Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Geek] AMD launches the 4.2GHz quad-core FX-4170 processor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Geek] AMD launches the 4.2GHz quad-core FX-4170 processor - Page 9

post #81 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vengeance47 View Post

I really don't understand companies who keep trying to flog off an inferior product.
Just save yourself the hassle and public humiliation, accept that your product (in this case the BD architecture) has been a failure and turn your efforts and R&D dollars towards your next project.
Especially when your main competitor has an absurdly higher market share than you (legitimately or otherwise), surely it makes more sense to focus the money on catching up and making sure that Piledriver is a significant improvement both performance and power consumption wise?
That's exactly what AMD need to do to be competitive again imo. Just look at what Intel managed to do with the Core2 architecture after AMD was smashing them performance wise for years. It only took one new architecture and for the last 6 years(?) since Core2, Intel have held the performance crown without any competition. AMD haven't even come close.
I mean, AMD don't even hold the price : performance crown anymore either. That award goes to the 2500k (arguably, but lets be honest, the 2500k is amazing value).
So AMD need to stop putting out more BD chips and just focus on getting Piledriver right the first time. Why divert resources away from Piledriver to release more BD chips which have been battered to hell and back for being inferior and a real let down.
/rant

I can see your point here, but after you've put years of time and millions of dollars into development of a product, you don't just chuck 'em all in the trash because you screwed up. Whether I like them or you like them or the next guy over there likes them or not, these chips are selling. You don't see an olympic runner or any sports team just walk out in the middle of a game because they know they're going to lose.
The last thing any company needs to do is tuck their tail between their legs and run under the porch when times get tough.
Lounge Machine
(17 items)
 
Doc Wallace
(14 items)
 
Cap'n Crunch
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5-2500K @ 4.70 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro XFX Double D R9 280 [1200/1600] 8GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 [9-11-10-28] 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Mushkin Chronos 120GB SATA3 Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB Asus DRW-24B1ST XSPC Rasa 750 RS240 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Rosewill RK-7300 Rosewill RX750-S-B 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Lancool PC-K62 Logitech Mx518 Realtek HD 192KHz Visiontek Killer 2100 NIC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.80 GHz ASRock 770iCafe AM3+ EVGA Geforce GTX 460 1GB 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Nova 30GB WD Caviar Blue 640GB Lite-On DVDRW Corsair H50 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Corsair CX430 Diablotek EVO RPA-6170 
Mouse
Logitech LX3 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 3060 @ 3.6GHz MSI P35 Platinum EVGA Geforce GTS 250 512MB 2GB OCZ Fatal1ty + 2GB ADATA Premier DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung HD161HJ DVDRW Xigmatek Dark Knight Windows 7 Home Premium x64 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Compaq S1922A Cheifmax 650W Raidmax Smilodon EB Logitech LX3 
  hide details  
Reply
Lounge Machine
(17 items)
 
Doc Wallace
(14 items)
 
Cap'n Crunch
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5-2500K @ 4.70 GHz Asus P8P67 Pro XFX Double D R9 280 [1200/1600] 8GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-2133 [9-11-10-28] 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Mushkin Chronos 120GB SATA3 Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB Asus DRW-24B1ST XSPC Rasa 750 RS240 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Rosewill RK-7300 Rosewill RX750-S-B 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Lancool PC-K62 Logitech Mx518 Realtek HD 192KHz Visiontek Killer 2100 NIC 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.80 GHz ASRock 770iCafe AM3+ EVGA Geforce GTX 460 1GB 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Nova 30GB WD Caviar Blue 640GB Lite-On DVDRW Corsair H50 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Pro x64 Asus VH236H Corsair CX430 Diablotek EVO RPA-6170 
Mouse
Logitech LX3 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 3060 @ 3.6GHz MSI P35 Platinum EVGA Geforce GTS 250 512MB 2GB OCZ Fatal1ty + 2GB ADATA Premier DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung HD161HJ DVDRW Xigmatek Dark Knight Windows 7 Home Premium x64 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Compaq S1922A Cheifmax 650W Raidmax Smilodon EB Logitech LX3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #82 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by _GTech View Post

We need more people to give testimonies of how they switched from an AMD CPU to an Intel CPU, because everyone says the same thing...

Wow, I didn't realize how much faster Intel CPUs are...


Well, I was surprised how little difference there is between 8120 and 2500k in real world usage. Only if your going to spend all day doing benchies, you'd notice the difference. And since I don't benchmark much, I had to let the 2500k go. thumb.gif
Oxygène
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 MSI B350 Tomahawk Arctic VTX3D R9 390 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston Hyper X Kingston HyperX Fury ADATA SP550 ADATA SX8000 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 SE-AM4 Windows 10 Dell U2711 Gamdias Hermes E1 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Chieftec A-135 Series 1000W NZXT. Phantom 410 Gamdias Demeter E2 Gamdias NYX E1 
  hide details  
Reply
Oxygène
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 MSI B350 Tomahawk Arctic VTX3D R9 390 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston Hyper X Kingston HyperX Fury ADATA SP550 ADATA SX8000 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 SE-AM4 Windows 10 Dell U2711 Gamdias Hermes E1 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Chieftec A-135 Series 1000W NZXT. Phantom 410 Gamdias Demeter E2 Gamdias NYX E1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #83 of 91
Why are you stating that AMD should stop selling BD and work on Piledriver? How do you figure they make any money for PD without sales of BD? That is so freakin ridiculous man get real. I own an 8120 and it works fantastic for me. I paid $190 for it and already had a 990fx board and I do not have any complaints about my BD rig. I haven't owned anything Intel since a P4 that was given to me years ago. Its my personal choice to spend my money where I want and AMD is my only choice and I can't complain. It is far from garbbage. Plays the few games I have great and runs VM's with awesome results. Splitting cores between 2 vms across my network is fantastic. This little 4170 is a good buy for a budget gaming rig IMO. We have not seen specs but I can speculate that it is quite a bit faster then the 4100 and should handle games pretty well for single gpu builds (I.e. BUDGET builds)

Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320 ASRock 990fx Fatal1ty Pro 2x XFX DD R7950 xfiredX G. Skill ARES 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Crucial M4 SSD 2x128GB Raid 0 Blu-Ray Burner Corsair H100 Windows Server 2012 R2 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
49" Sceptre 4k 3820x2160p Samsung 23" 1080p 120hz  Thermaltake tt e-sports Mechanical Cooler Master Silent Pro 700 Watt Modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Haf X Full Tower Logitech G500 Rocketfish Con+roL Walmart Logitechs 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320 ASRock 990fx Fatal1ty Pro 2x XFX DD R7950 xfiredX G. Skill ARES 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Crucial M4 SSD 2x128GB Raid 0 Blu-Ray Burner Corsair H100 Windows Server 2012 R2 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
49" Sceptre 4k 3820x2160p Samsung 23" 1080p 120hz  Thermaltake tt e-sports Mechanical Cooler Master Silent Pro 700 Watt Modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Haf X Full Tower Logitech G500 Rocketfish Con+roL Walmart Logitechs 
  hide details  
Reply
post #84 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstoler View Post

Why are you stating that AMD should stop selling BD and work on Piledriver? How do you figure they make any money for PD without sales of BD? That is so freakin ridiculous man get real. I own an 8120 and it works fantastic for me. I paid $190 for it and already had a 990fx board and I do not have any complaints about my BD rig. I haven't owned anything Intel since a P4 that was given to me years ago. Its my personal choice to spend my money where I want and AMD is my only choice and I can't complain. It is far from garbbage. Plays the few games I have great and runs VM's with awesome results. Splitting cores between 2 vms across my network is fantastic. This little 4170 is a good buy for a budget gaming rig IMO. We have not seen specs but I can speculate that it is quite a bit faster then the 4100 and should handle games pretty well for single gpu builds (I.e. BUDGET builds)
Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk

very well said, i have been with amd since i realize, i could get the same for less money, but there are a couple of ppl that if the differences is just 5fps in a game
they think that cpu is bad lol
post #85 of 91
What is wrong with all the Intel people. Every Bulldozer thread gets turned into a comparison between Intel and Amd.

Its simple Intel offers better performing chip at the moment. But price to performance I couldnt see a reason to go from a 145$ FX 6100 up to a 2600k for 300$ when there is only a 1/3 gain in performance if that.


5583 cpu marks on BD FX 6100
vs.
9101 on the intel I 2600k


http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Also I know I will be able to use the next gen AMD in my current 990FX board where as I dont think anyone with SB setup can have that confidence. Of course DDR4 may change that for both makers.

Honestly if your looking for gaming performance buy a GFX card with at least 120 GBPS memory bandwidth for no more then 150$ GTX 560 GTX 460 or equivalent radeon. Dont pay 300 unless your getting 2gb of VRAM.


Now im gettign off topic.
Just shutup about Intel and Sandy bridge there is a seperate forum for intel chips.
Noone cares if you think its faster, the title of the post wasn't Please tell me how much better your intel hardware is compared to mine. Or did I misread it?
post #86 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstoler View Post

Why are you stating that AMD should stop selling BD and work on Piledriver? How do you figure they make any money for PD without sales of BD? That is so freakin ridiculous man get real. I own an 8120 and it works fantastic for me. I paid $190 for it and already had a 990fx board and I do not have any complaints about my BD rig. I haven't owned anything Intel since a P4 that was given to me years ago. Its my personal choice to spend my money where I want and AMD is my only choice and I can't complain. It is far from garbbage. Plays the few games I have great and runs VM's with awesome results. Splitting cores between 2 vms across my network is fantastic. This little 4170 is a good buy for a budget gaming rig IMO. We have not seen specs but I can speculate that it is quite a bit faster then the 4100 and should handle games pretty well for single gpu builds (I.e. BUDGET builds)
Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk

AMD make the majority of their money from OEM's using their APU's and mobile chips, not desktop bulldozer chips. So it's really a moot point to say that more bd chips means more profit. For all we know, they can quite easily lose money with new bd chips once you take into account the development costs, manufacturing costs, marketing, distribution costs etc.

AMD make fantastic APU's it's just a shame that their desktop architectures don't have the same standard and quality. So that's why, imo, it makes more sense to focus on Piledriver or Trinity and making them the best they can be. Rather than take engineers away from those projects to release new bd chips which are known for being a huge letdown by the general populous. The only way to make money is to spend it. Plain and simple.

If AMD invest enough on PD and fix the issues they had with BD, I have no doubts it will be a great architecture. But if they continue to cut corners and cheap out, well they will remain uncompetitive in the desktop market.

Just an fyi, my first ever CPU was an AMD 3800+ x2 which I replaced a few years later with a 4800+. That lasted me from 2005-2010 until I wanted a new build and saw how dominant Nehalem was. So I switched to Intel. I have no brand loyalty, I just buy the best for what I can afford. If thats AMD when PD releases and I'm in the market, then I'll switch to AMD. Otherwise it will probably be an Ivy chip. So when I say AMD should focus and redirect their money towards R&D for PD, I say that because I, as a consumer, want the best possible product available to me. Not some half-assed power hungry chip that has worse single threaded performance than PII in some cases.
Edited by Vengeance47 - 2/29/12 at 1:40pm
Current Rig
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k MSI Z77A-GD65 Sapphire RX 480 Nitro+ OC G.Skill Ripjaw X 2133MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
OCZ Vertex 2 Antec Kuhler 620 Windows 10 Silverstone ST1200 
Case
Corsair 200R 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k MSI Z77A-GD65 Sapphire RX 480 Nitro+ OC G.Skill Ripjaw X 2133MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
OCZ Vertex 2 Antec Kuhler 620 Windows 10 Silverstone ST1200 
Case
Corsair 200R 
  hide details  
Reply
post #87 of 91
Oh, it's this thread again. FX-4170 competes with i3's in terms of price. And price/performance ratio doesn't really matter, when you have a strict budget. Suppose $450 for CPU/motherboard/graphics. Intel quad-core setup will get you a 6850, AMD quad/hex-core setup (or even an i3 setup) will get you a 6950/560 Ti. Now tell me which has a better price/performance. I would go with option 2.
 
Lanbox Lite
(16 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i3-2310M Intel HD 3000 8GB DDR3 Samsung 830 64GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
640GB Hitachi HDD Windows 7 13.3" LCD Magnesium Alloy, 3.2lbs 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GPM-UD2H MSI Hawk R5770 3x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 250 GB WD Caviar Black Samsung 20X DVD-R/RW Thermaltake MaxOrb 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Noctua NF-B9-1600 Windows 7 Pro 64-bit BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 TT Purepower 500W 
Case
TT Lanbox Lite 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Lanbox Lite
(16 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i3-2310M Intel HD 3000 8GB DDR3 Samsung 830 64GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
640GB Hitachi HDD Windows 7 13.3" LCD Magnesium Alloy, 3.2lbs 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GPM-UD2H MSI Hawk R5770 3x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 250 GB WD Caviar Black Samsung 20X DVD-R/RW Thermaltake MaxOrb 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Noctua NF-B9-1600 Windows 7 Pro 64-bit BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 TT Purepower 500W 
Case
TT Lanbox Lite 
  hide details  
Reply
post #88 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCScrub View Post

Guy who wrote the article needs to learn that you put a space in between a numerical value and the unit.
4.2 Ghz, not 4.2Ghz
32 nm, not 32nm
I think it's a stylistic issue... at least I've never seen any noteworthy authority declare it "the one and true standard of writing numerical values and their units".
Quote:
Originally Posted by pursuinginsanity View Post

So, by your reasoning, the way Intel handled the Pentium 4 was also a good idea. Since Intel couldn't keep up clock for clock, it was a good idea to keep up with a terrible architecture and just push the clocks higher and higher, right? I guess if you're AMD, you have little choice, since you don't have so many resources, but..
OT: So, I guess this .. 4170.. it should now be on par with a Phenom 9950, eh?
Pentium 4 wasn't a good idea, no. It was designed essentially for high clockspeeds and nothing but high clockspeeds (I mean they actually had 10GHz in mind). AMD didn't go for just high clockspeeds (and even that idea was to actually conserve power rather than produce nice looking numbers though the latter more likely than not was at least taken into consideration), but since they pretty much botched the execution and ended up with crap IPC they really don't have much else to turn to for extra performance at this stage, so I think one could call it a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmonger View Post

Games don't utilize threads, in fact even up to this day none do. Games run off of logical cores (an entire devoted thread) because anything such as hyperthreading would tax game performance big time. And before anybody replies with "zomg BF3 uses hyperthreading" it does not. BF3 is written to utilize every core that the OS recognizes. And Windows recognizes HT as logical cores (4 cores is seen as 8 cores). So BF3 will attempt to utilize all of them "cores" when half of them aren't real (this is where the BF3 HT bug comes into effect).
Once again games do not utilize threads, they utilize cores.
What are you on about? That's all nonsense.

You know those individual things in a program that run on these "logical cores"? They're called threads. A multi-threaded application is just that - an application that spawns multiple threads of execution each of which can be assigned to a logical core or a hardware thread. Lightly threaded simply means they spawn a relatively small number of these threads. Every application utilizes threads. Every single program has at least one thread, and games have been dual-threaded (or more) for a good while now. No application is specifically coded to run on multiple cores (logical or not), what they simply do is execute more than one thread without any regard what they run on - it's the OS scheduler that is responsible for assigning these threads to cores (or hardware threads as is the case with HT). There's nothing special about game threads (or any threads of execution for that matter) that require a true core.
post #89 of 91
Cleaned and reopened. Guys please show some professionalism when posting on overclock.net. Keep this thread drama free

Thanks
post #90 of 91
looks interesting

EDIT: just read above post
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Geek] AMD launches the 4.2GHz quad-core FX-4170 processor