AMD FX-4130 CPU Could Finally Come to Market

[Guest]

AMD's FX-4130 Bulldozer has surfaced on a retailer website and is available pre-order.

AMD FX-4130 CPU Could Finally Come to Market : Read more

 

[idroid]

AMD FX-4130 CPU Could Finally Come to Market

Yeah.... like if people actually want more bulldozed bulldozers to come out

 

[captainblacko]

if the price is right on them then i would like to be bulldozed

 

[pharoahhalfdead]

125 watts? That's the same as the 8150. Surely AMD can do better than that.

 

[greghome]

125 watts? That's the same as the 8150. Surely AMD can do better than that.

all the FX chips share the exact same die as the perfect 8 core models, hence the incredible amount of L3 even on the Quad cores, hence that crazy amount of power draw.

I'd say they could have cut power draw on the Quad Core models to less than 95watt with the same clocks if they had bother to remove half the L3...then again, I don't think it's practical with BD's design

 

[doron]

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]all the FX chips share the exact same die as the perfect 8 core models, hence the incredible amount of L3 even on the Quad cores, hence that crazy amount of power draw. I'd say they could have cut power draw on the Quad Core models to less than 95watt with the same clocks if they had bother to remove half the L3...then again, I don't think it's practical with BD's design[/citation]


TDP != Power draw.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/15/

 

[razor512]

knowing AMD, it is probably 2 cores pretending to be 4 because their stupid marketing team decided, hey lets double one of the components that goes into a core then we can call this quad core CPU an 8 core.

Imagine if other businesses were allowed to do that.

Order 2 hamburgers and you only get 1 hamburger + an extra half a bun.

Or you go to the store and buy a 2 pack of toothpaste and when you open the box you find that it is really just 1 tube with 2 caps on it.

If you look at the benchmarks for their new FX series of CPU you will see that the performance of their 8 core CPU ranges from being that of a 4 core CPU and for a select few processing tasks that take advantage of the fraction of an additional core that they added, then you get small boost causing about 1-2 cores of additional performance (overall the FX 8 core cant beat the phenom II x6 chips consistently enough to be considered a better chip

 

[spp85]

I think we may wait for the 28nm Steamroller generation CPU for an alternative to Intel's overpriced CPUs.

 

[idroid]

[citation][nom]captainblacko[/nom]if the price is right on them then i would like to be bulldozed[/citation]

Fanboy...

 

[idroid]

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]all the FX chips share the exact same die as the perfect 8 core models, hence the incredible amount of L3 even on the Quad cores, hence that crazy amount of power draw. I'd say they could have cut power draw on the Quad Core models to less than 95watt with the same clocks if they had bother to remove half the L3...then again, I don't think it's practical with BD's design[/citation]

Hence the performance fail...

 

[technoholic]

when is the trinity desktop coming up?

 

[farensabri]

The way I see it, the rumor that AMD is skipping Piledriver FX for desktop and waiting to release Steamroller altogether early next year is definitely possible. There is only like 4 months away until '13 and AMD has plenty of time to clear all their Bulldozers off the shelf rather than producing new Piledrivers.

Although it seems that they already have the server part Abu Dhabi ready to be rolled out.

 

[The_Trutherizer]

When announcements of new hardware that has any impact on system performance is made then at least you should include information that in some way tries to illustrate where the chip will fit in. With this article I'm like... Either I go have to look up the history of CPU's and future plans before I can decide whether this is something to get excited about. The only interesting thing I saw was 3.8-3.9GHz. The rest was just waffle, waffle, PQBC67PY-XM, waffle, waffle.

 

[The_Trutherizer]

Not everybody is paid to keep track of what goes on in the PC hardware universe.

 

[Marco925]

[citation][nom]idroid[/nom]Fanboy...[/citation]
he's a fanboy because pricing influences his decision whether he goes intel or AMD?

You need to go back to urban dictionary to study the lingo man. Internet slang 101

 

[toddybody]

AMD is off their rocker. They had a decent value proposition with gamers the last few years...but thats dwindling now. Bulldozer TDP and performance are just abysmal.

 

[DjEaZy]

... i own a FX-8120 @ 4,2Ghz... and i do like it for multitasking... sometimes i don't even see that my taskbar is filled with 20 or more applications, and don't feel a lag... maybe that's, because of 16Gb RAM and 2x120Gb Vertex3 in RAID0... and i acknowledge, that i'm a AMD FanMan (tm) [not a boy anymore]... but the FX's are a really good concept... the software is not evolved jet... and i would like it very much, that under load the power draw would be less... AMD just need to improve the power draw and adjust the price according to performance and it is/would be a good CPU for the money... and with OpenCL more mainstream, just the CPU would be not enough... if you see a good intel laptop, it's good because it's combined with AMD or nVidia... so it will be more the combinations of things, not one component alone...

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]knowing AMD, it is probably 2 cores pretending to be 4 because their stupid marketing team decided, hey lets double one of the components that goes into a core then we can call this quad core CPU an 8 core.Imagine if other businesses were allowed to do that.Order 2 hamburgers and you only get 1 hamburger + an extra half a bun.Or you go to the store and buy a 2 pack of toothpaste and when you open the box you find that it is really just 1 tube with 2 caps on it.If you look at the benchmarks for their new FX series of CPU you will see that the performance of their 8 core CPU ranges from being that of a 4 core CPU and for a select few processing tasks that take advantage of the fraction of an additional core that they added, then you get small boost causing about 1-2 cores of additional performance (overall the FX 8 core cant beat the phenom II x6 chips consistently enough to be considered a better chip[/citation]

its 2 core and 2 logical, because they have more of a core than intel, they can call it quad core, and in some applications it beats intels threading solution, if refined well enough, would dance circles around intel. but lets look at firefox, its a web browser that is developed to still work on a pentium (old cpu, not the new line) processor, or at least has the legacy code still in it. for the software to evolve to really take advantage of amd, would take years.

 

[spookyman]

And yet the i5-2500k still beats it.

 

[deanjo]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]knowing AMD, it is probably 2 cores pretending to be 4 because their stupid marketing team decided, hey lets double one of the components that goes into a core then we can call this quad core CPU an 8 core.[/citation]

You know there is no set industry standard definition of what a core is right?

 

[bustapr]

i really doubt the jump from 3.6ghz(on fx4100) to 3.8/3.9ghz(on this) justifies the jump from 95W(on fx4100) to 125W. the fx 4100 IMO is still a very good option on cheap diverse rigs at $110.

[citation][nom]spookyman[/nom]And yet the i5-2500k still beats it.[/citation]
^to this i say, no shit fanboy. this comment just makes it seem like the person didnt even care about the article, instead just went to the comments to troll.

 

[bustapr]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]knowing AMD, it is probably 2 cores pretending to be 4 because their stupid marketing team decided, hey lets double one of the components that goes into a core then we can call this quad core CPU an 8 core.Imagine if other businesses were allowed to do that.Order 2 hamburgers and you only get 1 hamburger + an extra half a bun.Or you go to the store and buy a 2 pack of toothpaste and when you open the box you find that it is really just 1 tube with 2 caps on it.If you look at the benchmarks for their new FX series of CPU you will see that the performance of their 8 core CPU ranges from being that of a 4 core CPU and for a select few processing tasks that take advantage of the fraction of an additional core that they added, then you get small boost causing about 1-2 cores of additional performance (overall the FX 8 core cant beat the phenom II x6 chips consistently enough to be considered a better chip[/citation]
AMD has always made true quad cores. And with the fx line, though not as good as AMD hopes it to get in 1st gen, contain 2 cores in each of the modules(i believe). this is a very new design that AMD hopes to improve upon. and hopefully we'll get to see the kind of jump we saw with phenom to phenom 2. as far as your argument, the 8120, though underperforms is still an 8 core.

also, not sure if youre aware of this but it is intel that has had a history of calling 2 physical core +2 virtual core cpus, quad cores. not sure how they are today though.

 

[coder543]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]knowing AMD, it is probably 2 cores pretending to be 4 because their stupid marketing team decided, hey lets double one of the components that goes into a core then we can call this quad core CPU an 8 core.Imagine if other businesses were allowed to do that.Order 2 hamburgers and you only get 1 hamburger + an extra half a bun.Or you go to the store and buy a 2 pack of toothpaste and when you open the box you find that it is really just 1 tube with 2 caps on it.If you look at the benchmarks for their new FX series of CPU you will see that the performance of their 8 core CPU ranges from being that of a 4 core CPU and for a select few processing tasks that take advantage of the fraction of an additional core that they added, then you get small boost causing about 1-2 cores of additional performance (overall the FX 8 core cant beat the phenom II x6 chips consistently enough to be considered a better chip[/citation]

My IQ just dropped considerably. That was literally the worst comparative logic I've seen in many years.

 

[freggo]

AMD FX-4130...

The problem with AMD's CPU naming; there is no way for the 'average Joe' to see to what Intel product it compares too. Hell, even I'd have to do some reading now to see where this thing stands compared to, for example, an i3 or i5.

Not important you say? Most of my clients never heard of AMD, but want 'Intel inside' !
AMD has PR problems, that's why their sales are in the tank.

 

[pedro_mann]

[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]Imagine if other businesses were allowed to do that.

Order 2 hamburgers and you only get 1 hamburger + an extra half a bun.[/citation]
Yeah, it's called a Big Mac. Just saying....