FX-8000 CPU owners plz help me

[Dr. Dro]

Yeah, performance tests all indicate that FX-4200 is different from other FX-4000 series CPUs lol. Rumour had it right around its launch time, but Bulldozer sucked so nobody would bother.
No database records it properly haha

Doesn't seem to be. It's a 300 MHz slower OEM version of the FX-4100 with a 100MHz higher maximum boost and 125 W TDP. If anything it's amongst the worst CPUs you could possibly have, even in the Bulldozer family.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

I was very surprised when an FX 8300 could not run Virtual Dub (it uses only two threads) and a game in parallel. Yes, it was running, but the game recorded the biggest CPU freeze I've ever seen.
I was even more surprised when a Pentium G4560 (2 cores, 4 threads, 3.5GHz) destroys it in games.

Yes, because FX often suffered in low-thread tasks. OTOH, they were good at 2-pass x.264 encoding.

 

[DaemonForce]

View attachment 343580

Oh. Maybe I can't actually help with this one. The whole point of Piledriver is to improve on (and obsolete Bulldozer).

 

[Dr. Dro]

Oh. Maybe I can't actually help with this one. The whole point of Piledriver is to improve on (and obsolete Bulldozer).
View attachment 343614

Yes, and so was the case with both Steamroller and Excavator, but they generally share the same floorplan and general limitations. Even the "Bristol Ridge" Athlon X4 970/A12-9800 APU for socket AM4, which use the Excavator architecture, still share the core issues that date back to Bulldozer such as the 1 FP unit shared between 2 INT units, etc.

 

[Bones]

Doesn't seem to be. It's a 300 MHz slower OEM version of the FX-4100 with a 100MHz higher maximum boost and 125 W TDP. If anything it's amongst the worst CPUs you could possibly have, even in the Bulldozer family.

I must disagree with that part of your statement.

And also with this too concering an FX-4200 :

CPU-World data clearly shows 2 modules

And FX 4200 chip IS 4 independent modules/4 physical cores BUT only one "Side" of each core/module is working - That's why it's a genuine 4 core/1 threaded chip in operation instead of it being a 4 cored/2 threaded chip which would equal 8 "Cores" total by the way AMD defined them.

All other "4 core" FX chips are actually 2 physical cores with both sides/modules working = a "4 cored chip", the other two physical cores being completely disabled.
FX-4200 is unique in this way out of all FX chips ever made.

Regardless of whether it's called a 4, 6, or 8 cored chip, it was always setup with modules that used both sides of a functional physical core...... Except for the 4200 itself.

FX-4100 is 2 physical cores/2 modules with both sides of each module working = 4 "Cores" - Half the of the L2/L3 cache available from across the chip's silicon itself.
FX-4200 is 4 physical cores/4 modules with only half/one side of each module working = 4 "Cores" - The full amount of L2/L3 cache available from across the chip's silicon itself.
FX-4300 is 2 physical cores/2 modules with both sides of each module working = 4 "Cores" - Half the of the L2/L3 cache available from across the chip's silicon itself.

My own results (So far) from each chip model named:
FX-4100: https://hwbot.org/submission/4608606

FX-4200: https://hwbot.org/submission/3020825_bones_superpi___32m_fx_4200_15min_18sec_875ms/

FX-4300: https://hwbot.org/submission/3483926_bones_superpi___32m_fx_4300_14min_19sec_375ms/

Since it is still a Zambezi it does suffer like a 4100 from those issues about stuttering media playback and so on, all that being fixed with the succeeding Vishera line including the 4300 itself.

However:
The FX-4200 is actually a little more efficient than either the FX-4100 or 4300 chips making it NOT the worst of all.
BTW do bear in mind with my runs I was using BDC which improves chip performance with either one, this effect is greater with Vishera than with Zambezi.