Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Budget motherboards for the AMD FX 4170 CPU?

KaraminalKaraminal BirminghamPosts: 58Member

Need help on finding a budget motherboard for this (30 - 53 quid) and is compatible with the amd fx 4170 cpu

http://www.ebuyer.com/354122-amd-fx-4-core-black-edition-fx-4170-fd4170frgubox

Comments

  • KaraminalKaraminal BirminghamPosts: 58Member
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,784Member Uncommon
    You want an FX-6300, not an FX-4170.  They're almost the same price, and the FX-6300 is a lot better.  It's six cores instead of four, higher IPC (performance per core at a given clock speed), and considerably lower power consumption in spite of the higher performance.  If you need to, you can overclock an FX-6300 later, too, while an FX-4170 is already effectively overclocked to its limits.
  • KaraminalKaraminal BirminghamPosts: 58Member
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    You want an FX-6300, not an FX-4170.  They're almost the same price, and the FX-6300 is a lot better.  It's six cores instead of four, higher IPC (performance per core at a given clock speed), and considerably lower power consumption in spite of the higher performance.  If you need to, you can overclock an FX-6300 later, too, while an FX-4170 is already effectively overclocked to its limits.

    But is 6 cores really needed for gaming? and how can it have more performance per core when the 4170 is 4.2Ghz and fx 6300 is only at 3.5GHZ. And i dont really know how to overclock so... It seems to an amatuer like me that the 4170 is a better cpu. Mind enlighting me on the subject?

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,784Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Karaminal
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    You want an FX-6300, not an FX-4170.  They're almost the same price, and the FX-6300 is a lot better.  It's six cores instead of four, higher IPC (performance per core at a given clock speed), and considerably lower power consumption in spite of the higher performance.  If you need to, you can overclock an FX-6300 later, too, while an FX-4170 is already effectively overclocked to its limits.

    But is 6 cores really needed for gaming? and how can it have more performance per core when the 4170 is 4.2Ghz and fx 6300 is only at 3.5GHZ. And i dont really know how to overclock so... It seems to an amatuer like me that the 4170 is a better cpu. Mind enlighting me on the subject?

    The FX-6300 will clock some of its cores higher if it decides you need more performance.  Nominal clock speeds are kind of dubious these days because of the aggressive use of turbo.  The max turbo on the two processors is 4.3 GHz and 4.1 GHz, respectively.

    Furthermore, the performance of a core isn't just the clock speed.  Some can do more per clock cycle than others.  Intel released a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 in 2004, and it was the highest stock clock speed of any x86 processor until the FX-4170 launched last year.  But that doesn't mean it was really fast; it wasn't even as good as AMD's processors that were available in 2004, let alone today.  A modern Core i5-3570K will offer about triple the single-threaded performance of a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4, in spite of having a lower nominal clock speed.

    A "Piledriver" core in an FX-6300 is a little faster than a "Bulldozer" core in an FX-4170 at the same clock speed.  It's not a huge difference, but given the choice between 4.1 GHz Piledriver cores and 4.3 GHz Bulldozer cores, I'd prefer the former.

    Furthermore, both architectures are based on modules in which pairs of cores share L2 cache and some scheduling hardware.  If you use both cores in a module in a program that scales perfectly to two cores, AMD estimates that you get about 80% more performance than if you were only using one core.  If you're going to use three cores, an FX-6300 can put them on three different modules and get better performance than if you had to use two cores on the same module.

    Finally, making a game engine scale well to many CPU cores is actually pretty easy to do.  If nearly every game today will run well on both processors, but some games 3-4 years from now will run a lot better on an FX-6300 than an FX-4170, then isn't that a good reason to get an FX-6300?  An extra $10 or so up front might let you get an extra year or two of useful life out of your system before you need to replace the processor--which will require also replacing the motherboard and memory, as we'll be using DDR4 by then.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Also the 6300 has way more cache

    Also I've just upgraded from the old 4 core bulldozer chip to the new 6 view piledriver chip and its a noticeable improvement. I was cpu bound in some games like planetside 2. I'm not any more.
  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Also the 6300 has way more cache

    Also I've just upgraded from the old 4 core bulldozer chip to the new 6 view piledriver chip and its a noticeable improvement. I was cpu bound in some games like planetside 2. I'm not any more.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,784Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Also the 6300 has way more cache

    Also I've just upgraded from the old 4 core bulldozer chip to the new 6 view piledriver chip and its a noticeable improvement. I was cpu bound in some games like planetside 2. I'm not any more.

    L2 cache is 2 MB per module in both architectures, so that only matters if you're going to use more modules.

    The FX-6300 does have 8 MB of L3 cache, as compared to 4 MB for the FX-4170.  But I don't think that makes that big of a difference.  They both have really slow L3 cache, with latency over 1/3 of the time it takes to access system memory.

    While this is speculation on my part, I think the architecture has that cache more to ease system memory bandwidth usage than to improve latency--and the latter is usually the bigger purpose of L2 and L3 cache.  Easing system memory bandwidth usage might well be a big deal if you're pushing 8 cores pretty hard, but you're not going to do that on a 4- or 6-core processor.  Remember that they're both first and foremost server chips.

  • funconfuncon Key West, FLPosts: 258Member
    Can I ask. IS the FX-6300 un clocked a noticable upgrade or improvment from the FX 6100? I bought the 6100 when i first came out about a year ago and I am just looking for a real fast gaming cpu, ad I don't think this FX 6100 is it.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,784Member Uncommon
    Think of it as FX-*1*0 CPUs are broken, and FX-*3*0 CPUs are the fixed version of the same thing.  Faster, yes, but it's not a huge chasm in performance.
  • funconfuncon Key West, FLPosts: 258Member
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Think of it as FX-*1*0 CPUs are broken, and FX-*3*0 CPUs are the fixed version of the same thing.  Faster, yes, but it's not a huge chasm in performance.

    Ok, thanks. Not enough for me to make an upgrade. If I really wanted an upgrade, Id go with that i5 i5 3570k, I hear that is the top quad core cpu out now for gaming.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Well no there's faster i7s. And the 8350fx benches comparably.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAPosts: 4,178Member Uncommon

    The case for the AMD 6 core versus the 4 core:

    It's not that you need 6 cores. There isn't much difference in performance in the FX 4300 vs the 6300 *in gaming*.

    It's that you get those extra 2 cores for damn near free: $129 vs $139 (US) are typical prices for the two parts, so 50% more cores for $10 is a damn good deal, even if the performance jump from them is slight now, it may get you another year or so of usefulness out of it in the long run. Jumping up to the 8-core runs another $50-70 depending on what stock clocks you want - that bump is arguable and your getting up near the price of the 3570 anyway (without nearly the performance).

    Any difference in stock clocks in those parts is pretty minor, and ~nearly~ always can be made up with a slight, relatively safe overclock.

  • KaraminalKaraminal BirminghamPosts: 58Member
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Karaminal
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    You want an FX-6300, not an FX-4170.  They're almost the same price, and the FX-6300 is a lot better.  It's six cores instead of four, higher IPC (performance per core at a given clock speed), and considerably lower power consumption in spite of the higher performance.  If you need to, you can overclock an FX-6300 later, too, while an FX-4170 is already effectively overclocked to its limits.

    But is 6 cores really needed for gaming? and how can it have more performance per core when the 4170 is 4.2Ghz and fx 6300 is only at 3.5GHZ. And i dont really know how to overclock so... It seems to an amatuer like me that the 4170 is a better cpu. Mind enlighting me on the subject?

    The FX-6300 will clock some of its cores higher if it decides you need more performance.  Nominal clock speeds are kind of dubious these days because of the aggressive use of turbo.  The max turbo on the two processors is 4.3 GHz and 4.1 GHz, respectively.

    Furthermore, the performance of a core isn't just the clock speed.  Some can do more per clock cycle than others.  Intel released a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 in 2004, and it was the highest stock clock speed of any x86 processor until the FX-4170 launched last year.  But that doesn't mean it was really fast; it wasn't even as good as AMD's processors that were available in 2004, let alone today.  A modern Core i5-3570K will offer about triple the single-threaded performance of a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4, in spite of having a lower nominal clock speed.

    A "Piledriver" core in an FX-6300 is a little faster than a "Bulldozer" core in an FX-4170 at the same clock speed.  It's not a huge difference, but given the choice between 4.1 GHz Piledriver cores and 4.3 GHz Bulldozer cores, I'd prefer the former.

    Furthermore, both architectures are based on modules in which pairs of cores share L2 cache and some scheduling hardware.  If you use both cores in a module in a program that scales perfectly to two cores, AMD estimates that you get about 80% more performance than if you were only using one core.  If you're going to use three cores, an FX-6300 can put them on three different modules and get better performance than if you had to use two cores on the same module.

    Finally, making a game engine scale well to many CPU cores is actually pretty easy to do.  If nearly every game today will run well on both processors, but some games 3-4 years from now will run a lot better on an FX-6300 than an FX-4170, then isn't that a good reason to get an FX-6300?  An extra $10 or so up front might let you get an extra year or two of useful life out of your system before you need to replace the processor--which will require also replacing the motherboard and memory, as we'll be using DDR4 by then.

    Well how do i even overclock?

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    It depends on the game too, those that use just 2 threads there isn't much difference. Those that use 3 or 4, or if your running stuff like mumble in the background the 6 core is noticeablely faster.

    I switched to the 6300 from the 4100. I can play planetside 2 on max now. Had to turn shadows and stuff off before. In fact I can play everything I own on max settings.
  • jdnewelljdnewell Spring Hill, TNPosts: 2,150Member Uncommon

    Short answer.

    Go with the 6300, its better.

  • KaraminalKaraminal BirminghamPosts: 58Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    It depends on the game too, those that use just 2 threads there isn't much difference. Those that use 3 or 4, or if your running stuff like mumble in the background the 6 core is noticeablely faster.

    I switched to the 6300 from the 4100. I can play planetside 2 on max now. Had to turn shadows and stuff off before. In fact I can play everything I own on max settings.

    Is that the CPU alone or with a graphics card?

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAPosts: 4,178Member Uncommon

    [quote]Originally posted by Karaminal
    [b][/quote]Well how do i even overclock?[/b][/quote]

    The good news is, to some extent, the CPU will do it for you automatically, called TurboCore for AMD, or TurboBoost for Intel.

    You can choose to go beyond that and manually tune it though. Some motherboards come with software that let you do it with a single click (usually called Overdrive or some such).

    You can go into your BIOS and change all the parameters manually too. There are two magic numbers that control an overclock: The CPU Multiplier, and the Clock Speed. The final speed of the CPU is just those two numbers multiplied together (ie. 20x multiplier and a 200Mhz clock speed = 4.0Ghz CPU frequency). The multiplier just affects the CPU, the clock will affect a few other components. You will see references to tweaking voltages as well, that helps make overclocks more stable, but at the expense of more power/heat and the risk of actually breaking something.

    Every motherboard and CPU will be a little bit different, The automatic stuff (TurboCore/Boost) is free, and your system will do that automatically. The motherboard utilities are free too - depending on what motherboard you get they vary in quality, and generally are safe to use - the worst case they just cause your machine to lock up or reboot, and when you turn it back on you try it again with something less aggressive.

  • RojiinRojiin Starkville, MSPosts: 51Member

    I use a program called Easytune 6 with my 6300 (Gigabyte motherboard).  You can set your overclock  from windows and then it will alter the bios for you on a reboot.  It has simple settings for 4.0 - 4.3 ghz with one button press, or you can manually set up the overclock with the advance features.  I just use the easytune set to 4.0 and have not noticed any increase in temps and it still uses alot less voltage than my old phenom II at 3.0 ghz.

    I imagine most board makers have some sort of software to do the same thing, but you want to by a decent quality board to overclock.  You won't need the highest end just a good midrange board.   http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130637 ; That one has overclock software with it.  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128519 ; That is the board I use although it is more exspensive now for some reason.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Kara
    Yeah I have a good gpu factory clicked 7950. Even so couldn't play ps2 mated out on my old bulldozer. The bulldozers were bad chips. The piledriver are nicely priced mid range chips. AMD can't compete with Intel at the top end. But the 6300 and the 83xxs compete nicely with i5s.
Sign In or Register to comment.