The AMD FX-4100

[Ferzerp]

So... It's only 80% of a core, but because AMD says it is it is a whole core?

Edit: Your logic can be applied to intel chips and suddenly we have 8 core intel chips on the mainstream side (12 core for 980x) and 20 core on the high end server side.

 

[Idontcare]

It performs as AMD has said, 80% of the CMP.

We can clearly see that from 2C/4T vs 4C/4T benchmarks.

I wish someone would do some well-controlled 1M/1T vs 1M/2T vs 2M/2T tests, along with the identical testing on a 2600K of 1C/1T vs 1C/2T vs 2C/2T.

Regardless the semantics we judge Bulldozer's cores with, it would be enjoyable to see the data.

IMO the tests done so far are using too many threads to make the case for thread scaling arguments because of the impact of Amdahl's Law.

 

[Idontcare]

Edit: Your logic can be applied to intel chips and suddenly we have 8 core intel chips on the mainstream side (12 core for 980x) and 20 core on the high end server side.

I think Intel did the right thing with their definition of a core because while SMT contains the word "simultaneous" it is actually a misnomer when applied to describe hyperthreading because there is no simultaneous processing of the threads with HT.

It is still a round-robin time-share (pipeline share) situation as I understand it. Thread A has to stall before Thread B can use CPU cycles.

This isn't the case with AMD's CMT, threads A and B really can process simultaneously within the module. (as I understand it, which could be wrong)

 

[Ferzerp]

From the benchmarks when using both sections of a module, I don't think we can really say that it can do it truly simulaneously either. 😉

 

[Vesku]

Well, the CMT penalty gets taken to account in reviews. Hence you have it not living up to the 8 core expectation. But it is probably the most straight forward way of conveying that it runs 8 threads simultaneously without 'purposeful' stalls.

 

[lau808]

anyone care to educatedly guess what speed a a8-3870k would need to reach to match a fx 4100@ 5ghz? which benchmarks would i check to compare single threaded ipc of fx vs llano? thanks

 

[gmaster456]

If I can get it for $100-120, I'd get it.

 

[crisium]

BD doesn't support DDR2, gmaster, so if your motherboard takes Phenom II's that's the avenue you want to pursue (I upgraded from a 9750 to my 940 just last month).

 

[nyker96]

this one isn't very interesting out of the bd lineup. at least the top 2 model is 8 cores. considering you have cheap x4 or x6 around, i don't know how amd can sell this one.

 

[AtenRa]

I think Intel did the right thing with their definition of a core because while SMT contains the word "simultaneous" it is actually a misnomer when applied to describe hyperthreading because there is no simultaneous processing of the threads with HT.

It is still a round-robin time-share (pipeline share) situation as I understand it. Thread A has to stall before Thread B can use CPU cycles.

This isn't the case with AMD's CMT, threads A and B really can process simultaneously within the module. (as I understand it, which could be wrong)

If im not mistaken, with Intel's HT two threads can use parts of the core (front end, execution units etc) simultaneously. What happens is that thread 1 can use all the parts of the core it needs and thread 2 can use parts that are left over,
i.e. if thread number 1 use only three pipes (out of 5) in the execution unit then the second Thread can use the rest.

Of course HT can be used to raise performance when Thread stalls happen too.

 

[eternalone]

Now @ Newegg $129.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...name=FX-Series

 

[Imouto]

Well, FFmpeg and x264 improvements are amazing for real. Wonder the net profit of future patches and tweaks.

 

[Britton]

I see so many people complain about a processor that many of the posters do not even own. Their opinions are based on benchmark screenshots and not on the real world performance encountered during normal use.

I recently purchased the FX-4100 from Newegg and I can verify that this processor does not suck. In fact it's much better than I expected. Using the Windows Aero Score assessment the processor score went from a 6.2 to 7.2. Sure an i5 will probably push that score to a 7.9 for example but WHO CARES!

I've tested the processor with real world applications and I have to say it's great! I ran AIDA benchmarks on it, but it was all meaningless information unless it was compared to other processors. Before I got this my PC games didn't load or run as well as they do now and applications in general are fast and responsive, for 105 dollars. It beats my older AMD Phenom II X2 550 at 3.1Ghz any day.

I got it not based on the reviews but rather because it supports DDR3 at 1866Mhz, so it would work with the ram I got at 1600mhz. It may not be a real quad core, but it operates and shows up as one.

The point is, chip makers have reached their limit on processor technology. They can't make the stuff any smaller and the clock rate seems to have plateaued out at 4ghz, unless you risk the processors life span by overclocking it. Don't knock it till you try it is all I'm saying.

 

[KingFatty]

Well, I mean a horse and buggy is great if you compare it to your own two legs.

But compare it to a modern SUV, and that horse and buggy is not looking so great.

I think where people justify their position is how the chip is relative to other similarly priced chips.

So that's great that you think the processor does not suck for you particularly. But wouldn't it be more helpful to say whether the chip is a good value for the money compared to other chips?

 

[Durvelle27]

Well, I mean a horse and buggy is great if you compare it to your own two legs.

But compare it to a modern SUV, and that horse and buggy is not looking so great.

I think where people justify their position is how the chip is relative to other similarly priced chips.

So that's great that you think the processor does not suck for you particularly. But wouldn't it be more helpful to say whether the chip is a good value for the money compared to other chips?

I have to add to this. I have a FX 4100 benchmark thread can look it up if you want. The FX 4100 is a great chip but not worth it over similar priced chips like the 4300 or i3-3220 when at stock speeds requires a hefty overclock to surpass them.