AMD FX-4100e Bulldozer with one module disabled...save energy?

[waltchan]

I was lucky to find one FX-4100(e) with stock voltage read only 1.26V with core turbo off. On default for all FX-4100 with turbo on, it's at 1.40V. 2 out of 5 FX-4100s don't automatically reduce stock voltage with turbo off, and still stuck at 1.40V. One is at 1.35V, and other is 1.30V. These were all tested in Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 board.

I plan to disable one module, and it ends up being only a single module, two-thread processor like FM2 A4 Trinity. But it still can be overclocked up to 4.3GHz max at 1.265V with one module disabled. Based my settings, will this reduce power consumption? Is this 65W or 95W setting now? I only have a cheap heat-sink on taken out from 65W Richland FM2 box.

Sorry, I'm unable to consider FX-8320e. FX-4100 is the best I can afford as used for $45 shipped (still a lot of money for me), and it's difficult go green on FX.

 

[VirtualLarry]

and it's difficult go green on FX.

Uhh, that's like, the understatement of the year. If you care at all about power-consumption, WHY??? are you running an FX chip?

For the same money, wouldn't a G1820 be more efficient? You can get an ASRock ITX B85 motherboard right now at Newegg for $44.99 + $0.99 ship.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Wrong CPU, wrong platform for "energy saving".

Also I doubt disabling a module is going to save you anything worthwhile.

 

[waltchan]

Uhh, that's like, the understatement of the year. If you care at all about power-consumption, WHY??? are you running an FX chip?

For the same money, wouldn't a G1820 be more efficient? You can get an ASRock ITX B85 motherboard right now at Newegg for $44.99 + $0.99 ship.

Because it has an unlocked multiplier, less-work and heat from 760g chipset that AM3 Athlon X4s don't do well with bus-overclocking, and it's only 32nm CPU processing. Actually, I'm setting and finishing up and will let you know.

Will 1.26V stock-voltage help vs. standard 1.40V? What's the difference between two rating?

 

[waltchan]

I do wish there was a FX-2100 dual-core rated at 65W in first place. The quad-core adds the extra used-price for nothing. I could have got a used FX-2100 for only $25 shipped.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I do wish there was a FX-2100 dual-core rated at 65W in first place. The quad-core adds the extra used-price for nothing. I could have got a used FX-2100 for only $25 shipped.

Dude. You don't make sense. First of all, there is no FX-2100. So how can you say you could have gotten one for only $25 shipped, if they don't actually exist???

Second, do you know how SLOW a single-module Bulldozer CPU would be? Might as well just buy AM1. Seriously.

 

[deasd]

AMD CPUs have much undervolting potential, if you undervolt 0.1V in FX at stock frequency would reduce consumption about dozen walts. Anyway voltage don't have much relationship about core count, IIRC, it would only affect clocking.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

AM3+ and saving energy in the same sentence?

I do wish there was a FX-2100 dual-core rated at 65W in first place. The quad-core adds the extra used-price for nothing. I could have got a used FX-2100 for only $25 shipped.

If you really want one, they exist on FM2(+). But I don't think you'll like the performance...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113336

Second, do you know how SLOW a single-module Bulldozer CPU would be? Might as well just buy AM1. Seriously.

This^^

You'll get a much more capable IGP too. The 760G/HD3000 is aincient. It's not even DX11 capable...

 

[zir_blazer]

Because it has an unlocked multiplier, less-work and heat from 760g chipset that AM3 Athlon X4s don't do well with bus-overclocking, and it's only 32nm CPU processing. Actually, I'm setting and finishing up and will let you know.

What you had currently? Why instead of purchasing a piece of trash Processor with totally wrong assumptions, you didn't instead tried to undervolt your current one? Would have get better results, with no money spend.

 

[Yuriman]

If you can sell it and get a celeron for the same price, it will be faster and draw a fraction of the power.

It's generally more power efficient to run more cores at lower clocks with less voltage, than fewer/faster/more, because despite your CPU drawing less energy over a given time, it still has worse efficiency than when at stock clocks, and needs to run twice as long.

Better to leave both modules enabled, drop clocks to 2ghz, and undervolt seriously.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I plan to disable one module, and it ends up being only a single module, two-thread processor like FM2 A4 Trinity. But it still can be overclocked up to 4.3GHz max at 1.265V with one module disabled.

So you're trying to save power by disabling a module but overclocking and overvolting the other?

This makes no sense.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

If you actually wanted to save power on that motherboard, I'd buy one of the Athlon II U chips..... The 170U sells for about eight or nine bucks on eBay and are rated at a 20 watt TDP.

However, I wouldn't want to use one with today's software. It has the processing power of a 5 year old netbook.

 

[Phynaz]

Ugh. Put $2 a week in your sock drawer for couple of months and save up for real CPU instead of that trash.

 

[squirrel dog]

Body Slammed .

 

[SlowSpyder]

Lots of people talking here who probably never tinkered with an FX. Lower the voltage and test for stability, there is a lot of possibility there. Especially with a slight down clock. Have a look at my post here while doing a little AVX crunching for power use. In my case a .1 volt decrease saved me over 40 watts on my four module FX. In my experience AM3+ can be quite power friendly, you just have to find your CPU's sweet spot and don't settle for factory defaults.

*edit - Also, compare the post I linked right above with this post. The only difference being my LLC settings. That's a savings of 118 watts at the same clock speed, just voltage tweaks and LLC setting changed...!

 

[LTC8K6]

Lots of people talking here who probably never tinkered with an FX. Lower the voltage and test for stability, there is a lot of possibility there. Especially with a slight down clock. Have a look at my post here while doing a little AVX crunching for power use. In my case a .1 volt decrease saved me over 40 watts on my four module FX. In my experience AM3+ can be quite power friendly, you just have to find your CPU's sweet spot and don't settle for factory defaults.

*edit - Also, compare the post I linked right above with this post. The only difference being my LLC settings. That's a savings of 118 watts at the same clock speed, just voltage tweaks and LLC setting changed...!

But you were not running an FX as a single module chip to save power...

I don't see the comparison. You were apparently undervolting a 9370, not crippling a 4100.

 

[SlowSpyder]

But you were not running an FX as a single module chip to save power...

I don't see the comparison. You were apparently undervolting a 9370, not crippling a 4100.

There are a good number of posters in this thread saying this is the wrong platform for low power use, implying that AM3+ gobbles up power and that's the end of the story. I was trying to point out that you can indeed save heaps of power on AM3+ if you are willing to change settings. If this approach would be helpful for the OP, all the better.

 

[LTC8K6]

There are a good number of posters in this thread saying this is the wrong platform for low power use, implying that AM3+ gobbles up power and that's the end of the story. I was trying to point out that you can indeed save heaps of power on AM3+ if you are willing to change settings. If this approach would be helpful for the OP, all the better.

I think the point is that if you cripple the chip, the remaining module is probably going to have to work it's little ass off to get the jobs done, cancelling out any power benefits.

Undervolting / underclocking it makes a lot more sense if you want to reduce power use, imo.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think the point is that if you cripple the chip, the remaining module is probably going to have to work it's little ass off to get the jobs done, cancelling out any power benefits.

Undervolting / underclocking it makes a lot more sense if you want to reduce power use, imo.

So then my approach may be beneficial to the OP.

I think he'd be better off with two modules and undervolting / underclocking than disabling one module and overclocking the other.

 

[waltchan]

For the same money, wouldn't a G1820 be more efficient? You can get an ASRock ITX B85 motherboard right now at Newegg for $44.99 + $0.99 ship.

I already have a AM3+ board set up, don't want to repurchase or reinstall again.

Dude. You don't make sense. First of all, there is no FX-2100. So how can you say you could have gotten one for only $25 shipped, if they don't actually exist???

Second, do you know how SLOW a single-module Bulldozer CPU would be? Might as well just buy AM1. Seriously.

It would be great if AMD offered a dual-core Bulldozer in first-place to replace the Athlon II X2s. I like to name it FX-2100. Therefore, the used price of AM3+ end up being too expensive. Single-thread score is about 1650 at 4.3GHz with one module disabled vs. 500 in Sempron 2650, so it's not a valid comparison.

 

[waltchan]

AMD CPUs have much undervolting potential, if you undervolt 0.1V in FX at stock frequency would reduce consumption about dozen walts. Anyway voltage don't have much relationship about core count, IIRC, it would only affect clocking.

I also own a FX-4200, and paired with Asus M5A78L-M/USB3 board, it runs stable as low as 1.15V. The 3.3GHz base speed helps a lot vs. 3.6GHz in FX-4100. Core turbo needs to be disabled.

 

[Techhog]

Guys, he obviously only wants to support AMD. He's not listening to any sort of reason, so don't bother.

OP, if you really want to support AMD, you just have to deal with the limitations. You're just not going to get a power-efficient CPU no matter what you do.

 

[waltchan]

What you had currently? Why instead of purchasing a piece of trash Processor with totally wrong assumptions, you didn't instead tried to undervolt your current one? Would have get better results, with no money spend.

Not really. Selection is very limited here. AM3 is insanely slow with Athlon 170u, average-power in Athlon X4 610e, and good-speed in FX-4100. I previously had a Athlon X4 610e overclocked at 3.0GHz, and still found it too slow. Then I put in FX-4100 overclocked at 4.3GHz, and it overheated badly with the cheap heatsink size from FM2 Richland, so I was forced to disable one module. Works okay now.

 

[positivedoppler]

Guys, he obviously only wants to support AMD. He's not listening to any sort of reason, so don't bother.

OP, if you really want to support AMD, you just have to deal with the limitations. You're just not going to get a power-efficient CPU no matter what you do.

He already mentioned that he has a am3+ mb which is why he wants to stick with fx.

 

[waltchan]

If you actually wanted to save power on that motherboard, I'd buy one of the Athlon II U chips..... The 170U sells for about eight or nine bucks on eBay and are rated at a 20 watt TDP.

However, I wouldn't want to use one with today's software. It has the processing power of a 5 year old netbook.

Doesn't suit me, toooooo slow. It can only be overclocked up to 2.6GHz max. Some can be enabled into hidden second-core, but clock-speed has to be lowered to 2.4GHz.