Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 80

Thread: AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,913

    Default AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer

    Phoronix: AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer

    As mentioned over the weekend, a Phoronix reader that was excited about AMD's Bulldozer products had went out and immediately purchased an FX-4100 processor. This user graciously let me SSH into the system as soon as Ubuntu Linux was installed so that benchmarks from the AMD FX-4100 could be conducted. Here is a look at the AMD FX-4100 Bulldozer on Linux compared to Llano Fusion hardware and Intel Sandy Bridge processors.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16556

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    this cpu will speed up by 3% for the cache kernel patch and 10% for the scheduler kernel patch and maybe 20% for the compiler patches.
    also as i know amd will upgrade the micro code in the bios to fix some speed bugs.

    but yes technically this cpu is a dual-core with some extra Integer help units.

    If some one need a true quatcore with greater speed from amd he can get the Opteron 6204.
    but yes 400 isn't cheap.

  3. #3

    Default

    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.

    That's obviously false, Michael, educate yourself:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested
    Architecturally Bulldozer is a significant departure from anything we've ever seen before. We'll go into greater detail later on in this piece, but the building block in AMD's latest architecture is the Bulldozer module. Each module features two integer cores and a shared floating point core. FP hardware is larger and used less frequently in desktop (and server workloads), so AMD decided to share it between every two cores rather than offer a 1:1 ratio between int/fp cores on Bulldozer. AMD advertises Bulldozer based FX parts based on the number of integer cores. Thus a two module Bulldozer CPU, has four integer cores (and 2 FP cores) and is thus sold as a quad-core CPU. A four module Bulldozer part with eight integer cores is called an eight-core CPU. There are obvious implications from a performance standpoint

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    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.

    That's obviously false, Michael, educate yourself:
    the FX-4100 is technically a dual-core to. its just a difference way to do the hyper-threating.

    the i3-2120 do have 4 integer units per core and the bulldozer do have 4 integer units per module and 2 per core.

    its exactly the same just a difference way to do it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    the FX-4100 is technically a dual-core to. its just a difference way to do the hyper-threating.

    the i3-2120 do have 4 integer units per core and the bulldozer do have 4 integer units per module and 2 per core.

    its exactly the same just a difference way to do it.
    Well, on one hand it is indeed technically questionable to call the FX-4100 a true quad, but on the other hand that's what AMD sells it as.
    And I'll take the opportunity to say it again: atrocious PR/marketing around Bulldozer so far, AMD...

    As for the processor itself, I'm more and and more attracted by the "diamond on the rough" factor

    What dictated the choice of processors for this comparison? 32nm, price range, # of cores? Because I think the Athlon II x4 645 and the Phenom II x4 965 would have been interesting to include in the tests, the former being the "best of budget quad" from AMD, and the latter having the exact same retail price here.

    Also... How is the FX-4100 not competitive vs the i3? They keep trading blows. The only test that is really off for the BD part is CLOMP, though an analysis of the causes would be appreciated. The graphs already provide data, please take the opportunity to provide information in the text. (Hope everyone knows the difference between data and information)
    Last edited by PsynoKhi0; 10-19-2011 at 03:57 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,130

    Default

    Michael, please add the scrollbars to the specs table. It's a simple fix, just wrap it in a div:
    <div style="overflow:auto;"><script language="javascript" src="http://o ..... </noscript></div>

    Before


    After

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    the FX-4100 is technically a dual-core to. its just a difference way to do the hyper-threating.

    the i3-2120 do have 4 integer units per core and the bulldozer do have 4 integer units per module and 2 per core.

    its exactly the same just a difference way to do it.
    Yes, there are 2 ways of looking at it.

    They started with 2 cores per module and stripped out most of the hardware except the integer units.

    OR

    They started with 1 core per module and added in the bare minimum to allow full execution on a 2nd integer unit.

    Both are true.

    Anandtech had an article a while back about how the approach was more like a super-charged version of Hyper-threading (taking more die space but giving more performance) than it was like a whole extra native core. So I think i'll lean towards that side and say AMD marketing is just trying to bamboozle everyone with the core counts, and this is more of a dual-core + HT system than a native quad core like they claim.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Posts
    75

    Default Cores

    BD shares the instruction decoder between the two "cores." To me that means it's just glorified Hyperthreading.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
    What dictated the choice of processors for this comparison? 32nm, price range, # of cores?
    Having already tested them, probably. Another thing that makes Phoronix more blog-like than a proper review site, though getting comparable hardware for every review will probably blow their budget, so in this case it's understandable.

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Michael, please add the scrollbars to the specs table.
    Why u no click on it and go visit great openbenchmarking site! ... Actually, with or without scrollbars, I find it to be too wide to look at it properly.
    Last edited by AnonymousCoward; 10-19-2011 at 06:36 AM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    Having already tested them, probably.
    For every review I always re-test all hardware so it's on the same kernel/driver/etc. But yeah basically limited to hardware that's available...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •