Wednesday, January 30th 2013

AMD Releases FX-4130 "Vishera" Quad-Core Processor

AMD introduced the FX-4130 value quad-core processor. Although slotted in the 4100 series, which suggests it being based on the older "Zambezi" silicon, the new FX-4130 is in fact based on the newer "Vishera" silicon, and the "Piledriver" micro-architecture. AMD is following a competitive (price-performance) approach to its CPU lineup, rather than a pure-performance one, and the FX-4130 is pitted by the company against the similarly priced Intel Core i3-2100.

The FX-4130 features four cores spread across two "Piledriver" modules, 3.80 GHz nominal clock speed with 3.90 GHz Turbo Core frequency, 2 MB L2 cache per module, 4 MB shared L3 cache, and an up to date instruction-set that includes AVX, AES-NI, SSE4.2, FMA, and XOP. Similarly priced Intel chips lack some of these instruction sets. With the FX-4130, AMD is packing a chunkier stock fan-heatsink than older FX-4000 series chips, which spins at lower speeds to keep the chip cool, and is hence less noisy. The new FX-4130 is priced at $99.99.


Source: X-bit Labs
Add your own comment

60 Comments on AMD Releases FX-4130 "Vishera" Quad-Core Processor

#1
tokyoduong
I've never seen the appeal in going with integrated gpus on desktop. I know some people want to save power but you save more power and money by buying a higher efficiency PSU and you don't limit the gaming potential of a desktop. Anybody remember the older PSU with 65% efficiency?

That being said, don't go FM2 unless you don't care about gaming in the future as your CPU will not be able to keep up.
Posted on Reply
#2
jmcslob
I don't like the pricing on this chip....I think it should be a $79.99 chip since the FX-6300 is only $129.00 and literally 30% better...just saying
Posted on Reply
#3
brian111
by: jmcslob
I don't like the pricing on this chip....I think it should be a $79.99 chip since the FX-6300 is only $129.00 and literally 30% better...just saying
That's been the knock about the FX 4300. The 6300 is sometimes just priced $10 more. There was speculation that AMD was trying to protect sales of the A10 Trinity CPUs by keeping the prices higher.
Posted on Reply
#4
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
So a 3-9% performance boost, but a 5% clock speed boost. It is nice they kept it at the same price point and all, but the performance boost really isn't all that great when you think about the increased clock speeds that go along with it.
Posted on Reply
#5
_Zod_
So this is a FX-4300 with a GPU on die for less money basically. A direct competitor to a I3 for less money.

We need some direct tests against the I3 to see what the deal is. Where this chip will lose imo is power consumption and only best case match a I3 in single threaded processing.

It should best the I3 in multithreaded processing, graphics power and price+features of the whole system. (AMD motherboards are generally more feature packed than Intel boards at the low end.)
Posted on Reply
#6
TheHunter
If they made it with 4 piledriver modules and each with its own thread then it might have been interesting.

But now its basically a 2 core with 2 extra half cores.



Imo if FX8350 was made with this approach > 8 modules, each with its own thread then it would own, no doubt about that.
Posted on Reply
#7
Dj-ElectriC
steamroller should kinda "fix" that.
Posted on Reply
#8
tokyoduong
by: _Zod_
So this is a FX-4300 with a GPU on die for less money basically. A direct competitor to a I3 for less money.

We need some direct tests against the I3 to see what the deal is. Where this chip will lose imo is power consumption and only best case match a I3 in single threaded processing.

It should best the I3 in multithreaded processing, graphics power and price+features of the whole system. (AMD motherboards are generally more feature packed than Intel boards at the low end.)
it has no gpu
it will lose to i3 in single thread
it will beat i3 in multithread
it should be a cheaper platform
it will consume more power

Just look at the FX 4300 vs i3. It's almost exactly the same.
Posted on Reply
#9
etayorius
Exact same Cooler i got with my PhenomII x4 965.
Posted on Reply
#11
eidairaman1
2 Modules, 4 cores (2 in each module, sharing certain resources) versus Hyper Threading which is just 2 cores.

by: TheHunter
If they made it with 4 piledriver modules and each with its own thread then it might have been interesting.

But now its basically a 2 core with 2 extra half cores.



Imo if FX8350 was made with this approach > 8 modules, each with its own thread then it would own, no doubt about that.
Posted on Reply
#12
Ralfies
So an FX-4300 with 100MHz less turbo frequency? What's the point? They should have just lowered the price of the FX-4300. Surely all of these chips are capable of the extra 100MHz to make them 4300's. What am I missing?
Posted on Reply
#13
_Zod_
by: tokyoduong
it has no gpu
it will lose to i3 in single thread
it will beat i3 in multithread
it should be a cheaper platform
it will consume more power

Just look at the FX 4300 vs i3. It's almost exactly the same.
For some reason I thought it was a socket FM2, well that makes this thing completely pointless then.
Posted on Reply
#14
TheGuruStud
by: Ralfies
So an FX-4300 with 100MHz less turbo frequency? What's the point? They should have just lowered the price of the FX-4300. Surely all of these chips are capable of the extra 100MHz to make them 4300's. What am I missing?
Probably OEM grade crap chips that don't OC and have bad leakage.
Posted on Reply
#15
Ralfies
by: TheGuruStud
Probably OEM grade crap chips that don't OC and have bad leakage.
Yeah, I checked it out and the TDP is 30 watts higher than the FX-4300. It's too bad, a 4300 at this price would be a real winner, but I'm not so sure about this chip.

Side note: Newegg has it listed as Zambezi - AMD FX-4130 Zambezi 3.8GHz Socket AM3+ Quad-Core D...
Posted on Reply
#17
xorbe
They reused the exact same model name?! I guess it is oem fodder.
Posted on Reply
#18
eidairaman1
by: xorbe
They reused the exact same model name?! I guess it is oem fodder.
:slap: Look at the OPN and Stepping Code dude before passing judgement. The BD units are already being replaced with the PD units.
Posted on Reply
#19
TheHunter
by: eidairaman1
2 Modules, 4 cores (2 in each module, sharing certain resources) versus Hyper Threading which is just 2 cores.
You dont say :p

Yes i know that very well, besides AMD approach is still not a full core, more like 0.75 vs hyper threading 0.3-0.4.

I found some diagram once, let me dig it up


edit: found it

Posted on Reply
#20
NeoXF
by: jihadjoe
Why 4130? Why not 4310?
What I was about to say... I mean, this IS Vishera isn't it? Why would AMD name their products short? This is like the reverse of rebranding...


Also, here's a proper bench for the gaming interested...



AMD IS a good buy, better than Intel in a lot of cases, remember they overclock too, only big drawback I see is the power consumption, not that it's horrible, but that Intel's is just so good.
Posted on Reply
#21
DerekStorm
by: NC37
Yeah, the Piledriver quads are just poor. FM2s wouldn't help since they lose the L3 entirely. These might beat an i3 in multithreaded but thats it. If your going quad at that price...old AthlonIIs or Phenoms would likely be better.
L3 is of no value to the type of workload such setups would do. And old Athlons and Phenoms can be had in some places, that is more dependent on where you live and how spoiled the people are there.

by: cdawall
You can build an AM3+ build for the same price as an FM2 build. FX4130 will be faster than the 750K so the point is mute. Also gains the ability to swap for an 83X0 chip at any point in time.
Same as I said above... where I'm from with a 750K and a HD6450 overtake the 4300 alone in price, add to that the savings on FM2 mainboard. I know, I've seen some sales Americans have, packed builds for cheap, but those are rare and inaccessible to everyone. BTW, it's moot, not mute! And the 4300 is marginally faster than a 750K due to higher stock clock. Both are unlocked, thus for none does the stock clock matter.

Looking at NeoXF's posted chart, the 750K is based on the 5800K... nothing wrong in beating the 4300.

As for AM3+ longevity, no one can vouch for it, the same way no one can know how fast FM2 will be replaced. They might live long, and just as well they might not, as mainboard manufacturers like to screw with clients. As an example they don't like to update stock BIOS on old releases (i.e. 800 series AM3+ chipsets) and this makes people scream when they put in a BD or PD chip and the setup doesn't start.
Posted on Reply
#22
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: NeoXF
What I was about to say... I mean, this IS Vishera isn't it? Why would AMD name their products short? This is like the reverse of rebranding...


Also, here's a proper bench for the gaming interested...

http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/batman_1920.jpg

AMD IS a good buy, better than Intel in a lot of cases, remember they overclock too, only big drawback I see is the power consumption, not that it's horrible, but that Intel's is just so good.
Calling it FX-4310 wouldn't make sense because it is weaker than the FX-4300. I would have gone with FX-4295.:D

But my guess is that they didn't want people thinking the two were so close, so the FX-4130 sales don't start cutting into the FX-4300 sales. Yes, anyone that does some research will see that buying the FX-4300 over the FX-4130 is pointless because the two are almost identical except for 100MHz in boost clock. But a normal consumer will see FX-4130 and FX-4300 and think the FX-4300 is significantly better.
Posted on Reply
#23
Casecutter
by: tokyoduong
it has no gpu
Neither does a i3 3220 in practice
Posted on Reply
#24
TheGuruStud
by: Casecutter
Neither does a i3 3220 in practice
:laugh:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment