have it to ?

LOL, ''only'' 60C? You do realize AMD and Intel aren't the same when it comes to temperatures, right?

The throttling temperature of the 4100 is 71C, meaning you were within 10C of that.

If being 10C below the throttling temperature is okay, then I guess a Core i3 at 85-90C is okay.

And a $10 PSU? LMAO!

 

[Durvelle27]

LOL, ''only'' 60C? You do realize AMD and Intel aren't the same when it comes to temperatures, right?

The throttling temperature of the 4100 is 71C, meaning you were within 10C of that.

If being 10C below the throttling temperature is okay, then I guess a Core i3 at 85-90C is okay.

And a $10 PSU? LMAO!

but stock so and my point exactly i could run my whole system off a generic $10 psu with no problems

 

[Durvelle27]

a i3-3225 hmm doesn't keep up XD

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

a i3-3225 hmm doesn't keep up XD

Except that Geekbench, like SysMark and 3DMark, is completely synthetic crap.

Oh, and sorry if this upsets you, but the i3 is much faster than the FX 4-core in Linux of all things, which is where it should do the best:

The AMD FX-4100 is currently carrying a retail price of about $130 USD while the Intel Core i3 2120 is coming in right now at $140 USD. In most of the Linux tests that were carried out, this lower-end Sandy Bridge CPU blew AMD's FX-4100 out of the water. The i3-2120 operates at just 3.3GHz and is a dual-core part with Hyper Threading while the FX-4100 operates at 3.6/3.8GHz and is a true quad-core.​

There are possible compiler optimizations for the AMD Bulldozer hardware and also the yet-to-be-merged Bulldozer patch for the Linux kernel, but it's unlikely those changes will yield enough performance improvements to become really competitive with the i3-2120 or other Intel hardware.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx4100_bulldozer&num=1

Anyone that's unbiased can see it's a turd, and the numbers confirm that. If you want a decent AMD CPU for $100-120 you buy a Phenom II X4 955/965, both of which are significantly faster than the FX-4100. In gaming the i3 is still faster than the Phenom II X4, but at least the X4 is on-par to slightly faster in multi-threaded software. The FX-4100 is slower than the Core i3-2120 and 3220 in everything. It's probably the least competitive CPU in the $100-150 range in five years.

 

[Yuriman]

Nice. It's pretty apparent that a heavily overclocked FX-4100 is at worst on par with i3. However, I'm going to parrot what Axel said.

You can get an i5 for $180 and a decent motherboard for $70, and even with a high end discreet video card probably get by with a 400w PSU or less. The FX-4100 saves a few dollars at best ($110 motherboard + $30 cooler puts it at the same price) and offers no performance advantage.

The FX makes sense if you keep the stock cooler and buy a small PSU and push the limits of the system that way, but when you buy accessories to overclock, you're getting less value.

 

[Durvelle27]

Except that Geekbench, like SysMark and 3DMark, is completely synthetic crap.

Oh, and sorry if this upsets you, but the i3 is much faster than the FX 4-core in Linux of all things, which is where it should do the best:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx4100_bulldozer&num=1

Anyone that's unbiased can see it's a turd, and the numbers confirm that. If you want a decent AMD CPU for $100-120 you buy a Phenom II X4 955/965, both of which are significantly faster than the FX-4100. In gaming the i3 is still faster than the Phenom II X4, but at least the X4 is on-par to slightly faster in multi-threaded software. The FX-4100 is slower than the Core i3-2120 and 3220 in everything. It's probably the least competitive CPU in the $100-150 range in five years.

i looked through those benches and the FX 4100 still beat it in some and lost in others. your just talking Fanboyism now though

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

i looked through those benches and the FX 4100 still beat it in some and lost in others. your just talking Fanboyism now though

If by "lost in others" you mean lost in 90% of them, sure. The FX-4100 did match or beat it in 10% of them, or in "some".

 

[Durvelle27]

If by "lost in others" you mean lost in 90% of them, sure. The FX-4100 did match or beat it in 10% of them, or in "some".

it was more than 10% open your eyes

 

[piesquared]

Ubisoft recommends an FX 4150 or 2600K for the high end in Far Cry3.

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14208/

 

[Durvelle27]

Ubisoft recommends an FX 4150 or 2600K for the high end in Far Cry3.

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14208/

kinda strange as there is no FX 4150 only a FX 4100, FX 4130, and FX 4170

 

[NostaSeronx]

kinda strange as there is no FX 4150 only a FX 4100, FX 4130, and FX 4170

It's a business model one.
3.8 GHz/3.9 GHz All core TC.

FX-B4150 <-- businesses can buy this version for cheap and in bulk! (Business =/= OEMs in this case but Schools, Governments, Corporations, Small Businesses, etc.)

Ubisoft is a business...so, maybe they optimized it for the FX-B4150.

 

[Durvelle27]

It's a business model one.
3.8 GHz/3.9 GHz All core TC.

FX-B4150 <-- businesses can buy this version for cheap and in bulk! (Business =/= OEMs in this case but Schools, Governments, Corporations, Small Businesses, etc.)

Ubisoft is a business...so, maybe they optimized it for the FX-B4150.

yea true

 

[Blitzvogel]

Ubisoft recommends an FX 4150 or 2600K for the high end in Far Cry3.

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14208/

Optimized around four threads/four cores I guess?

And what's with the i3 to FX-4100 comparison? Isn't it obvious the FX part is going to have quite a bit of leakage, especially with it's higher clockrate, and therefore be no where near as efficient? I also don't understand why people look at it as a full on quad-core when they should already know that each "core" per module on it's own is pretty weak. At the end of the day both chips have the same issue width (i3 having 4 per core, and the FX with 2 + 2 per module?) and some form of 256 bit FPU (of course split in the FX module).

I think Trinity's modules will make for a better comparison with an i3 even if they do have a graphics array attached as well. It just sucks that AMD does not and probably will not have a native dual-module CPU part unliked the binned dual-module FXs we've seen so far.

 

[NostaSeronx]

At the end of the day both chips have the same issue width (i3 having 4 per core, and the FX with 2 + 2 per module?) and some form of 256 bit FPU (of course split in the FX module).

That isn't a good way of comparing, by the # of decoders.

Intel Widths:
Decoder 0: 16 Bytes (to 32 Bytes?)
Decoder 1: 4 Bytes (to 8 Bytes?)
Decoder 2: 4 Bytes (to 8 Bytes?)
Decoder 3: 4 Bytes (to 8 Bytes?)
Decode Cache: 32 Bytes

Actual instruction execution:
24 Bytes to fight over between the threads

AMD Bulldozer Widths:
Decoder 0 and 3: 16 to 32 Bytes
Decoder 1: 8 to 16 Bytes
Decoder 2: 8 to 16 Bytes
- or -
Decoder 0: 8 to 16 Bytes
Decoder 1: 8 to 16 Bytes
Decoder 2: 8 to 16 Bytes
Decoder 3: 8 to 16 Bytes

Actual instruction execution:
22 Bytes for only one core active/16 Bytes per core when both are active

Intel
6 micro-op execution => 4 micro-op retire <-- per core(threads compete over these)

AMD
4 micro-op execution => 8 micro-op retire <-- per core(threads don't compete over these)
^-- The retire rate is a mystery to me.

 

[Blitzvogel]

When you say per core for AMD, are you talking actual execution core, or are you talking about the complete module?

 

[Yuriman]

When you say per core for AMD, are you talking actual execution core, or are you talking about the complete module?

I believe he means core in the sense of 2 cores per module.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Denial is a difficult condition. But hope dies last .

You talking about your often repeated hope that Bulldozer would be the fastest desktop processor, based on the benchmarks of a French site? :biggrin: