Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Super XP, Nov 3, 2011.
how does the FX-4100 compare to the i3 2100/2120 anyway?
I wouldn't say that exactly. To me, the FX-8150 is good chip. It's overpriced, and should be selling for less. Fortunately, they seem to fly out of stock within minutes, so while I think they suck, I wouldn't exactly call them a failure. From teh business side of things, they are doing pretty well, but that's said not knowing exactly how many chips have been sold, as taht may affect how it appears in a large way.
I got an FX-4100:
I do not have a Sabertooth 990FX board. If someone want to send me one, I'd be glad to investigate unlocking.
I am speaking as an owner, and that is my opinion, but you are correct the pricing is about $50 too high for the performance you get.
how about the FX-4170 vs i3 2120? (or maybe the upcoming 2130)
right now those FX-8150's costs around ~300+ USD in our place, and requires to be pruchased with a motherboard 970/990FX board '__'
I will have to agree these chips are about $50 overpriced, but in no way do they suck. I don't understand why people can't fathom the fact they are new and for some reason new chip technologies from AMD don't compete as well as they should, up until some stepping revision, then you start seeing the light.
Could it be because they lack Intel's ability to collaborate with software companies to ensure the new chips run right? FX is a good design; don't personally like the sharing aspect of it, but still truly innovative and thinking outside the box.
What AMD needs to do right now is to prove to us that this chip can work the right way and fast.
Can the FX 4100 be unlocked? I think it could, but not all 8-cores, maybe 6 of them or an extra module.
No need to flame.:shadedshu
Fully agree :shadedshu we are on this site to learn new things, to seek out new worlds and civilisations, to boldly say what no man has said before. Now the music course please
I personally feel as I have stated many times let down by BD, and don't buy the argument of the OS is to blame for the weak performance. Now if you could unlock the 4 core into a 6 or 8 it would be an amazing buy, but as of now that is not the case, only unsubstantiated claims, by anonymous people on the intertubez.
That said I do hope AMD can pull their head out and maybe fail less next time. I mean I suppose it makes a good server chip, but only in the same way any chip is a good server chip.
But back to topic, I just don't think it's possible, I believe like back in the Athlon XP days the chips are physically locked.
I asked ASUS directly about the Sabertooth 990FX's abilities. I'll update when i get info.
Personally you guys need to show more respect, ALL of you guys, towards each-other.
Secondly, stop being so epicly negative.
*waits for BD to drop in prices*, its going to happen, and llano CPU's are going to keep great resell value.
If you guys do not want to do that, then flame it up.
Why so serious about silicon, that honestly been debated for over a year
Please share what you find out! If nothing else it will give us a hint if this is even possible.
I don't see it as negative, just the truth.
I do agree more respect needs to be given all around, just because some may disagree with someone or feel a question or view is foolish doesn't mean it is or that one needs to flame or be an ass about it.
Again I don't see Bulldozer as a failure, just misunderstood. Sure AMD is to blame for its lack lustre performance per $, What I do think is they need to price them better, and they have, but retailers have hiked up the prices due to this supply/demand crap.
There's a reason why we have revisions and by Q1 2012 we should see B3 revisions performing much better (We Hope).
People study the Bulldozer architecture; it is pure innovation, something taken off Star Trek. Now they only need to fix the timing issues along with its scheduling issues.
[H]@RD5TUFF it sounds to me you should know better. There's a lot going on within Bulldozer and the way AMD did this one module = 2 execution cores method. If you don't schedule work properly, it will perform like shit, something it's currently doing today.
I see it as tech that's about a year ahead of it's time just poorly done. I just hate all the bashing that comes about with any of these types of threads as of late. Would be quite interesting if a few fx4100's did unlock. Over my current x2 it's going to be a toss up if I myself should personally get one(fx4100) seeing as though my chip doesnt go past 3.9Ghz even if unlocked and with lackluster IMC performance. Still enough for my use but again, not everyone is the same when it comes to their own personal rig.
Seeing these chips get 4Ghz+ would be the make or break point for me.
The bashing comes from the lots of "if" and "maybe", the chip is what it is. If you think it's worth your money, then by all means but most don't think so.
Just stop the uncertainty, it looks more and more like a FUD now.
I am still looking for more information about the posibility of unlocking the FX 4100 extra modules.
Good luck, may be my ticket in buying one just to unlock the extra cores on the cheap.
Not to bring up an older thread, but just curious if you had a chance to try and unlock those extra cores/Modules?
Yep, tried, no luck.
Hadn't posted in hopes new BIOS might make things different..dunno. Didn't get an answer from ASUS either.
Then could that guy on newegg be full of it claiming he did unlock? Asus may have that answer.
Way to derail a thread right of the bat:shadedshu
yes. newegg review posts are about as useful as tits on men.
I thought the whole point of the Bulldozer architecture, with their "Modules", to basically eliminate this type of thing. No longer are they making a huge die with all the cores already on it, and just disabling them as needed, but instead they making "Modules" that are joined together to make whatever chips they want. So an FX-4100 only would have 2 Modules physically on the chip, so it would be impossible to unlock. No?
In theory yeah, get a big platter of CPUS and then cut out the clusters with no problems.
Separate names with a comma.