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.
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.
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:
Originally Posted by http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested
the FX-4100 is technically a dual-core to. its just a difference way to do the hyper-threating.
Originally Posted by birdie
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.
Originally Posted by Qaridarium
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.
Michael, please add the scrollbars to the specs table. It's a simple fix, just wrap it in a div:
Yes, there are 2 ways of looking at it.
Originally Posted by Qaridarium
They started with 2 cores per module and stripped out most of the hardware except the integer units.
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.
BD shares the instruction decoder between the two "cores." To me that means it's just glorified Hyperthreading.
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.
Originally Posted by PsynoKhi0
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.
Originally Posted by curaga
Last edited by AnonymousCoward; 10-19-2011 at 06:36 AM.
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...
Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward