FX 4100 @4.2GHz Gaming Performance

[Smoblikat]

yea i love my FX for BF3 ?

Why are all your statements questions?

 

[Durvelle27]

No, my conclusion comes based on the idea that the Athlon II x4, with it's 4x 3-issue cores would probably match an FX-41xx with it's 2x 4-issue modules.

IIRC, the Athlon II has 128 bit FPUs per core, so on a per clock basis, I would think the Athlon II would match the FX-41xx and it's 2x split 256 bit FPUs. Of course the FX has an L3 cache and an enormous clock advantage.

As far as I can see, the FX-41xx would be a side grade, unless you have some kind of software that requires 256 bit FPU processing or just in general needs quite a bit of it. Games certainly can stress this, but general CPU performance is still completely necessary. I used to have a computer a while back with an Athlon II x4, and it surprisingly kept up pretty well with my Phenom II x4 system.

an Athlon is equal to a Llano cpu not FX ?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=188

 

[Durvelle27]

Why are all your statements questions?

i don't know just how i type ?

 

[Blitzvogel]

an Athlon is equal to a Llano cpu not FX ?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=188

While the comparison engine doesn't have an FX-4xxx CPU to choose from in their CPU list, you should take a look at how those Athlon II x4s stack up versus the FX-8xxx they do have scores available for. If an Athlon II x4 is inherently weaker than an FX-4100 which is half as powerful as an FX-8xxx, then those scores really don't show that. While the FX-8xxx manages to beat the Athlon II x4 by twice in some scores, many of the scores have the Athlon II x4 at around 2/3 the FX-8xxx scores and it has a 500 MHz advantage to boot.

And yes, Llano is based on K10 architecture. We all know this. It's just that Bulldozer isn't completely superior to K10 architecture. Piledriver's advantages versus Llano will be it's higher clock speed at the same TDP and TDW with expanded graphics performance and of course 256 bit FPU capability.

 

[Durvelle27]

While the comparison engine doesn't have an FX-4xxx CPU to choose from in their CPU list, you should take a look at how those Athlon II x4s stack up versus the FX-8xxx they do have scores available for.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=434

 

[Blitzvogel]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=434

Yeah I saw those already

 

[Durvelle27]

Yeah I saw those already

just think about when its oced ? 8150s hit 4.8GHz-5GHz pretty easy ?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

just think about when its oced ? 8150s hit 4.8GHz-5GHz pretty easy ?

Since when?

 

[Durvelle27]

Since when?

always ....my friends 8150 is clocked at 5ghz now with an H100 and when i get a better cooler i might try for 4.8GHz ?

 

[Vesku]

Only some of those scores are heavily multi-threaded, so you can't just halve it to get a FX-4xxx score.

While the comparison engine doesn't have an FX-4xxx CPU to choose from in their CPU list, you should take a look at how those Athlon II x4s stack up versus the FX-8xxx they do have scores available for. If an Athlon II x4 is inherently weaker than an FX-4100 which is half as powerful as an FX-8xxx, then those scores really don't show that. While the FX-8xxx manages to beat the Athlon II x4 by twice in some scores, many of the scores have the Athlon II x4 at around 2/3 the FX-8xxx scores and it has a 500 MHz advantage to boot.

And yes, Llano is based on K10 architecture. We all know this. It's just that Bulldozer isn't completely superior to K10 architecture. Piledriver's advantages versus Llano will be it's higher clock speed at the same TDP and TDW with expanded graphics performance and of course 256 bit FPU capability.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

always ....my friends 8150 is clocked at 5ghz now with an H100 and when i get a better cooler i might try for 4.8GHz ?

That's a pretty small sample size.

 

[Blitzvogel]

just think about when its oced ? 8150s hit 4.8GHz-5GHz pretty easy ?

And just think about how much power it consumes to do that? An i3 in comparison sips 2/3s the same amount at most and is still more powerful in many cases.

In all fairness, I am excited for Piledriver, and I think it'll be the proper coming of FX architecture, since it will have the added value of being an APU, not purely a CPU. It won't have the extra power consumption a partially disabled/defected chip like the current desktop FX-4000s do and the architecture has been tweaked some to fix some of the deficiencies.

It's kind of hilarious that three years ago I would go for AMDs desktop CPUs for their value per dollar but avoid AMDs mobile CPUs. However now in an ironic twist, I would avoid many of their desktop CPUs (and some of the APUs) but would greatly consider their mobile APUs.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Only some of those scores are heavily multi-threaded, so you can't just halve it to get a FX-4xxx score.

I'm aware of the issues involved, but still from what I see, the FX-4100 is a sidegrade compared to an Athlon II x4. Not worth the cost of a whole new CPU and mobo, especially when the upgrade path isn't looking too bright.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Phenom II and Athlon II are both stars the only difference is the L3 which is about 5-10% more performance on avg especially in gaming clock for clock.

 

[Durvelle27]

Phenom II and Athlon II are both stars the only difference is the L3 which is about 5-10% more performance on avg especially in gaming clock for clock.

yea the Phenom II x4 955s and up are great and well worth keeping instead of a FX but athlon ehh ?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Athlons were cheap most clocked like C2 Phemon II's as well, but they were below $90 two years ago for a quad.

 

[Durvelle27]

Athlons were cheap most clocked like C2 Phemon II's as well, but they were below $90 two years ago for a quad.

My FX 4100 was cheap ?

 

[Christobevii3]

I would think the Athlon II 620 would be better than the FX4100 unless the very high clock speed actually makes up for it's shortcomings.

The athlon II at 2.6GHz is about on par with the fx4100 at 3.3Ghz. At 4.4GHz on the bulldozer I'd probably need the athlon II at 3.8GHz to be comparable, which would require a pretty crazy fsb.

 

[Durvelle27]

The athlon II at 2.6GHz is about on par with the fx4100 at 3.3Ghz. At 4.4GHz on the bulldozer I'd probably need the athlon II at 3.8GHz to be comparable, which would require a pretty crazy fsb.

i used to have a Athlon II x4 650 and it wasn't that good mainly gaming ?

 

[Hatisherrif]

That's a pretty small sample size.

Look out Balla, we have a post praising Bulldozer, you better call the Intel cops!

 

[Durvelle27]

Look out Balla, we have a post praising Bulldozer, you better call the Intel cops!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Look out Balla, we have a post praising Bulldozer, you better call the Intel cops!

I am the law.

 

[Durvelle27]

I am the law.

 

[blckgrffn]

And just think about how much power it consumes to do that? An i3 in comparison sips 2/3s the same amount at most and is still more powerful in many cases.

In all fairness, I am excited for Piledriver, and I think it'll be the proper coming of FX architecture, since it will have the added value of being an APU, not purely a CPU. It won't have the extra power consumption a partially disabled/defected chip like the current desktop FX-4000s do and the architecture has been tweaked some to fix some of the deficiencies.

It's kind of hilarious that three years ago I would go for AMDs desktop CPUs for their value per dollar but avoid AMDs mobile CPUs. However now in an ironic twist, I would avoid many of their desktop CPUs (and some of the APUs) but would greatly consider their mobile APUs.

2/3rds? More like 1/3rd or a quarter of the power of an 8150 at those clock speeds. Holy crap does BD drink the power down when you dial up the hz. It's like dialing up a Westmere-EX, but slower.

That said, I still think it is good to a 4100 holding its own (and it a i3 can, a 4100 should be able to as well given a solid 30-40% clock advantage and ~2x the power consumption.) I really hope PD can further help dial in those numbers to make it a more reasonable choice for more users.

 

[Durvelle27]

2/3rds? More like 1/3rd or a quarter of the power of an 8150 at those clock speeds. Holy crap does BD drink the power down when you dial up the hz. It's like dialing up a Westmere-EX, but slower.

That said, I still think it is good to a 4100 holding its own (and it a i3 can, a 4100 should be able to as well given a solid 30-40% clock advantage and ~2x the power consumption.) I really hope PD can further help dial in those numbers to make it a more reasonable choice for more users.

yea there power hungry mines is sucking 114w now @4.2GHz ?