Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57

Thread: FX4100--><--955Be Battle of the X4’s

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    662

    FX4100--><--955Be Battle of the X4’s

    I haven’t seen any results here at XS for the FX4100 X4 so as I do own one I thought I’d post some bench test results.

    I figured while I was at it I would do a compare with a 955Be. I was hoping to match the processors clock for clock but the 955Be couldn’t quite finish wPrime 1024 at the clocks I had tested the FX4100 (4.5GHz). Anyway the 955Be did run all the tests @4446MHz so I called that close enough for now.
    These tests were completed using ambient water cooling (68-70F air temp) with the system installed inside a Corsair 600T case. Before anyone asks no it won’t run prime95 for any great length of time either with the cover on or off but it will run all the tests shown with the cover (side door) on or off.

    I tested with the case on its side in order to gain the weight of the pot on the CPU and also to help keep it flat on the CPU lid in order to maintain good contact. I does run fine when the case is vertical or in its normal orientation but as I said I didn’t test in that orientation.

    These are my results, your results my vary.

    System spec.
    CPU, FX4100 @4503MHz or 955Be @4446MHz
    Motherboard, AsRock 990 FX Extreme4 (1.30 bios)
    GFX, 2X5870’s in crossfire 850/1200MHz (default clocks)
    OS, Windows 7 64-bit
    Custom water cooling as seen in the photo (using ambient air temperature on the rads)

    The FX4100 clocks/settings were set as shown in the photo below.


    The 955Be clocks/settings were set as shown in the photo below


    Open case photo (pretest) of the system showing the Fluke temperature reading at idle (the fluke probe is installed in the bottom of the F1 pot as normal).


    Closed case photo 955Be (pretest of wPrime 1024) of the system showing the Fluke temperature reading at idle plus a ambient air thermometer (sorry but it reads in Fahrenheit).


    SS of 955Be systems temperatures/volts (pretest of wPrime 1024)

    Closed case photo 955Be (post test of wPrime 1024) of the system showing the Fluke temperature reading at full load plus the ambient air thermometer.


    SS of 955Be systems temperatures/volts at the moment of the wPrime 1024 test completion.











  2. #2
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    madison wis.
    Posts
    177
    not real favorable for fx4100 , seems almost comparable to a phenomI 9850 . i need to compare against my old scores. how high could you clock it though?

    nope, even a old phenom 9850 beats it in wprime32
    http://www.hwbot.org/submission/7769...50_10sec_980ms
    at 1000mhz less too.
    Last edited by equinox1; 10-20-2011 at 12:02 PM.
    amd FX8120
    asus sabertooth 990fx
    6970 amd
    corsair dominator gt 2000 4 gig
    2x 74 gig raptors raid 0
    pcpower 1200 watt

  3. #3
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,209
    mhm.....
    1. ASUS Sabertooth 990fx | FX 8320 || 2. DFI DK 790FXB-M3H5 | X4 810
    8GB Samsung 30nm DDR3-2000 9-10-10-28 || 4GB PSC DDR3-1333 6-7-6-21
    Corsair TX750W | Sapphire 6970 2GB || BeQuiet PurePower 450w | HD 4850
    EK Supreme | AC aquagratix | Laing Pro | MoRa 2 || Aircooled

  4. #4
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,823
    because FX 4110 is not "true" quadcore, but 2M/4T...
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i9-7900X, i9-9900K, i7-6950X, i7-5960X, i7-8086K, i7-8700K, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-2700X, 4x R5 2600X, R5 2400G, R3 1200, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  5. #5
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    madison wis.
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by FlanK3r View Post
    because FX 4110 is not "true" quadcore, but 2M/4T...
    lol , well then they should rename it to FX-2100
    amd FX8120
    asus sabertooth 990fx
    6970 amd
    corsair dominator gt 2000 4 gig
    2x 74 gig raptors raid 0
    pcpower 1200 watt

  6. #6
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by equinox1 View Post
    lol , well then they should rename it to FX-2100
    Well, if amd marketed them as 2xxx,3xxx and 4xxx, while naming them as 2,3,4 module/CU cpus without mention to "cores", then maybe, and just maybe, reviews could be a little more positive. Having the 2CU/4C maketed as a 4 core, while slower than their older true 4 cores, and an 8 core striving against the older 6 core wasn't a good choice if performance didn't scale as the name implies. Even if they'd lose the chance to claim the first 8 core desktop cpu.
    If one compares a 4CU 8150 to a X4 980, things can look a tad better in the sense of an improvement.
    Strix X470-F, 1.2.0.6b | 5800X3D + Galahad 360, 3xP28 | 4x8GB Flare X 3200C14 @3200C14 1T+GDM | Strix 2070S A8G @1830/1750 | SB Z | SN750 500GB, MX500 1TB, DT01 2TB | O11D XL: 6xNB PL-2 | RM750

  7. #7
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,823
    Quote Originally Posted by equinox1 View Post
    lol , well then they should rename it to FX-2100
    because marketing....From my point of view could be better for AMD "first 4-module design with impressive 8 threads" or something simillary...
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i9-7900X, i9-9900K, i7-6950X, i7-5960X, i7-8086K, i7-8700K, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-2700X, 4x R5 2600X, R5 2400G, R3 1200, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  8. #8
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    393
    with the 955 being sold for 120 USD, the 4100 should be sold for 90 usd or less
    same price as PII X2 and AII X4...
    I think this is a more important point then calling it quad or dual... the problem is, that from what I'm seeing they are selling it for more than a PII X4... which seems like a clearly superior CPU...

    also you can try a 960t for 120 usd and unlock it to a x6

  9. #9
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    madison wis.
    Posts
    177
    ok this is nuts . heres my 9950 phenom in wp1024
    http://www.hwbot.org/submission/8024...0_374sec_160ms
    it is clocked 1300 mhz lower than the 4100 and still beats it by almost 100 seconds.
    im tempted to steal my wifes internet cruiser with a 9950 in it and slap water on it and run TOT's same benches
    Last edited by equinox1; 10-20-2011 at 12:28 PM.
    amd FX8120
    asus sabertooth 990fx
    6970 amd
    corsair dominator gt 2000 4 gig
    2x 74 gig raptors raid 0
    pcpower 1200 watt

  10. #10
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by FlanK3r View Post
    because FX 4110 is not "true" quadcore, but 2M/4T...
    I agree with this. It is more comparable to a dual core than a quad in actual design. AMD should have marketed it and priced it as such. The FX-8120/50 should have just been called quad cores with 8 threads as well. Unfortunately they're as power hungry as an 1100T (at much much higher clock speeds though).
    Core i7 2600K@4.6Ghz| 16GB G.Skill@2133Mhz 9-11-10-28-38 1.65v| ASUS P8Z77-V PRO | Corsair 750i PSU | ASUS GTX 980 OC | Xonar DSX | Samsung 840 Pro 128GB |A bunch of HDDs and terabytes | Oculus Rift w/ touch | ASUS 24" 144Hz G-sync monitor

    Quote Originally Posted by phelan1777 View Post
    Hail fellow warrior albeit a surat Mercenary. I Hail to you from the Clans, Ghost Bear that is (Yes freebirth we still do and shall always view mercenaries with great disdain!) I have long been an honorable warrior of the mighty Warden Clan Ghost Bear the honorable Bekker surname. I salute your tenacity to show your freebirth sibkin their ignorance!

  11. #11
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    662
    I did try some max MHz runs using the ambient water cooling and one is a little faster than the one below but the settings and vcore are better in this one so I'll just post this one instead not that much difference in speed (5160MHz) anyway. I've tried a bunch of different settings along with vcore to 1.7v but this is about it for this chip at least under these test conditions.

    I don't have anything that really works that well to clock it up in windows so all the overclocking is done in the bios and then of course it has to load windows.

    Sorry to let everyone down along with AMD but this appears to be about as fast as I can get it to run under ambient water cooling. Maybe the only thing holding it back is me but I have not doubt my friend chew* could get it to run faster maybe a lot faster using ambient water cooling.


  12. #12
    XIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,523
    Quote Originally Posted by theoldtimer View Post
    I did try some max MHz runs using the ambient water cooling
    Subzero is more fun with FX OT
    Last edited by Dumo; 10-22-2011 at 02:07 PM.

  13. #13
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    662
    I may try the FX4100 cold Dumo, I’m still trying to make up my mind. I needed to prove to myself what it would or wouldn’t do with room temp cooling before I moved on to cold or to another processor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dumo View Post
    Subzero is more fun with FX OT
    @ FlanK3r and Beep. Yeah the FX does like Winrar. In the chart below the 955be is running @4446MHz as before in the first post. The FX4100 is @4.5GHz or when shown as FX41-49+ it is the FX4100 running at 4977MHz.

  14. #14
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,787
    AMD has really dropped the ball..
    Sandy Bridge 2500k @ 4.5ghz 1.28v | MSI p67a-gd65 B3 Mobo | Samsung ddr3 8gb |
    Swiftech apogee drive II | Coolgate 120| GTX660ti w/heat killer gpu x| Seasonic x650 PSU

    QX9650 @ 4ghz | P5K-E/WIFI-AP Mobo | Hyperx ddr2 1066 4gb | EVGA GTX560ti 448 core FTW @ 900mhz | OCZ 700w Modular PSU |
    DD MC-TDX CPU block | DD Maze5 GPU block | Black Ice Xtreme II 240 Rad | Laing D5 Pump

  15. #15
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    285
    Thanks for the comparison theoldtimer... I'm shocked, AMD has managed to release a new product with worse performance than even Phenom 1. And Ph 1 was bad
    Last edited by Calathea; 10-20-2011 at 12:38 PM.
    Overclocking, it's a lifestyle

  16. #16
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    662
    EQ I clocked this FX4100 to 4950MHz in this same system but it took more vcore than I wanted to use during the early testing. If I remember correctly it wouldn’t finish wPrime 1024 at that clock speed though.

    Quote Originally Posted by equinox1 View Post
    not real favorable for fx4100 , seems almost comparable to a phenomI 9850 . i need to compare against my old scores. how high could you clock it though?

    nope, even a old phenom 9850 beats it in wprime32
    http://www.hwbot.org/submission/7769...50_10sec_980ms
    at 1000mhz less too.

    FLanK3r this is shot of the box top so they are marketing the FX4100 as an X4.


    Quote Originally Posted by FlanK3r View Post
    because FX 4110 is not "true" quadcore, but 2M/4T...
    Calathea you’re welcome.
    Fact is I like the FX4100. Clock for clock it runs a lot cooler than the 955Be. So far in everyday use (normal tasks) it feels fast. TBH I haven’t tested it as a real world gamers build so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Calathea View Post
    Thanks for the comparison theoldtimer... I'm shocked, AMD has managed to release a new product with worse performance than even Phenom 1. And Ph 1 was bad

  17. #17
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    406
    Disappointing

    Does it really take 1.5v for 4.5 stable? Would of thought these would clock higher Can you crank the ram up to 2200ish and try again?

    They aren't even cheap... Eh, at least the potblock works well
    My pot is bigger than your pot

    WHAU!!!!

  18. #18
    Xtreme 3D Team
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,499
    I don't care what the box says, we may as well think of these CPU's as 2/3/4 vs 4/6/8...
    FlanK3r has attempted damage control as much as possible, however some attempts are failing.

    It's a dual core without dual core ST perf, but enhanced MT...

    It's great vs i3 2100 series because you can overclock it so much, I'd take it in a heartbeat over i3. However vs AMD's old quad it (was, is, and will be easy to see) more than disappoints.

    @El Gappo and OT
    A pot block works so well because the pot base acts as a huge buffer...this isn't good with thermal transfer as a water block (designed to move heat quickly from CPU > water in loop) ...idle temps suffer a lot but load temps are pretty nice

    What would be really cool is if we could inject LN2 into an all copper block in a continuous open loop

    This is coming from what I learned from Aaron Schradin over facebook. I believe chew* has the only or one of the only two tops for his "phantom" base.
    Last edited by BeepBeep2; 10-20-2011 at 02:52 PM.
    Smile

  19. #19
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA, USA
    Posts
    471
    This does exist, there are cryo pumps for semiconductor fabricatin equipment, but use He. They phase change He to cool a cold plate to collect water vapor for faster pump downs or super low pump downs for vacum systems.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopump

    I believe there are also LN2 phase change systems also, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.
    RussC

    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBeep2 View Post
    I
    @El Gappo and OT
    A pot block works so well because the pot base acts as a huge buffer...this isn't good with thermal transfer as a water block (designed to move heat quickly from CPU > water in loop) ...idle temps suffer a lot but load temps are pretty nice

    What would be really cool is if we could inject LN2 into an all copper block in a continuous open loop
    My Rig
    PII955-C2 3.8GHz, 2.5MHz NB
    GSkill 2x2GB DDR3-2400@900MHz
    M4A87T Antec 900 Case, Custom Mods x5Fans
    Custom Water Cooling: 15x12 3-Core Radiator
    4xSunon 4.5W Fans, DD12V-D5 Laing Variable Pump
    DD MC-TDX Water Block
    700W OZC ModX Power Supply
    GB HD6970OC2 Video Card
    2x150GB Raptor Raid

  20. #20
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    China
    Posts
    266
    @theoldtimer
    Can you try to unlock modules/Cores on FX-4100?






  21. #21
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    662
    1.45v set in the bios LLC at ½ but yes that’s what it needed because when I lowered either setting it crashed out in wPrime 1024. I’ve notice that the vcore as read from the ASRock tuning utility is different from test to test so who knows how much vcore is really going through it.

    The idea of the test was to compare the old and the new head to head clock for clock or as close as I could get. I ran a bunch of different bench tests trying not to favor one processor over the other. Do you think the tests were somehow unfair toward one or the other processor?



    Quote Originally Posted by El Gappo View Post
    Disappointing

    Does it really take 1.5v for 4.5 stable? Would of thought these would clock higher Can you crank the ram up to 2200ish and try again?

    They aren't even cheap... Eh, at least the potblock works well
    Beep maybe you don’t care how the processor box is labeled but most people depend on the labeling to determine what they’re buying.

    So are you on damage control along with FLanK3r? If so that’s very interesting. I think that’s the first time in my entire life I required damage control. I don’t know what to think about that. LOL, just playing with you Beep


    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBeep2 View Post
    I don't care what the box says, we may as well think of these CPU's as 2/3/4 vs 4/6/8...
    FlanK3r has attempted damage control as much as possible, however some attempts are failing.

    It's a dual core without dual core ST perf, but enhanced MT...

    It's great vs i3 2100 series because you can overclock it so much, I'd take it in a heartbeat over i3. However vs AMD's old quad it (was, is, and will be easy to see) more than disappoints.

    @El Gappo and OT
    A pot block works so well because the pot base acts as a huge buffer...this isn't good with thermal transfer as a water block (designed to move heat quickly from CPU > water in loop) ...idle temps suffer a lot but load temps are pretty nice

    What would be really cool is if we could inject LN2 into an all copper block in a continuous open loop

    This is coming from what I learned from Aaron Schradin over facebook. I believe chew* has the only or one of the only two tops for his "phantom" base.
    I'll try it as soon as I get the FX reinstalled, maybe tomorrow?
    Quote Originally Posted by Royalk View Post
    @theoldtimer
    Can you try to unlock modules/Cores on FX-4100?

  22. #22
    Xtreme 3D Team
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,499
    Quote Originally Posted by theoldtimer View Post
    Beep maybe you don’t care how the processor box is labeled but most people depend on the labeling to determine what they’re buying.

    So are you on damage control along with FLanK3r? If so that’s very interesting. I think that’s the first time in my entire life I required damage control. I don’t know what to think about that. LOL, just playing with you Beep
    First things I heard from him were things like
    "Cinebench score is higher overclocked than Thuban" ...then it turned into stuff like "Who uses Cinebench or even Excel, use real programs like Handbrake...and look at Tom's Hardware at the ABBYY FineReader result, and WinRAR result, everyone uses that!"

    ...not just him either

    Personally I prefer 7-Zip + FilZip combo, but thats just me.

    The only thing I care about right now is gaming performance, which lacks.
    Smile

  23. #23
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by theoldtimer View Post
    1.45v set in the bios LLC at ½ but yes that’s what it needed because when I lowered either setting it crashed out in wPrime 1024. I’ve notice that the vcore as read from the ASRock tuning utility is different from test to test so who knows how much vcore is really going through it.

    The idea of the test was to compare the old and the new head to head clock for clock or as close as I could get. I ran a bunch of different bench tests trying not to favor one processor over the other. Do you think the tests were somehow unfair toward one or the other processor?
    As fair as a cpc comparison can be, just think a balls to the walls max OC would be more relevant given how much higher bulldozer does clock. The deneb must be pretty stretched @ 4.5 on water.

    The IMC and clock speeds are like the only redeeming features it seems right now and there's some headroom in there
    My pot is bigger than your pot

    WHAU!!!!

  24. #24
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    662
    I reinstalled the FX4100 this afternoon then looked in every part of the bios that I knew of for a way to unlock more modules/cores but I didn't find any setting for that. The ASRock motherboard is new to me though so if you know of an Fkey that will open up more bios setting I'm willing to give that a go? I can control the processor modules I have in bios though just nothing about enabling more that I can find. Sorry Royalk.
    Quote Originally Posted by Royalk View Post
    @theoldtimer
    Can you try to unlock modules/Cores on FX-4100?

  25. #25
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    China
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by theoldtimer View Post
    I reinstalled the FX4100 this afternoon then looked in every part of the bios that I knew of for a way to unlock more modules/cores but I didn't find any setting for that. The ASRock motherboard is new to me though so if you know of an Fkey that will open up more bios setting I'm willing to give that a go? I can control the processor modules I have in bios though just nothing about enabling more that I can find. Sorry Royalk.
    Well...OK, waiting to see BIOS updates






Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •