# AMD Releases FX-4130 "Vishera" Quad-Core Processor



## btarunr (Jan 30, 2013)

AMD introduced the FX-4130 value quad-core processor. Although slotted in the 4100 series, which suggests it being based on the older "Zambezi" silicon, the new FX-4130 is in fact based on the newer "Vishera" silicon, and the "Piledriver" micro-architecture. AMD is following a competitive (price-performance) approach to its CPU lineup, rather than a pure-performance one, and the FX-4130 is pitted by the company against the similarly priced Intel Core i3-2100.

The FX-4130 features four cores spread across two "Piledriver" modules, 3.80 GHz nominal clock speed with 3.90 GHz Turbo Core frequency, 2 MB L2 cache per module, 4 MB shared L3 cache, and an up to date instruction-set that includes AVX, AES-NI, SSE4.2, FMA, and XOP. Similarly priced Intel chips lack some of these instruction sets. With the FX-4130, AMD is packing a chunkier stock fan-heatsink than older FX-4000 series chips, which spins at lower speeds to keep the chip cool, and is hence less noisy. The new FX-4130 is priced at $99.99.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Nordic (Jan 30, 2013)

I find the most interesting part is the improved stock cooling. Still not as good as what "we" use but I am curious.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 30, 2013)

They basically put that big dual-heatpipe cooler they ship with FX-8350.


----------



## blibba (Jan 30, 2013)

I hate that they've set the performance graphs with a baseline of ninety-something percent and the power graphs with a baseline of 0. Highly misleading.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 30, 2013)

blibba said:


> I hate that they've set the performance graphs with a baseline of ninety-something percent and the power graphs with a baseline of 0. Highly misleading.



same... i saw the graph and thought "Damn... thats a huge boost, oh wait no... 3-9% wtf"


----------



## dj-electric (Jan 30, 2013)

99$ is super sweet


----------



## Nordic (Jan 30, 2013)

james888 said:


> I find the most interesting part is the improved stock cooling. Still not as good as what "we" use but I am curious.





btarunr said:


> They basically put that big dual-heatpipe cooler they ship with FX-8350.



If anyone did not know what that cooler looked like this is the picture.


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Jan 30, 2013)

This is really good of AMD in the entry level market since this out performs the i3-3220 making it a cheaper and better alternative.


----------



## erocker (Jan 30, 2013)

james888 said:


> If anyone did not know what that cooler looked like this is the picture.
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1117050/width/350/height/700/flags/LL



Same cooler they've been using for years. I got those with my Opteron s939's


----------



## burtram (Jan 30, 2013)

Really digging that price point. Would server my media pc very well.


----------



## Nordic (Jan 30, 2013)

erocker said:


> Same cooler they've been using for years. I got those with my Opteron s939's



The article said it was different and I can not remember any of the amd stock coolers I have had in front of me.


----------



## Pandora's Box (Jan 30, 2013)

james888 said:


> The article said it was different and I can not remember any of the amd stock coolers I have had in front of me.



not even one of these:


----------



## Nordic (Jan 30, 2013)

Pandora's Box said:


> not even one of these:
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/ElMoIsEviL/CPU/AMDK7a.jpg



I started with a hand me down pentium 3 that had a similarish cooler. My next cpu was a hand me down AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400 and that. I got interested in hardware about then and only the two years I have actually been working on hardware.
Really, the only thing I could remember was that the amd cooler was square. I know the stock intel cooler is round but I can't remember it either. I even have one somewhere around here.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 30, 2013)

james888 said:


> If anyone did not know what that cooler looked like this is the picture.
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1117050/width/350/height/700/flags/LL



Hey, it looks like the stock cooler that came with my Phenom II 940! Doh!


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 30, 2013)

Arent' graphs that don't start from zero great or what? 3-9% improvemen and the graph makes it look like it's twice as fast in most cases (until you look at the side of the image where th numbers are)...


----------



## d1nky (Jan 30, 2013)

hasn't the fx4100 got bigger cache sizes? and they trying to piss 4100 owners off?!!


----------



## okidna (Jan 30, 2013)

d1nky said:


> hasn't the fx4100 got bigger cache sizes? and they trying to piss 4100 owners off?!!



Yes, FX-4100 has 8MB L3 cache.


----------



## DerekStorm (Jan 30, 2013)

Anything below 6300 is a waste of money. The Athlon 750K goes for around $80, same uArch less the cache, FM2's are cheaper than AM3+'s, almost same performace for less money. If you want AM3+ then the 8300 is the way to go, otherwise FM2.


----------



## NC37 (Jan 30, 2013)

Yeah, the Piledriver quads are just poor. FM2s wouldn't help since they lose the L3 entirely. These might beat an i3 in multithreaded but thats it. If your going quad at that price...old AthlonIIs or Phenoms would likely be better.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 30, 2013)

DerekStorm said:


> Anything below 6300 is a waste of money. The Athlon 750K goes for around $80, same uArch less the cache, FM2's are cheaper than AM3+'s, almost same performace for less money. If you want AM3+ then the 8300 is the way to go, otherwise FM2.



You can build an AM3+ build for the same price as an FM2 build. FX4130 will be faster than the 750K so the point is mute. Also gains the ability to swap for an 83X0 chip at any point in time.


----------



## jihadjoe (Jan 30, 2013)

Why 4130? Why not 4310?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jan 30, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> Arent' graphs that don't start from zero great or what? 3-9% improvemen and the graph makes it look like it's twice as fast in most cases (until you look at the side of the image where th numbers are)...



this is a better one:


----------



## Frick (Jan 30, 2013)

I can't believe people still moan about graphs.


----------



## Tensa Zangetsu (Jan 30, 2013)

Just got my hands on one here in China!!!


----------



## de.das.dude (Jan 30, 2013)

i got this cooler for free from AMD 
3 years ago when the stock aluminium chunk was getting too noisy and still failing, i did an rma, and it came to me in 10days.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jan 30, 2013)

cdawall said:


> You can build an AM3+ build for the same price as an FM2 build. FX4130 will be faster than the 750K so the point is mute. Also gains the ability to swap for an 83X0 chip at any point in time.



I agree with cdawall here. Go with a AM3+ build off the bat and don't limit yourself to the already huge limitations of the FM2 platform. AM3+ is going to be supported for a long time to come. Get a cheap FX 4130 now, and when you have a spare $200 to spend on a processor upgrade, you're not stuck looking at a A10-5800K wishing you had a AM3+ board to begin with.


----------



## tokyoduong (Jan 30, 2013)

I've never seen the appeal in going with integrated gpus on desktop. I know some people want to save power but you save more power and money by buying a higher efficiency PSU and you don't limit the gaming potential of a desktop. Anybody remember the older PSU with 65% efficiency?

That being said, don't go FM2 unless you don't care about gaming in the future as your CPU will not be able to keep up.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 30, 2013)

I don't like the pricing on this chip....I think it should be a $79.99 chip since the FX-6300 is only $129.00 and literally 30% better...just saying


----------



## brian111 (Jan 30, 2013)

jmcslob said:


> I don't like the pricing on this chip....I think it should be a $79.99 chip since the FX-6300 is only $129.00 and literally 30% better...just saying



That's been the knock about the FX 4300.  The 6300 is sometimes just priced $10 more.  There was speculation that AMD  was trying to protect sales of the A10 Trinity CPUs by keeping the prices higher.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 30, 2013)

So a 3-9% performance boost, but a 5% clock speed boost.  It is nice they kept it at the same price point and all, but the performance boost really isn't all that great when you think about the increased clock speeds that go along with it.


----------



## _Zod_ (Jan 30, 2013)

So this is a FX-4300 with a GPU on die for less money basically. A direct competitor to a I3 for less money.

We need some direct tests against the I3 to see what the deal is. Where this chip will lose imo is power consumption and only best case match a I3 in single threaded processing.

It should best the I3 in multithreaded processing, graphics power and price+features of the whole system. (AMD motherboards are generally more feature packed than Intel boards at the low end.)


----------



## TheHunter (Jan 30, 2013)

If they made it with 4 piledriver modules and each with its own thread then it might have been interesting. 

But now its basically a 2 core with 2 extra half cores.



Imo if FX8350 was made with this approach > 8 modules, each with its own thread then it would own, no doubt about that.


----------



## dj-electric (Jan 30, 2013)

steamroller should kinda "fix" that.


----------



## tokyoduong (Jan 30, 2013)

_Zod_ said:


> So this is a FX-4300 with a GPU on die for less money basically. A direct competitor to a I3 for less money.
> 
> We need some direct tests against the I3 to see what the deal is. Where this chip will lose imo is power consumption and only best case match a I3 in single threaded processing.
> 
> It should best the I3 in multithreaded processing, graphics power and price+features of the whole system. (AMD motherboards are generally more feature packed than Intel boards at the low end.)



it has no gpu
it will lose to i3 in single thread 
it will beat i3 in multithread
it should be a cheaper platform
it will consume more power

Just look at the FX 4300 vs i3. It's almost exactly the same.


----------



## etayorius (Jan 30, 2013)

Exact same Cooler i got with my PhenomII x4 965.


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 30, 2013)

Dat power consumption


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 30, 2013)

2 Modules, 4 cores (2 in each module, sharing certain resources) versus Hyper Threading which is just 2 cores.



TheHunter said:


> If they made it with 4 piledriver modules and each with its own thread then it might have been interesting.
> 
> But now its basically a 2 core with 2 extra half cores.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ralfies (Jan 30, 2013)

So an FX-4300 with 100MHz less turbo frequency? What's the point? They should have just lowered the price of the FX-4300. Surely all of these chips are capable of the extra 100MHz to make them 4300's. What am I missing?


----------



## _Zod_ (Jan 31, 2013)

tokyoduong said:


> *it has no gpu*
> it will lose to i3 in single thread
> it will beat i3 in multithread
> it should be a cheaper platform
> ...



For some reason I thought it was a socket FM2, well that makes this thing completely pointless then.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 31, 2013)

Ralfies said:


> So an FX-4300 with 100MHz less turbo frequency? What's the point? They should have just lowered the price of the FX-4300. Surely all of these chips are capable of the extra 100MHz to make them 4300's. What am I missing?



Probably OEM grade crap chips that don't OC and have bad leakage.


----------



## Ralfies (Jan 31, 2013)

TheGuruStud said:


> Probably OEM grade crap chips that don't OC and have bad leakage.



Yeah, I checked it out and the TDP is 30 watts higher than the FX-4300. It's too bad, a 4300 at this price would be a real winner, but I'm not so sure about this chip.

Side note: Newegg has it listed as Zambezi - AMD FX-4130 Zambezi 3.8GHz Socket AM3+ Quad-Core D...


----------



## okidna (Jan 31, 2013)

Ralfies said:


> Side note: Newegg has it listed as Zambezi - AMD FX-4130 Zambezi 3.8GHz Socket AM3+ Quad-Core D...



That's the "old" Zambezi based 4130 : http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-4130.html


----------



## xorbe (Jan 31, 2013)

They reused the exact same model name?!  I guess it is oem fodder.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 31, 2013)

xorbe said:


> They reused the exact same model name?!  I guess it is oem fodder.



 Look at the OPN and Stepping Code dude before passing judgement. The BD units are already being replaced with the PD units.


----------



## TheHunter (Jan 31, 2013)

eidairaman1 said:


> 2 Modules, 4 cores (2 in each module, sharing certain resources) versus Hyper Threading which is just 2 cores.



You dont say 

Yes i know that very well, besides AMD approach is still not a full core, more like 0.75 vs hyper threading 0.3-0.4.

I found some diagram once, let me dig it up


edit: found it


----------



## NeoXF (Jan 31, 2013)

jihadjoe said:


> Why 4130? Why not 4310?



What I was about to say... I mean, this IS Vishera isn't it? Why would AMD name their products short? This is like the reverse of rebranding...


Also, here's a proper bench for the gaming interested...






AMD IS a good buy, better than Intel in a lot of cases, remember they overclock too, only big drawback I see is the power consumption, not that it's horrible, but that Intel's is just so good.


----------



## DerekStorm (Jan 31, 2013)

NC37 said:


> Yeah, the Piledriver quads are just poor. FM2s wouldn't help since they lose the L3 entirely. These might beat an i3 in multithreaded but thats it. If your going quad at that price...old AthlonIIs or Phenoms would likely be better.



L3 is of no value to the type of workload such setups would do. And old Athlons and Phenoms can be had in some places, that is more dependent on where you live and how spoiled the people are there.



cdawall said:


> You can build an AM3+ build for the same price as an FM2 build. FX4130 will be faster than the 750K so the point is mute. Also gains the ability to swap for an 83X0 chip at any point in time.



Same as I said above... where I'm from with a 750K and a HD6450 overtake the 4300 alone in price, add to that the savings on FM2 mainboard. I know, I've seen some sales Americans have, packed builds for cheap, but those are rare and inaccessible to everyone. BTW, it's moot, not mute! And the 4300 is marginally faster than a 750K due to higher stock clock. Both are unlocked, thus for none does the stock clock matter.

Looking at NeoXF's posted chart, the 750K is based on the 5800K... nothing wrong in beating the 4300.

As for AM3+ longevity, no one can vouch for it, the same way no one can know how fast FM2 will be replaced. They might live long, and just as well they might not, as mainboard manufacturers like to screw with clients. As an example they don't like to update stock BIOS on old releases (i.e. 800 series AM3+ chipsets) and this makes people scream when they put in a BD or PD chip and the setup doesn't start.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 31, 2013)

NeoXF said:


> What I was about to say... I mean, this IS Vishera isn't it? Why would AMD name their products short? This is like the reverse of rebranding...
> 
> 
> Also, here's a proper bench for the gaming interested...
> ...



Calling it FX-4310 wouldn't make sense because it is weaker than the FX-4300.  I would have gone with FX-4295.

But my guess is that they didn't want people thinking the two were so close, so the FX-4130 sales don't start cutting into the FX-4300 sales.  Yes, anyone that does some research will see that buying the FX-4300 over the FX-4130 is pointless because the two are almost identical except for 100MHz in boost clock.  But a normal consumer will see FX-4130 and FX-4300 and think the FX-4300 is significantly better.


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 31, 2013)

tokyoduong said:


> it has no gpu


Neither does a i3 3220 in practice


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 31, 2013)

Casecutter said:


> Neither does a i3 3220 in practice


----------



## Ralfies (Feb 1, 2013)

okidna said:


> That's the "old" Zambezi based 4130 : http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-4130.html



That's just downright confusing! Why wouldn't AMD want to differentiate this from the older/suckier Zambezi chip? Marketing just doesn't make sense to me...


----------



## symmetrical (Feb 1, 2013)

Tom's Hardware just updated, it's not a new processor. It's the same 4130 but price dropped to $101

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Vishera-Piledriver-FX-4130,20799.html


----------



## Cataclysm_ZA (Feb 1, 2013)

I've actually been wondering how long it would take until someone else would catch on that this is still a Zambezi chip, not Vishera. Its ridiculous to think that a quad-core Piledriver would have a TDP of 125W when the FX-4300 has a 95W TDP. 

Sadly, other publications on the internet that I've contacted refuse to change the article to reflect that this is a price drop, not a new processor release. The FX-4130 has been around since late August last year.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 1, 2013)

if you truly want to know the difference between chips check the effin OPN and Stepping


----------



## micropage7 (Feb 1, 2013)

come on, i wait for power and performance ratio
200 watts? too bad..


----------



## tacosRcool (Feb 1, 2013)

The name is very misleading since its Piledriver vs Bulldozer


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 1, 2013)

If AMD was smart (and could scrounge up the money,) moving their CPUs to a smaller process would help with the power consumption issue and at the same time will improve clock speeds and performance. I feel AMD is just beating around the bush every time they release another 32nm chip.


----------



## Norton (Feb 1, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> If AMD was smart (and could scrounge up the money,) moving their CPUs to a smaller process would help with the power consumption issue and at the same time will improve clock speeds and performance. I feel AMD is just beating around the bush every time they release another 32nm chip.



iirc AMD is bringing their CPU's down to 28nm to match the GPU side first in order to utilize a common process. The upcoming generation of APU's should be this way.

After that? Who knows....


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2013)

micropage7 said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=49899&stc=1&d=1359712065
> come on, i wait for power and performance ratio
> 200 watts? too bad..



That is entire system power draw, not just the processor.



Cataclysm_ZA said:


> I've actually been wondering how long it would take until someone else would catch on that this is still a Zambezi chip, not Vishera. Its ridiculous to think that a quad-core Piledriver would have a TDP of 125W when the FX-4300 has a 95W TDP.
> 
> Sadly, other publications on the internet that I've contacted refuse to change the article to reflect that this is a price drop, not a new processor release. The FX-4130 has been around since late August last year.



It is probably going to take a pretty long while since this isn't a Zambezi chip.  The Zambezi FX-4130 has an OPN of FD4130*FRGU*BOX, the new Vishera FX-4130's OPN is FD4130*WMHK*BOX.

What I find odd is that AMD is acting like the Zambezi FX-4130 never existed.  They are comparing the new FX-4130 to the FX-4100.  I'm guessing that is because if they compared it to the old FX-4130 the improvements would be non-existent...


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 1, 2013)

micropage7 said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=49899&stc=1&d=1359712065
> come on, i wait for power and performance ratio
> 200 watts? too bad..



I think there is other information we need before this graph really means much of anything. What about the rest of the platform? As far as we know the platform isn't consistant between CPUs.

Also, people bash AMD because they consume they "consume a lot of power," but you know AMD processors release less of its total consumed power as heat as opposed to Intel. So an Intel chip with the same power draw as an AMD CPU will release more of that energy as heat. Just some food for thought. I suspect this is a SOI vs HKMG difference.


----------



## Cataclysm_ZA (Feb 2, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> It is probably going to take a pretty long while since this isn't a Zambezi chip.  The Zambezi FX-4130 has an OPN of FD4130*FRGU*BOX, the new Vishera FX-4130's OPN is FD4130*WMHK*BOX.



Have you taken into account that the change in the OPN numbers could be because they're shipping a different cooler in the box? Because that's all that's really changed, in addition to the price drop. 



newtekie1 said:


> What I find odd is that AMD is acting like the Zambezi FX-4130 never existed.  They are comparing the new FX-4130 to the FX-4100.  I'm guessing that is because if they compared it to the old FX-4130 the improvements would be non-existent...



Still doesn't make sense, AMD would never release a chip from the Vishera family to market with the same naming convention as Bulldozer - their entire philosophy now is simplifying their chip lineup, not expanding it to the absurdity that we see with Intel.  The FX-4300 starts off with the same default clocks and a higher boost speed but consumes less power and produces less heat - that's a Piledriver chip, unlike the FX-4130 which was released *last year*.


----------

