The AMD FX-4100

[voltronn]

I am just trying to gather a bit of information on this processor

So far there appears to be only one solid review on Guru3d
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1

The lowest price in Europe at the moment is 95 euros ($130)

That price range puts it in direct competition with the upper end Athlons (e.g. X4 850) and the Phenom II AMD x4 955 (just below 100 euros)

However from the only review I can find it seems to perform on aggregate worse? (correct me if I am wrong)
The gaming tests aren't sufficient to tell either way.

For a 3.6 ghz chip with a ton of l2 and l3 cache it seems to be having competition from older gen low clocked Athlon chips.

Any other reviews floating around? or has anyone actually bought one?

 

[PrayForDeath]

I'd steer clear if I were you.

And I say that as a big AMD fan since the original Athlon.

 

[BlueBlazer]

The FX-4100 is not a true quad core, rather its more like a dual core with SMT (HyperThreading). Thus its much more similar to Core i3 than to Phenom II X4 processor. That's why in many multi-threading benchmarks the FX-4100 performs slower than Phenom II X4. Here's another review with FX-4100 >>> Hardware.Info Nederland: AMD FX-8150, -8120, -6100, -4100 Bulldozer review

 

[Ferzerp]

October 2011 reg date, bulldozer thread, and spaces after nearly every sentence with an odd flow. Gee, I wonder if this is the same person again?


Guys, enough with the paranoia and witch-hunting. If you suspect something is amiss with a given poster, their post, or their thread then your duty to the community and the forum lies in you reporting the post by clicking that red triangle

located under their username area.

And leave it at that. The mods will review the matter and take it from there. Do not post in their thread just to spread innuendo and paranoia. If you do that then you are adding thread-crap and insulting the member in question, both of which are actionable violations of the posting guidelines.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[zlejedi]

If you live in USA you would be much much better with 960T.

 

[Rhezuss]

It'd be wiser to go with a Phenom II X4/X6 if you need to upgrade since those "last gen" CPUs are still outperforming the new BD.

I got the PII X4 955 (stock @ 3.2GHz) earlier this year and OCed it to 3.7GHz (X4 980 clocks) with stock voltage and it can take everything I throw at it.

Now the 955 can be bought for like $100 or less + a nice aftermarket HSF for your OC and you're set till FM2 release in 2012.

 

[Zstream]

If it can be bough for 80-90$, it's not too shabby

 

[SlowSpyder]

I was really interested in the 6100, three modules and six cores/threads, decent price. Then I saw the benches. I would stay away from the 4100 as well, a PhII would probably be a better choice.

 

[nemesismk2]

what I found funny was that usually (going by guru3d) the 4100 is about athlon ii x4 645 (or worse) type of performance and the 4100 costs more than even a x4 955 which is stupid if your ask me.

 

[Idontcare]

October 2011 reg date, bulldozer thread, and spaces after nearly every sentence with an odd flow. Gee, I wonder if this is the same person again?

Guys, enough with the paranoia and witch-hunting. If you suspect something is amiss with a given poster, their post, or their thread then your duty to the community and the forum lies in you reporting the post by clicking that red triangle

located under their username area.

And leave it at that. The mods will review the matter and take it from there. Do not post in their thread just to spread innuendo and paranoia. If you do that then you are adding thread-crap and insulting the member in question, both of which are actionable violations of the posting guidelines.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[voltronn]

October 2011 reg date, bulldozer thread, and spaces after nearly every sentence with an odd flow. Gee, I wonder if this is the same person again?

Woah, no need to be so suspicious, just a long time reader first time poster.

 

[lehtv]

I would expect the 4100 to overclock pretty well, better than X4's probably. It could be a very nice budget gaming CPU.

 

[lau808]

i'm thinking this chip should oc pretty high. if the 8150 does 4.6ish stable, 2 less modules should go higher no? i have no idea how much higher tho. i am guessing at least 5ghz (if anyone has insight on this i'd love to hear it) and given the 20% module penalty a 4.8ghz 4100 shld = a 4.0 ghz 955 in 4 threads with better single thread performance.

 

[LoneNinja]

i'm thinking this chip should oc pretty high. if the 8150 does 4.6ish stable, 2 less modules should go higher no? i have no idea how much higher tho. i am guessing at least 5ghz (if anyone has insight on this i'd love to hear it) and given the 20% module penalty a 4.8ghz 4100 shld = a 4.0 ghz 955 in 4 threads with better single thread performance.

It'll probably run hotter and consume more power than that Phenom II to do it too.

Personally I would stick to Phenom II processors right now, the 8 core FX chips are the only ones faster, but they are horribly over priced right now considering the small performance gain.

 

[nenforcer]

I haven't even seen this processor for sale anywhere even though its supposed to be a "launch" CPU.

 

[Bman123]

I was all hype about this CPU til I saw reviews. Like said above better off with a true quad phenom 2 CPU

 

[LoneNinja]

That 'site' is a bunch of nonsensical ramblings, as far as I can tell.

+1

It's nothing but rambling and rumors with virtually no real information. Looks like some uneducated persons blog.

 

[StrangerGuy]

The FX-4100 is not a true quad core, rather its more like a dual core with SMT (HyperThreading). Thus its much more similar to Core i3 than to Phenom II X4 processor. That's why in many multi-threading benchmarks the FX-4100 performs slower than Phenom II X4. Here's another review with FX-4100 >>> Hardware.Info Nederland: AMD FX-8150, -8120, -6100, -4100 Bulldozer review

Why are we still arguing this core/module bullshit? Its sucks plain and simple against a OCed 2+ year old 955 BE, and probably priced out of sanity like those 8 core BDs. I don't care how whether it's a "true" quad core or whatever.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Phoronix just posted some linux benchmarks comparing FX-4100 against llano, i3, and i5

It does better than I expected

 

[BD231]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLxKKFUgJp8

 

[AtenRa]

I would go for the FX4100 instead of Phenom II X4 955, if you OC.

FX4100 is slower (clock to clock) but, it uses less power both at idle and in load.

It OC fine and can reach 4.6-4.7GHz, at that clocks it will have almost the same performance of a 4GHz Phenom II X4 but at lower power usage.

It has AVX, XOP, FM4 and AES that will make it much faster when apps use them, something Phenom II lacks.

In gaming at high resolutions and Filters it will produce almost the same frames as Phenom II X4.

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page11.html

 

[BlueBlazer]

Phoronix just posted some linux benchmarks comparing FX-4100 against llano, i3, and i5

It does better than I expected

Except that article did not publish the link to the benchmark comparison at all(!) Here is the actual benchmark link >>> AMD FX-4100 vs. Fusion vs. Sandy Bridge.......

Why are we still arguing this core/module bullshit? Its sucks plain and simple against a OCed 2+ year old 955 BE, and probably priced out of sanity like those 8 core BDs. I don't care how whether it's a "true" quad core or whatever.

Even a Phenom II X4 at stock speeds can beat FX-4100 overclocked. At least someone on Youtube had the guts to post some benchmarks (while the "others" gone quiet). FX 4100 OC @ 4.9GHz running Cinebench 11.5 compared to AMD 965 @3.4GHz >>> FX 4100 OC @ 4.9GHz. Results ain't pretty for FX-4100 overclocked to 4.9GHz (embarassingly lost to Phenom II X4 965 at stock speeds). The CPUZ he's using is too old though. His other 3 videos >>> AMD FX 8150 VS i7 2600K, AMD FX 6100 oc 5.0GHz and AMD 1100T VS FX 8150 .

 

[Soulkeeper]

I had no problem clicking next at the bottom of the review ...

 

[BlueBlazer]

I had no problem clicking next at the bottom of the review ...

I went thru 7 pages, but no direct link to the benchmark comparison page. The most he mentions is this on the last page......

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. As soon as the Bulldozer kit arrives from AMD, more Linux benchmarks will be carried out, including looking at these other areas. Until then, you can see how your system stacks up to these Bulldozer, Llano, and Sandy Bridge CPUs by installing the Phoronix Test Suite and then running phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1110171-AR-BULLDOZER86 to facilitate a direct (and fully automated) comparison to the tests shown in this article.

Still no links, though its interesting that he mentions the Linux patch (if not mistaken for cache aliasing issues). Also in that last page......

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.

Oh dear! He still thinks its a real quad core.....

 

[nenforcer]

Oh dear! He still thinks its a real quad core.....

Unless I missed something, why is this CPU not considered a "true" quad core?

From my understanding every FX cpu comes from the same die, with either 0, 1 or 2 "modules" disabled?

Isn't the FX-4100 just a Zambezi die with 2 modules disabled? Or are you counting the fact that its 2 "modules" and not 4 cores like the previous Phenom ][ X4?