• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

1055T vs FX4 4100

BASE303

BASE303

BASE303

Associate
Joined
13 Jun 2011
Posts
10
Location
Stockport, UK
Okay, so I'm thinking of up getting an FX4 4100, my question is - will this be a good upgrade from the 1055T?

Obviously losing two cores but I figured the faster clock speed and newer architecture will make up for this... ?

Just thinking because I can sell my 1055T while it still has some value.

Also am I right in thinking the Bulldozer will work in my M4A89TD PRO 890FX with a BIOS update?

Any help or advise is very appreciated!

Cheers,

S
 
AtaRo said:
Bulldozer is AMD's equivalent to Intel's NetBurst and AMD release it approximately 11yrs. after NetBurst.
Click to expand...

Netburst had a stupidly long pipeline, like truly stupidly long, Bulldozer is more of a Hybrid style processor, not truly a speed demon style architecture, but not an IPC based architecture either, somewhere in the middle ground, so comparing it to Netburst is hardly fair! :p
 
Gashman said:
Netburst had a stupidly long pipeline, like truly stupidly long, Bulldozer is more of a Hybrid style processor, not truly a speed demon style architecture, but not an IPC based architecture either, somewhere in the middle ground, so comparing it to Netburst is hardly fair! :p
Click to expand...

Still **** though :p
 
dunno if that is a fair assessment either, would like to say it excels at some tasks, doesn't do so well in others, don't think it does terribly in anything to be fair, fair enough its a little behind 'stars' in some single-thread tests (keep in mind this is basically revision 1 of a brand new architecture, a brand new way of doing things for AMD).

the positives are it is indeed good in a number of multi-threaded tasks, some it performs very well. the power figures at stock aren't too bad, good at idle and not too bad under load, the heat output again isn't at all too bad at stock/turbo speeds, they overclock fairly well but at the price of power consumption, bandwidth and such are a huge improvement over previous generations, modular design means adding more cores isn't much trouble at all and finally performance can only get better as the process matures.

the negatives are poor single-threaded performance, sometimes average multi-threaded performance in older applications, power figures aren't too good when frequency is taken up and they tend to get a bit toasty in those regions.

so all in all, is it really the 'devil chip' its being made out too be, doubtful, would hold off on a definitive verdict until B3 is released, see if that gets rid of the power consumption issues and such. :)
 
The FX4 is rubbish in all respects of the word, people can possibly make excuses for the 8 core, although they'll have to have some serious AMD blinkers on.
 
thing is, if you do an ALU test comparing an FX-4100 and a Phenom II X4, the FX-4100 takes a bit of a lead, like I was saying in the Bulldozer thread, ALU in the integer cores are essentially computational engines that do straight-forward mathematics. my question is even though AMD reduces the amount of ALU in each 'core' they still managed to improve effective mathematical performance, the FX-4100 beats the 980 BE despite having a 100MHZ deficit in clock speed. so since all computer programs are essentially mathematical in nature, how can a processor that has improved computational power somehow do worse in mathematical based tests, like super-pi, hiper-pi and such?

even though Dhrystone is an arcane sort of test, it still gives a good indication of outright processing power, same thing applies to Whetstone for floating point performance, my question is where does the improved integer performance go between these theoretical based tests and real applications? the hindrance quite clearly isn't the design of the architecture as such, it is something between the 'cores' and the task, front-end perhaps? check out the ALU and FPU numbers, even though the FX-4100 comes out behind the 980 BE in floating point performance. does that not suggest there is some performance in there somewhere hidden underneath some excess baggage? :confused:
 
The 4 core is an absolute shambles though, I wouldn't want to trade my 955 for one and you'd have to be on crack to consider building a system from scratch round one.
 
Emlyn_Dewar said:
The 4 core is an absolute shambles though, I wouldn't want to trade my 955 for one and you'd have to be on crack to consider building a system from scratch round one.
Click to expand...

love the 'have to be on crack' part! :D

was just saying in another thread about the bizarre benchmark results that nobody seems to have picked up on, like Cinebench, where the 8150 scores almost double what the 6100 scores, which only marginally beats the 4100, which makes no logical sense, plenty of them dotted all over the place in all the reviews, which is weird at trying to determine performance, 3D mark '06 does the same thing with the 8150 taking off and leaving the 6100 for dead, which only just beats the 4100, that is why I don't take a lot of the benchmarks as 'fact' but more like an indication, would like more consistent results to be honest.

but yeah totally agree, unless you wanted to just mess around with a Bulldozer, and when you say it like that who doesn't?! but for a serious system unless you are clinically insane the Phenom II is still the option pretty much all round, even compared to the eight-core 8120/8150. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom