Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
- - - - -

Phenom II X4 965 vs. AMD FX-4100


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
16 replies to this topic

#1 Alfthaton

Alfthaton

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 10:57 PM

Will be getting my computer in a couple weeks, and torn between two CPUs (that look to me, a computer noob, the same).

Which would be better? I plan on running it with a 6870 GPU. Does the higher price tag warrant getting the Phenom II which I think is even an older model? Thanks!

http://www.newegg.co...#scrollFullInfo

http://www.newegg.co...#scrollFullInfo

#2 Faer

Faer

    King of Guild Wars

  • Moderators
  • 1879 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 11:37 PM

Get the FX-4100, the performance difference is negligible.

#3 Alfthaton

Alfthaton

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 11:54 PM

Faer said:

Get the FX-4100, the performance difference is negligible.

Thanks for the info.

#4 tijo

tijo

    Technician

  • Technicians
  • 3173 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 12:37 AM

I would say get the 965 and overclock the hell out of it. However, i'd wait for a tech's opinion.

#5 bhima

bhima

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 840 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 06:54 AM

965 is probably alot cheaper too I'd imagine. I'm with Tijo, OC the heck out of it and use the money you saved to buy a beefier GPU.

#6 Alfthaton

Alfthaton

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 07:20 AM

bhima said:

965 is probably alot cheaper too I'd imagine. I'm with Tijo, OC the heck out of it and use the money you saved to buy a beefier GPU.

Well, according to the links I posted the 965 is ~60 bucks more then the FX-4100.

So, really my question is, why is an older model with the same GHZ so much more then the newer model?

#7 krone6

krone6

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 919 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 08:38 AM

Alfthaton said:

Well, according to the links I posted the 965 is ~60 bucks more then the FX-4100.

So, really my question is, why is an older model with the same GHZ so much more then the newer model?
Different arch probably. I doubt the gpu inside those cpus would perform well anyhow for gaming.

#8 baels

baels

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2185 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 08:43 AM

Because Phenom II quads basically perform better than Bulldozer in many games.

But.. for the price, and what I'm seeing on other sites, the FX-4100 sounds like it'd go alright. I just recall the tech guys around here saying that Phenom II quads were better ;o

Quote

When it comes to performance we were shocked to see the AMD A8-3850 'Llano' processor and the Socket FM1 platform performing better than the AMD FX-4100 'Bulldozer' processor and the Socket AM3+ platform. We quickly found out that the FX-4100 was priced this low as it needed to be. The performance of the FX-4100 wasn't awful, but we didn't expect to see the AMD A6-3650 running at 2.6GHz to beat the AMD FX-4100 running at 3.6GHz in benchmarks like POV-Ray and Cinebench

http://www.legitrevi...rticle/1766/17/

Edited by baels, 28 January 2012 - 08:50 AM.


#9 Captain Loincloth

Captain Loincloth

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 09:22 AM

Alfthaton said:

Well, according to the links I posted the 965 is ~60 bucks more then the FX-4100.

The link you posted is for the 975. Even still, there is a $50 difference, not $60, between the items you linked.

You're probably better off buying a 955 or 960T and OCing. You stand a small decent chance of unlocking at least one additional core on a 960T with the right motherboard.

#10 Lord Sojar

Lord Sojar

    Mesmer of Death

  • Site Contributors
  • 2111 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 02:42 PM

Guess what?  AMD and Microsoft have acted earlier than anticipated.  

http://www.anandtech...ng-patch-tested

It doesn't fully fix Bulldozer's issues, but it certainly gives it a decent boost of performance it desperately needs.  In several benchmarks, it brings the FX-8150 up to or at least close to 2500k levels of performance, and that's a big improvement considering it's an inefficient fix.  

This doesn't dramatically change up AMD's lineup, but the Phenom IIs might finally be beaten in a few more workloads by the superior, albeit poorly launched and initially supported Bulldozer.

However, Windows 8 will go a MUCH longer way to improving Bulldozer.  Here is Anand's chart from just the developer preview, which is pre-alpha.    Notice how single core performance in L4D2 dramatically improved (10% is very dramatic CPU side for just threading changes, especially in only an alpha)

Posted Image
(NOTE:  The improvements released for Windows7 are not present in the above build of Windows 8, so add another 1-4% to ^ those ^ values.)

Given this information...  I'd say the Bulldozer CPU is the safer buy for the future, but for the here and now, the Phenom will be SLIGHTLY better.  However, with Windows 8's final retail release, we should see Bulldozer really start to stretch its arms.  Again, it won't fix the fundamental hardware issues (especially the low clocks), but if you can run Windows 8 + a healthy overclock on the Bulldozer.... it should scream.

Bulldozer thrives on higher core clocks at somewhere between a linear logarithmic rate.  So, you see far more that just a normal linear performance increase in many scenarios between the base clock of 3.6GHz and 4.6+GHz.  Note, it requires no voltage increase on most FX-4100s to hit 4.6GHz.  That requires simply a multiplier increase from 18x to 23x.  This can be done on the STOCK COOLER.  Reaching 5GHz grants you an ever more massive performance increase.  From 3.6GHz to 4.6GHz yields, worst case, a 25-30% performance boost.  Hitting 5GHz yields a 35-40% performance boost.

Edited by Lord Sojar, 28 January 2012 - 03:00 PM.


#11 bhima

bhima

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 840 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 04:09 PM

Take Lord Sojar's advice. I had no idea the FX-4100 could OC so well without voltage changes, so it becomes a decently performing cpu with VERY minimal effort to OC. Strange that its cheaper than the Phenom II which I see sometimes for $100 and under.

#12 Undead

Undead

    Technician

  • Technicians
  • 861 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:44 AM

I'd still get the Phenom II. Patches and updated Win schedulers can only do so much (~10% at best). The Phenom II is still going to beat it, stock or OCed.


Lord Sojar said:


Bulldozer thrives on higher core clocks at somewhere between a linear logarithmic rate.  So, you see far more that just a normal linear performance increase in many scenarios between the base clock of 3.6GHz and 4.6+GHz.  Note, it requires no voltage increase on most FX-4100s to hit 4.6GHz.  That requires simply a multiplier increase from 18x to 23x.  This can be done on the STOCK COOLER.  Reaching 5GHz grants you an ever more massive performance increase.  From 3.6GHz to 4.6GHz yields, worst case, a 25-30% performance boost.  Hitting 5GHz yields a 35-40% performance boost.

I haven't seen very many BD chips hitting above 4.5Ghz stable yet. A 4.0-4.2Ghz Phenom II X4 is still going to be faster.

#13 Lord Sojar

Lord Sojar

    Mesmer of Death

  • Site Contributors
  • 2111 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 05:42 AM

Undead said:

I haven't seen very many BD chips hitting above 4.5Ghz stable yet. A 4.0-4.2Ghz Phenom II X4 is still going to be faster.

http://www.legitrevi...rticle/1766/16/

They easily hit that.  An FX-8150 can get there, but it requires a lot more tweaking.  The FX-4100 is a little overclocking wee beastie.  It can hit 5GHz without too much work.  :)

That makes it match or beat the PhenomII X4s in heavily multi threaded stuff and beat it in single and dual threaded performance.

(this is pre-Windows 7 threading updates and certainly pre Windows 8, which will really help a lot)

#14 Undead

Undead

    Technician

  • Technicians
  • 861 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:10 AM

Lord Sojar said:

http://www.legitrevi...rticle/1766/16/

They easily hit that.  An FX-8150 can get there, but it requires a lot more tweaking.  The FX-4100 is a little overclocking wee beastie.  It can hit 5GHz without too much work.  :)

That makes it match or beat the PhenomII X4s in heavily multi threaded stuff and beat it in single and dual threaded performance.

(this is pre-Windows 7 threading updates and certainly pre Windows 8, which will really help a lot)

5ghz stable is pretty rare for these chips unless you're WCing. I've seen a few clock to 4.7-4.8, but the averages tend to be around 4.5-4.6Ghz. They need to run really cool, otherwise adding extra voltage doesn't give that much extra headroom, much like the HD 79xx cards.

A FX-4100 at stock (with turbo on) is slower than a 3Ghz Phenom II X4. With the Phenom II X4 @ 4.2Ghz and a FX-4100 @ 5Ghz (with turbo no longer in play), the Phenom will still be faster in both singlethreaded and multithreaded workloads (unless optimized for AVX)

Some updates of the Windows 8 scheduler were most likely already included in the little hotfix that Microsoft/AMD released a few days ago, so I'm pretty adamant that we wont see any gains larger than around 5% or so. The IPC of Zambezi still is, and will always be inherently lower than Phenom II. The clock speed advantage of current BD chips isn't really enough to set them apart yet.

I suggest buying this: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103995

You have a good chance of unlocking it to a Phenom II X6, and the IMC is a little better than the regular Phenom II X4's.

Edited by Undead, 29 January 2012 - 09:20 AM.


#15 Lord Sojar

Lord Sojar

    Mesmer of Death

  • Site Contributors
  • 2111 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:13 AM

Undead said:

5ghz stable is pretty rare for these chips unless you're WCing. I've seen a few clock to 4.7-4.8, but the averages tend to be around 4.5-4.6Ghz. They need to run really cool, otherwise adding extra voltage doesn't give that much extra headroom, much like the HD 79xx cards.

A FX-4100 at stock (with turbo on) is slower than a 3Ghz Phenom II X4. With the Phenom II X4 @ 4.2Ghz and a FX-4100 @ 5Ghz (with turbo no longer in play), the Phenom will still be faster in both singlethreaded and multithreaded workloads (unless optimized for AVX)

Some updates of the Windows 8 scheduler were most likely already included in the little hotfix that Microsoft/AMD released a few days ago, so I'm pretty adamant that we wont see any gains larger than around 5% or so. The IPC of Zambezi still is, and will always be inherently lower than Phenom II. The clock speed advantage of current BD chips isn't really enough to set them apart yet.

I suggest buying this: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103995

You have a good chance of unlocking it to a Phenom II X6, and the IMC is a little better than the regular Phenom II X4's.

Oh neat, Zosma core X4!  Yeah, that's a great deal.  I second that!

#16 Captain Loincloth

Captain Loincloth

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:42 PM

Lord Sojar said:

Oh neat, Zosma core X4!  Yeah, that's a great deal.  I second that!

Second? Don't you mean third?

#17 stormglory

stormglory

    Vanguard Scout

  • Validating
  • 219 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 03:54 PM

Lord Sojar said:

That makes it match or beat the PhenomII X4s in heavily multi threaded stuff and beat it in single and dual threaded performance.

New article on Tom's today comparing mid/low-end CPU performance on Windows 7 + the new updates for Bulldozer. Check out the overclocking benchmarks:
http://www.tomshardw...ark,3120-9.html

Not exactly a glowing review for the FX-4100 at 4.5 GHz, especially compared to a 4 GHz X4 955 or stock (but yeah, more expensive) Core i3. I know you know more about Windows 8 than I do, but I'll just say it had better be pretty huge.