Any reviews for the FX-4170 yet???

[full_out]

I have looked everywhere. Has anyone seen any reviews for the new FX-4170?

 

[geekapproved]

No but I've seen reviews of the FX-4100 at 4.5ghz, which is faster than the 4170. Even at 4.5ghz, it still get's embarrassed in gaming by a stock i3-2100.

 

[Uther39]

i have not seen any, or even the chip for sale, but expect similar ballpark results as the FX-4100.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-319-AM&groupid=701&catid=1967&subcat=1942

 

[jaguarskx]

The FX-4170 is currently being sold.

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=FX+4170+price&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1600&bih=886&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=8088430708521280499&sa=X&ei=JhFlT8TsFKLa0QGT9InKCA&ved=0CEgQ8wIwAg#scoring=tp

 

[campdude]

Yea its on newegg... but im curious how its reviewed as well.

 

[geekapproved]

Yea its on newegg... but im curious how its reviewed as well.

Did you read my post? That's all the review you need. Even at 4.5ghz it get's owned by a stock i3-2100.

 

[full_out]

It does not get "owned". The benchmarks are all very close. And the FX-4100 can be pushed to 4.7 or more with ease. Seeing as they are the same price point, and the benchmarks are so close they are a pretty similar buy. The only difference is the i3 generally comes with the attitude of an intel fanboy.

 

[gamerk316]

^^ But thats the point; an overclocked quad core 4100 gets beaten by a stock duo core i3-2100.

 

[full_out]

They are on the same level lol. The benchmarks go back and forth, either way they are close to the same. For a gaming platform CPU doesn't really matter much anyways, most games depend on the GPU. Plus, AMD tends to be better for upgrade paths. Sockets last longer.
This wasn't a "Let's talk about intel fanboy garbage" thread. This was a thread asking for any actual reviews on the FX-4170. So if you don't have anything to ADD to that topic, beat it.

 

[amuffin]

They are on the same level lol. The benchmarks go back and forth, either way they are close to the same. For a gaming platform CPU doesn't really matter much anyways, most games depend on the GPU. Plus,[strike] AMD tends to be better for upgrade paths. Sockets last longer.[/strike]This wasn't a "Let's talk about intel fanboy garbage" thread. This was a thread asking for any actual reviews on the FX-4170. So if you don't have anything to ADD to that topic, beat it.

AM3+ and AM3 are now dead sockets. Piledriver will not use those sockets. Intel has a much better upgrade path than amd, with socket 1155.

 

[full_out]

Sure, whatever. Get back on topic.

 

[amuffin]

No point of upgrading, if your fx4110 is already at 4.7ghz. I am sure the fx-4170 is just a higher clocked chip.

 

[full_out]

I was thinking that also, but if I could flog my current one off and spend a minor amount to upgrade then I wouldn't mind. It's two levels up on the hierarchy chart. So I figured if it had a particularly good review it might give me a boost I could see.

 

[amuffin]

Hierachy chart? Anyways, the only upgrade I can see is to an fx-8xxx series cpu. Basically a waste to upgrade to any newer fx-4xxx cpu's, unless they seriously change them instead of launching them at higher clocks.

 

[loneninja]

Hierachy chart? Anyways, the only upgrade I can see is to an fx-8xxx series cpu. Basically a waste to upgrade to any newer fx-4xxx cpu's, unless they seriously change them instead of launching them at higher clocks.

And that's only an upgrade for applications since games won't use the additional cores.

 

[full_out]

I use my machine for watching videos and gaming only. So any more than four cores isn't an option for me.
That's why I was looking for a review, to see if it is much better stock and if it overclocks well over 5ghz

 

[cmi86]

AM3+ and AM3 are now dead sockets. Piledriver will not use those sockets. Intel has a much better upgrade path than amd, with socket 1155.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/44317-amd-piledriver-10-faster-than-bulldozer.html

AM3+ is not dead at all. Piledriver (non apu) will still be based on AM3+. It is only the APU chips (llano replacements) That will be on a new socket and that will be FM-2 moving on from FM-1 for better usage of the APU architecture.

 

[full_out]

Thank you. I wasn't going to start arguing that point, so thank you for being another sane post in amongst the fanboy-ism

 

[cmi86]

I use my machine for watching videos and gaming only. So any more than four cores isn't an option for me.
That's why I was looking for a review, to see if it is much better stock and if it overclocks well over 5ghz

I'm gonna sound like kind of a hipocrite here but I would advise you to pass on the current FX cpu's. I used to have an FX-4100 @ 4.5Ghz and I would defend it against all the intel fanboys saying their i3 can beat up my FX. Well I finally came to the truthful realization that in most cases the i3 is a better CPU than the FX-4100 due to the fact the FX is not a true "quad core". So I went out and picked up a Phenom II 960T X4 for $99.99 from microcenter. These CPU's are a Thuban 6 core die with 2 cores disabled either because they were dis-functional or simply because AMD needed to fill a quad core quota. The chances of you getting an un-lockable chip are about 65%. If you can unlock this chip and throw a decent (3.6-4.0 Ghz) overclock on it you will sitting in i5 2500K territory when it comes to most everything. Even if you cant unlock the extra cores on the 960T just throw a decent clock on it and you will shitting your pants in public embarrass an i3-2100 while still saving yourself $25. Sit with the phenom until we see if piledriver is any good.

 

[cmi86]

Thank you. I wasn't going to start arguing that point, so thank you for being another sane post in amongst the fanboy-ism

Not trying to hate on you chip man. Honestly it worked just fine for pretty much anything I ever threw at it. The only reason I brought it back was because it was not a true quad core like I wanted (and paid $100.00 for) and just so happened to be presented with the 960T option. An FX at 4.5 Ghz will still edge out an i3-2100 at pretty much anything but games based on the "havok" engine... that intel own's... hmm I wonder why these are always the comparison titles that the intel boys throw out there...

 

[full_out]

I built my system before bulldozer dropped on 3 facts. AMD is better for a budget build, Sockets seem to be usable for longer, and bulldozer was SUPPOSED to be badass. Seems the third fact went to the negative side off supposed to be badass.
I'm really hoping that piledriver will be significantly better. If not, oh well. On my setup I can still play all games maxed out with ultra settings at 60 FPS, except of course BF3 I had to turn down the MSAA a few notches.
But back to point, I was hoping for a review on the 4170 hoping that it would be worth a few bucks to upgrade for the time being. I'm not squeezing pennies, so if I have to spend $50 for a bit more performance, it's no big deal for me.

 

[Cazalan]

4170 reviews have been around since Bulldozer launched.

There's no new stepping in the 4170 so any Bulldozer (4/6/8 core) can be clocked to the same specification. All FX processors are unlocked.

 

[spleenbegone]

I'm gonna sound like kind of a hipocrite here but I would advise you to pass on the current FX cpu's. I used to have an FX-4100 @ 4.5Ghz and I would defend it against all the intel fanboys saying their i3 can beat up my FX. Well I finally came to the truthful realization that in most cases the i3 is a better CPU than the FX-4100 due to the fact the FX is not a true "quad core". So I went out and picked up a Phenom II 960T X4 for $99.99 from microcenter. These CPU's are a Thuban 6 core die with 2 cores disabled either because they were dis-functional or simply because AMD needed to fill a quad core quota. The chances of you getting an un-lockable chip are about 65%. If you can unlock this chip and throw a decent (3.6-4.0 Ghz) overclock on it you will sitting in i5 2500K territory when it comes to most everything. Even if you cant unlock the extra cores on the 960T just throw a decent clock on it and you will shitting your pants in public embarrass an i3-2100 while still saving yourself $25. Sit with the phenom until we see if piledriver is any good.

I'm not a fan of either side, I just use what works best at the time. Currently on the low end, I almost always suggest i3's over 4100's though. For a bit of insight on why it might not always be fanboyism, here's the reasons.
Most people will never overclock their processor, weird, I know. And at stock clocks, a 4100 generally can't beat a 2120 from what I've seen.
The second is, at 4.5Ghz, where it can handily beat an i3, you're sitting at nearly a 120w TDP (assuming stock vcore) vs the 65w i3. They are simply inefficient.

Now, back on the thread topic. This thread might have the answers you're looking for. http://www.overclock.net/t/1221990/geek-amd-launches-the-4-2ghz-quad-core-fx-4170-processor

 

[geekapproved]

A fanboy calling a fanboy a fanboy, typical of this forum.

How bout I just give you kiddies the facts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html


The facts are the AMD chips can't even hang with a Pentium G series in gaming. At 4.5ghz the 4100 lags behind the stock i3-2100, while the 2100 is consuming about 30w the 4100 is pulling about 130w.

Tom's Hardware:

With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point.

While it’s true that AMD’s multiplier-unlocked models appeal to tweak-happy power users, the company's overclocked game performance manages to either hang close to or fall just behind Intel's stock Core i3-2100. Pumping up voltage, multipliers, and, consequently, power usage seems like a futile exercise just to keep pace with an efficient $125 budget-oriented chip running at its default settings.

The biggest flaw with Intel's low-end offerings is that the Pentium family limits you to dual-core configurations. Our concern is that, outside of a game, you're going to find situations where the two cores hurt performance in other applications. Having said that, the Pentium G630- and G860-based machines were snappy throughout testing, and their lack of Hyper-Threading didn't negatively impact our experience.

AMD’s Phenom II X4 955 and FX-4100 could certainly appeal to buyers who insist on the ability to handle four threads at a time. At their $125 and $110 respective price points, however, they’re too close to the Hyper-Threaded Core i3-2100 to earn a distinguished recommendation. In our last sub-$200 gaming CPU round-up, we showed that the Core i3-2100 can match AMD's Phenom II X4 955, even while background tasks run in parallel with a game. So, we couldn't even speculate that Intel's Core-i3 2100 might disappoint in a real-world environment with applications running in the background.

Lets get real, the i3-2120 is yet 200mhz faster than the 2100, and usually running the same price or in some cases cheaper than the 2100, which makes it an even better choice. The FX4100 needs to be about $75 to be priced competatively.

As a huge AMD fan myself, nobody is disappointed by these FACTS more than I am.

 

[full_out]

Guess there isn't any new reviews other than the old ones from when bulldozer originally dropped.
Guess I'll just have to wait and see if piledriver makes up for what bulldozer left me longing for... Guess that's what happens when you put faith in something before seeing what the true potential is. Well, I'm stuck with the AM3+ socket for a while *crosses fingers*... Come on piledriver, don't let me down.