Those two FX is not for retail market. And for the last time TDP is not the power consumption of the CPU, its THERMAL DESIGN POWER, which means the cooler required to dissipate x amount of watts. AMD and Intel rated their TDP differently as well so don't directly compared the two.

For those who are still using Phenom II, better stick a while and wait for Steamroller. Quite possibly out end of this year or early next year but don't quote me on that.

Thread title needs an update. Bobcat already been replaced by Jaguar and Bulldozer replaced by Piledriver

It's been a couple of weeks since I been changing from Phenom II 955 @ 3.6GHz with the lowly FX-4100 @ 4.7GHz and lemme tell you something about it.

Most benchmark tells this is way slower than Phenom II, for example in Cinebench 11.5 my Phenom II @ 3.6GHz got 4.46 CPU ranking, while FX-4100 clocked at 5GHz only reach measly 4.07, same story in 3DMark06 CPU score and some other benchmarks where it lags behind the former.

But in an actual games I felt this is faster, in Serious Sam 3 for example framerate were consistent at 60fps even in heavy fights, on Phenom it will occasionally drops to below playable level. I'm truly surprised! In Skyrim too I thought this CPU will fail, but no, gameplay were smooth as butter. Same goes with other CPU heavy games like GTAIV and Starcraft II.

Still, unless you got a good motherboard, love overclocking or using old Athlon or triple or dual core Phenoms, I don't recommend for upgrade especially when you have quad core or hexa core Phenom II. But if you asked me, overclocking this FX is LOT of fun, haven't have this much fun since old Sempron s754 and Northwood Pentium 4 overclocking where they could reach 1GHz overclock easily And this is only old Bulldozer based FX-4100, if you aiming for FX line I would recommend Vishera based FX-6300 as a bare minimum for an upgrade.

For Bulldozer, Piledriver CPU owner it's worth to download and install this.

CPU clock is lower if you read the reviews thoroughly. If anandtech have some brains they would do clock-to-clock comparison. Their review is absurd putting top-of-the-line i7 4770K in the mix and then say top Intel offering beats it in minimum framerate in Company of Heroes 2, they should highlight the review item NOT the top of the line parts. They should say instead that AMD despite using integrated GPU and weaker core managed to go foot-on-foot with Intel best. Stupid biased site.

They should put quad core AMD FX-4xxx series and Phenom II in the mix to see for improvement and whether if its worth the upgrade.

They saying COH2 is a tough game, why don't they say Kaveri done well in this game instead of this?



Why make such statement when the difference is just less than a couple of frame per second difference? I may be nitpicking but it is annoying they focus on other solution when that solution is more expensive and the differences is negligible

Just bought ASRock 990FX Killer, thought I share something. This motherboard (all ASRock recent motherboard) able to run one core per module resulting a higher per core performance. If you don't know what it is go read the thread at XtremeSystem forum.

I tested with Cinebench 11.5 to see how much difference does it make and here is the result, performance jumped from 3.38 to 4.18 going from 2C4T to 4C4T:

AMD reveals K12: New ARM and x86 cores are coming

Read this quote properly, AMD is definitely going back to enthusiasts desktop CPU market, the reason for the delay is because of changing in management thus changing the way where the company is headed.

The Stilt (man behind Bulldozer conditioner) broke 8GHz barrier on all 8 cores on new FX 8370. Although it is based on old 32nm, this means the process is very mature to become an awesome overclocker. Since my Sabertooth 990FX returned from RMA and instead of the first R1.0, they gave me R2.0. Thinking of building second rig for fun