Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Overclocking an AMD FX-6100

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
December 7, 2011 2:05:26 AM

Hey guys,

I took the plunge and bought an AMD FX-6100 CPU and a Gigabyte 990FX UD3 motherboard with the intention of hitting 4.5-4.75 Ghz on the CPU.

I have Kingston HyperX DDR3 1333 RAM (16gb) and 2x 4870 GPUs. The CPU is cooled by a Xigmatek Dark Knight cooler. I have it wrapped in a Thermaltake V5 case (Don't judge me, it was cheap) powered by a Thermaltake TR2 650 watt PSU.

Basically, I want to overclock the CPU in the BIOS, but, though I have been building PCs for years, this is my first foray into the world of manual overclocking. I would like to know what MOBO features to disable/enable, as well as a good method for determining voltage. I've scouted around for guides, but I really couldn't find any good ones, especially for this CPU/MOBO.

-Any- help would be greatly appreciated :) 

Thanks a lot!

More about : overclocking amd 6100

a b À AMD
a b K Overclocking
a c 82 à CPUs
December 7, 2011 8:56:37 AM

step 1 - sell fx6100
step 2 - buy Phenom II 1090t and OC to 3.8 - 4ghz
you now have a faster cpu with lower power consumption than a fx6100@4.5ghz.
m
0
l
December 7, 2011 9:48:18 AM

^ lol sad but true
m
0
l
Related resources
December 7, 2011 12:08:25 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
step 1 - sell fx6100
step 2 - buy Phenom II 1090t and OC to 3.8 - 4ghz
you now have a faster cpu with lower power consumption than a fx6100@4.5ghz.



+10000
m
0
l
December 8, 2011 6:55:25 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
step 1 - sell fx6100
step 2 - buy Phenom II 1090t and OC to 3.8 - 4ghz
you now have a faster cpu with lower power consumption than a fx6100@4.5ghz.


how do you figured that the Phenom II 1090T or 1100T is a lower power consumption? both of those CPUs are 145W where the FX 6100 is 95W. Not to mention at stock speeds and properly threaded apps the FX 6100 is blowing the Phenom IIs away. Do your research before trying to make yourself seem like you know what you're doing.
m
0
l
December 8, 2011 8:59:59 AM

Matrikz said:
how do you figured that the Phenom II 1090T or 1100T is a lower power consumption? both of those CPUs are 145W where the FX 6100 is 95W. Not to mention at stock speeds and properly threaded apps the FX 6100 is blowing the Phenom IIs away. Do your research before trying to make yourself seem like you know what you're doing.



The Phenom II 1090T and 1100T are way better than the FX 6100 ..... you should know better before asking people to do their research.....

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...
m
0
l
December 8, 2011 12:07:37 PM

Matrikz said:
how do you figured that the Phenom II 1090T or 1100T is a lower power consumption? both of those CPUs are 145W where the FX 6100 is 95W. Not to mention at stock speeds and properly threaded apps the FX 6100 is blowing the Phenom IIs away. Do your research before trying to make yourself seem like you know what you're doing.



-100000
m
0
l
December 8, 2011 3:27:44 PM

I do know ggman, I have the FX 6100 and Phenom II 1100T, in games and properly threaded apps the FX 6100 is blowing my 1100T out of the water, again I'll say this... do your research on these things before posting and making yourselves look like idiots
m
0
l

Best solution

a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2011 4:58:00 PM

Matrikz said:
I do know ggman, I have the FX 6100 and Phenom II 1100T, in games and properly threaded apps the FX 6100 is blowing my 1100T out of the water, again I'll say this... do your research on these things before posting and making yourselves look like idiots

too many people around think that any time someone builds a computer, its for gaming and only gaming

As for overclocking the chip

http://forums.tweaktown.com/gigabyte/46237-bulldozer-ov...
Share
December 15, 2011 12:34:18 AM

Best answer selected by claec.
m
0
l
December 15, 2011 12:36:34 AM

Excellent. That guide is perfect. As to the FX-6100 vs. the Phenom x6... Because of combos and promos, the FX-6100 was about $50 cheaper. Also, I have faith that Windows 8 will fix some of the woes of the FX series :)  Possibly misplaced faith, but who knows. Its treated me well thus far, and I don't regret it. :) 
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b K Overclocking
a c 82 à CPUs
December 15, 2011 7:08:47 PM

Matrikz said:
I do know ggman, I have the FX 6100 and Phenom II 1100T, in games and properly threaded apps the FX 6100 is blowing my 1100T out of the water, again I'll say this... do your research on these things before posting and making yourselves look like idiots

dude, even in the most threaded apps the 8 core bulldozer cant keep up with an 1100T, it can barely beat the quad core in many things. Can you please show in which application and what difference you are seeing between both chips at their stock frequencies, because i simply do not believe you, all the data does not back up your story. And I don't want to see an OC'd 6100 compared to a stock 1100t, everyone knows the 1100t can be OC'd quite well. And windows 8 wont fix it, the fx cores just dont have the raw FPU power to process any more that what they are doing now.
m
0
l
December 15, 2011 7:56:19 PM

iam2thecrowe it's called google, there are a TON of benchmarks out there showing how well the FX Bulldozers are doing... try using it
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b K Overclocking
a c 82 à CPUs
December 15, 2011 11:58:11 PM

Matrikz said:
iam2thecrowe it's called google, there are a TON of benchmarks out there showing how well the FX Bulldozers are doing... try using it

all the benchmarks from reputable sources say the opposite, and most people know this that arent amd fanboys. the fx cpu's are slower than equivelant Phenom II cpu's and a hell of a lot slower than equivelant priced intel cpu's. heres jsut the first few reviews from google, maybe you skipped these, but there are plenty more with same conclusion:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx...
conclusion - "Whether or not we’re correct about Bulldozer really being a server and workstation CPU, it’s terribly unsuited to the kinds of software we’re currently using on consumer PCs. This software is still heavily reliant on single-thread performance, and the FX-8150 just doesn’t have that. As such it’s woefully slow in a range of everyday applications.

Worse still, it merely had mediocre performance in well-threaded desktop applications that should have played to the more parallel design of the CPU."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...
conclusion - "Ironically, consistent, scalable performance is one of the attributes that AMD claims it gets from its Bulldozer module. The issue we see over and over, though, is that it relies on software able to exploit scalability in order to compete. When it doesn’t get what it wants, performance steps back relative to the previous generation."

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8150/13.h...
conclusion - "Running the FX-8150 at 3.2GHz (1866MHz memory) with two cores disabled against a 1090T at 3.2GHz (1600Mhz memory) for a direct six-on-six core processor comparison, the FX-8150 ran roughly 10% (at least) slower, based on our benchmarks."

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-rev...
"You have been able to see that the FX 8150 mostly is competing with the Core i5 2500 (which costs 180 EUR by the way). Once multithreading kicks in well, performance quickly rises and you'll see Core i7 2600 (260 EUR) performance. Surprisingly enough, even the Phenom II X6 1100T (170 EUR) stands ground and is mostly on par with the FX 8150 a lot of the time, that complicates things even more. So where do we need to position the FX 8150 then? I mean, this is supposed to be AMD's fastest processor."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review...
conclusion - "Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform. To make matters worse, in some heavily threaded applications the improvement over the previous generation Phenom II X6 simply isn't enough to justify an upgrade for existing AM3+ platform owners. AMD has released a part that is generally more competitive than its predecessor, but not consistently so. AMD also makes you choose between good single or good multithreaded performance, a tradeoff that we honestly shouldn't have to make in the era of power gating and turbo cores."

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-C...
this conclusion sums it up best - "We can summarise the AMD FX-8150 in one word: "disappointment""

now given these are not all specifically fx6100 reviews, its pretty clear that if the 1100t is faster than an 8 core bulldozer in the majority of situations, its also faster than the 6 core bulldozer. please don't bother to argue your point any longer, its simply not valid and is only a biased opinion. Good day.
m
0
l
December 16, 2011 1:52:34 AM

and if you notice in just about all of those quotes there, everything they're using to test is single threaded meaning the FX cpus which is a multi threaded cpu will not perform well....
m
0
l
December 16, 2011 1:55:07 AM

noob2222 said:
too many people around think that any time someone builds a computer, its for gaming and only gaming

As for overclocking the chip

http://forums.tweaktown.com/gigabyte/46237-bulldozer-ov...


noob you might want to read what I said a few times... I didn't not say that it was strictly a gaming computer, I said about properly threaded apps as well
m
0
l
December 16, 2011 3:44:57 AM

Matrikz is a troll. (noone can be THAT wrong...)
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b K Overclocking
a c 82 à CPUs
December 16, 2011 4:14:51 AM

Matrikz said:
and if you notice in just about all of those quotes there, everything they're using to test is single threaded meaning the FX cpus which is a multi threaded cpu will not perform well....

your right, they do perform well in well threaded apps, the few of them that are available, but as i said, the 1100t 6 core equals or bests the fx 8 core, let alone the 6 core even in threaded apps, your just too ignorant to see that. if you read any review you would see that is the case.
m
0
l
December 16, 2011 7:38:53 PM

I'm a troll for doing my homework and OWNING BOTH processors? you kids really need to get on some reputable sites and do your research well before trying to sound like you know what you're doing
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b K Overclocking
a c 82 à CPUs
December 17, 2011 5:14:43 AM

Matrikz said:
I'm a troll for doing my homework and OWNING BOTH processors? you kids really need to get on some reputable sites and do your research well before trying to sound like you know what you're doing

are you blind? i just posted a bunch of reputable sites all showing that the fx6100, and even the fx8150 is slower than the 1100t in most applications. You are in fact posting on one of the sites showing the poor performance of the FX cpu's. you have failed to produce one ounce of proof showing otherwise. I'm sorry if you feel bad that you "upgraded" to a slower processor and wasted your money, but please stop trying to make people believe the fx processors are something they are not, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to say otherwise. If you own both cpu's, please post a valid comparison of them at their stock speeds that shows the fx6100 doing a better job. not just "it feels faster" crap, im talking factual evidence. you can't because its just not there unless you fudge the results. Im really over trying to set people strait about the true performance of these FX cpu's. Enjoy your trolling.
m
0
l
December 17, 2011 11:56:42 AM

and any Intel FANBOY would only point out the benchmarks that show AMD not performing well
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b K Overclocking
a c 82 à CPUs
December 18, 2011 6:48:27 PM

Matrikz said:
and any Intel FANBOY would only point out the benchmarks that show AMD not performing well

i have an AMD video card and have only had AMD cpu's (k6-2, duron, athlon, athlonxp, athlon64) up until intel released the core 2 architecture, so no, im not an intel fanboy, i just buy the best processor out for the money i have at the time. The reason all the benches show amd not performing well is because it doesn't perform very well. i know there are about 2 reviewers out of 50 that show the amd cpu's performing better, but 2/50 is a very low percentage and suggests that they are botched reviews. So no, I'm not a fanboy, i just dont like people getting misinformation and buying a crap product based on lies.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2011 12:36:44 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
i have an AMD video card and have only had AMD cpu's (k6-2, duron, athlon, athlonxp, athlon64) up until intel released the core 2 architecture, so no, im not an intel fanboy, i just buy the best processor out for the money i have at the time. The reason all the benches show amd not performing well is because it doesn't perform very well. i know there are about 2 reviewers out of 50 that show the amd cpu's performing better, but 2/50 is a very low percentage and suggests that they are botched reviews. So no, I'm not a fanboy, i just dont like people getting misinformation and buying a crap product based on lies.

and you follow aournd any bulldozer thread and try to convince everyone they are idiots for using the cpu for software that it runs faster on.



So if your going to be running wprime, Cinebench on 1 cpu, or lame encoding, ya the 1100T is a better option.

If your encoding x264, using winrar, or 3dmark11, BD is a better option

all other cases its pretty much a tie.

Why are the review conclusions a fail? because they don't know what else to say, so please the Intel crowd instead of sticking with the facts. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT. period.

m
0
l
December 19, 2011 1:24:59 AM

I'd take a i3-2100 over a BD.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b K Overclocking
a c 82 à CPUs
December 19, 2011 7:42:36 AM

noob2222 said:
and you follow aournd any bulldozer thread and try to convince everyone they are idiots for using the cpu for software that it runs faster on.

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/reviews/AMD/Bulldozer/AMD_FX-8150-201.jpg

So if your going to be running wprime, Cinebench on 1 cpu, or lame encoding, ya the 1100T is a better option.

If your encoding x264, using winrar, or 3dmark11, BD is a better option

all other cases its pretty much a tie.

Why are the review conclusions a fail? because they don't know what else to say, so please the Intel crowd instead of sticking with the facts. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT. period.

your comparing an 8 core bulldozer with a 6 core phenom......people expected more from 8 cores........and not to mention intel i5 2500k is faster than both and comes with on-chip gfx for those that don't want to use a dedicated card and just need a fast cpu, saving a bit extra cash right there........ bulldozer makes no sense for anyone to purchase right now. period.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2011 1:54:54 PM

This is hilarious. Absolutly hilarious.

You guise are making my day at work fun! Carry on, please Carry on!

I used to be an AMD Fanboy - Then I got Kentsfield - And I still stand by the fact that for some bizzare reason the Kentsfield Architecture is still ahead (in terms of Perf Per Clock) Than the Deneb arch. Which people are now saying is quicker than the Bulldozer arch. So wait...Let me get this straight. Your saying, a hyped up, 2011 Shiny new 8 core is clock for clock slower than a Q6600?

Im definatly a Kentsfield fanboy, I intend to take my Q6600 to the grave. If only this little gem had a capable motherboard to live in, I feel bad for him. The 680i LT is like the council estate of LGA775 mobos xD

But really - Bulldozer was a failure, but an FX6100 or a 8150 CAN reach the 4.8ghz mark - which should put em ahead of a 4.2ghz PII. I really do hope AMD stay in the game though, Intel needs AMD otherwise they strike a monopoly - which unless you have a small idea about business mechanics sounds good (THEY OWN ALL THE MARKET SHARE YAY) the problem is that a Monopoly tends to be Illegal and desperate measures are sometimes taken to fix this...
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
December 20, 2011 7:48:16 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
your comparing an 8 core bulldozer with a 6 core phenom......people expected more from 8 cores........and not to mention intel i5 2500k is faster than both and comes with on-chip gfx for those that don't want to use a dedicated card and just need a fast cpu, saving a bit extra cash right there........ bulldozer makes no sense for anyone to purchase right now. period.

who is?
Quote:
i just posted a bunch of reputable sites all showing that the fx6100, and even the fx8150 is slower than the 1100t in most applications.


Aside from 3ds max and after effects, the PII x6 get blown out of the water on the entire page. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Its also quite competitive to your 2500k god, faster in a lot of cases.

How does that make no sense for anyone?

Trolls and fanboys always change their reasoning as long as it proves their point even when they stated just the opposite.
m
0
l
December 20, 2011 10:43:22 PM

Seriously there's no point trying to tell these fools BD is bad, they are just Trolls. If they knew anything at all they would be aware it's a poor performer, they probably know this and just want to troll.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b K Overclocking
a c 82 à CPUs
December 20, 2011 11:24:17 PM

noob2222 said:
who is?
Quote:
i just posted a bunch of reputable sites all showing that the fx6100, and even the fx8150 is slower than the 1100t in most applications.


Aside from 3ds max and after effects, the PII x6 get blown out of the water on the entire page. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Its also quite competitive to your 2500k god, faster in a lot of cases.

How does that make no sense for anyone?

Trolls and fanboys always change their reasoning as long as it proves their point even when they stated just the opposite.

again, your comparing an 8 core BD cpu to a 6 core PII, would hope it would win some benches, but it also loses just as many. But were not comparing that 8 core BD, were comparing the 6 core fx6100 to the 6 core phenom, and its slower. I give up, there is no point trying to convince stubborn minded people when they can't accept a fact that is right in front of your nose. And i suppose your poo doesn't stink either........
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2011 8:55:03 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
again, your comparing an 8 core BD cpu to a 6 core PII, would hope it would win some benches, but it also loses just as many. But were not comparing that 8 core BD, were comparing the 6 core fx6100 to the 6 core phenom, and its slower. I give up, there is no point trying to convince stubborn minded people when they can't accept a fact that is right in front of your nose. And i suppose your poo doesn't stink either........

Who is?

iam2thecrowe said:
dude, even in the most threaded apps the 8 core bulldozer cant keep up with an 1100T,....

your only talking about the fx-6100

iam2thecrowe said:
.... , its pretty clear that if the 1100t is faster than an 8 core bulldozer in the majority of situations, .....

your only talking about the fx-6100

iam2thecrowe said:
..... but as i said, the 1100t 6 core equals or bests the fx 8 core, ....

your only talking about the fx-6100

iam2thecrowe said:
.... and even the fx8150 is slower than the 1100t in most applications....

your only talking about the fx-6100

iam2thecrowe said:
and not to mention intel i5 2500k is faster than both .... bulldozer makes no sense for anyone to purchase right now. period.

thats right, your only comparing the 6-core

guess what, the only time you didn't use the 8-core in your arguemens was in the first post. Who is trying to compare it to the 8-core cpus? If your not talking about the fx-8150, then don't, its simple as that.
m
0
l
December 21, 2011 2:44:30 PM

benikens said:
Seriously there's no point trying to tell these fools BD is bad, they are just Trolls. If they knew anything at all they would be aware it's a poor performer, they probably know this and just want to troll.


wait we're the trolls for posting in a thread that was meant for someone asking about the AMD FX cpu when all you have been doing is bad mouthing AMD... hmmm I think someone doesn't know the deffinition of the word TROLL
m
0
l
December 21, 2011 3:57:56 PM

I just build 16 Render Nodes - I was comparing BD to Phenoms , When i Did my maths , I figured one thing pretty easily - BD are not worth the investment - I had 2 options either 1100T or 1090T for the amount I further went to buy 1090T as for price and mere difference in performance its a good buy.
Now the whole discussion about FX 6100 vs Phenom X6 , as far as i know AMD went back to redesign the chip and came up with New architecture for Bulldozers! which was only (lets agree) slightly better !
i would not agree to anyone saying FX blows it away - Yes i will agree it is " SLightly " better in "Most" benchmarks . BUT in real life price / performance! Phenom X6 all the way.!

m
0
l
December 21, 2011 5:04:05 PM

ashrafi said:
I just build 16 Render Nodes - I was comparing BD to Phenoms , When i Did my maths , I figured one thing pretty easily - BD are not worth the investment - I had 2 options either 1100T or 1090T for the amount I further went to buy 1090T as for price and mere difference in performance its a good buy.
Now the whole discussion about FX 6100 vs Phenom X6 , as far as i know AMD went back to redesign the chip and came up with New architecture for Bulldozers! which was only (lets agree) slightly better !
i would not agree to anyone saying FX blows it away - Yes i will agree it is " SLightly " better in "Most" benchmarks . BUT in real life price / performance! Phenom X6 all the way.!


real life price to performance that the Phenom II x6 is better? how so when the FX 6100 is less in prices and still outperfroms it even if it is slightly better. If you ask me when something that costs less and still is slightly better the price to performance goes to the product that costs less
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b K Overclocking
a c 83 à CPUs
December 24, 2011 1:21:02 AM

Matrikz said:
real life price to performance that the Phenom II x6 is better? how so when the FX 6100 is less in prices and still outperfroms it even if it is slightly better. If you ask me when something that costs less and still is slightly better the price to performance goes to the product that costs less


FX 6100 is slower than a Phenom II X6 1100T at almost everything.

Reviews that actually cover the FX 6100.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100.html

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1
m
0
l
August 24, 2012 3:28:06 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
your right, they do perform well in well threaded apps, the few of them that are available, but as i said, the 1100t 6 core equals or bests the fx 8 core, let alone the 6 core even in threaded apps, your just too ignorant to see that. if you read any review you would see that is the case.




You might want to shut up about your idiotic opinions about things in which you do not have and have no experience with. 1st off I am for intel, my current rig runs on an intel core i7 3960x, evga gtx 660ti and 16gb DDR3 1600MHZ RAM and i am happy with it. But when my sister asked me to build her a gaming rig in which she could afford i built her a set up built around the AMD FX 6100 black edition with 8gb's of 1333mhz DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTS 450 on a gigabyte mobo. and guess what? regardless what those dumb benchmarks say or show on paper, it is the real life applications and real life experience that matters to the end user. There is nothing that my intel setup can do that my sisters AMD FX 6100 build cant! we both play Skyrim, BF3, COD M/W,D3. play and burn bluray video's, do graphic editing and compress and un-compress file's while burning video's and watching you tube at the same time. The FX 6100 chip in real life almost feels like my intel core i7 3960x, other than boot time 12.7sec difference and photoshop launch 0.8sec difference but for those few second difference i paid $1k and my sister paid $160. now talk about bang for the buck. i think it is your out dated system spec's that's making you feel like new things are slow thinking that your system is still new.
m
0
l
August 25, 2012 12:15:08 AM

you guys keep talking about comparing an 8 core FX 8120/8150 to the 6 core Phenom IIs, I got a little bit of news for you, the FX cpus aren't 4, 6, and 8 cores, the 4xxx series is 2 core 4 threads, the 6xxx series is 3 cores 6 threads, and the 8xxx series is 4 cores 8 threads (that means 2 threads per core)... I'll tell you guys again, do proper research on the products you're trying to bash before you open your mouths
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 8:36:36 AM

Quote:
You might want to shut up about your idiotic opinions


You know what's Idiotic? Raging on a post 8 months to late.
m
0
l
September 28, 2012 12:06:03 PM

I remember when people first did the jump between single to dual core CPU's, at first there was no software based implementation in order to utilize having multiple cores, to my knowledge, there is no OS that can properly juggle more than 4 cores, windows 8 has an advanced scheduler which can juggle more cores, ive been using windows 8 a while now and i must say, the benchmarks look much different, GTAIV/EFLC benchmarks for instance.. battlefield 3 is actually playable at higher detail levels. Have faith that these chips are at the forefront of modern technology.
m
0
l
October 3, 2012 2:59:05 PM

I built a six core bulldozer a few weeks ago, with 2x 4 gb of ddr3 1600mhz ram and a 560gtx, skyrim and mod 3 with settings maxed run a a solid 60fps, with only a drop to 59 using fraps, for a smidge over $600, I'm as happy as a pig in ***. I gave it a tickle to 4.0ghz and IO even rip a disc of CSI Miami and converted to mp4's using Freemake video converter and it only took 30min, and my dvd is a as cheap as your gonna find, it hasn't even got a brand written on it. It may loose most benchmarls, but real world performance it delivers the goods I need and want
m
0
l
October 16, 2012 12:01:54 PM

icedtee84 said:
You might want to shut up about your idiotic opinions about things in which you do not have and have no experience with. 1st off I am for intel, my current rig runs on an intel core i7 3960x, evga gtx 660ti and 16gb DDR3 1600MHZ RAM and i am happy with it. But when my sister asked me to build her a gaming rig in which she could afford i built her a set up built around the AMD FX 6100 black edition with 8gb's of 1333mhz DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTS 450 on a gigabyte mobo. and guess what? regardless what those dumb benchmarks say or show on paper, it is the real life applications and real life experience that matters to the end user. There is nothing that my intel setup can do that my sisters AMD FX 6100 build cant! we both play Skyrim, BF3, COD M/W,D3. play and burn bluray video's, do graphic editing and compress and un-compress file's while burning video's and watching you tube at the same time. The FX 6100 chip in real life almost feels like my intel core i7 3960x, other than boot time 12.7sec difference and photoshop launch 0.8sec difference but for those few second difference i paid $1k and my sister paid $160. now talk about bang for the buck. i think it is your out dated system spec's that's making you feel like new things are slow thinking that your system is still new.



I've read the whole thread and is new to this forum, one thing i noticed is that the intel guys didn't post no more after this msg.. Lol, in my opinion the intel guys started the whole thing lawl, the topic was about overclocking fx-6100, not "forget the 6100 get the 1090T" keep your options to yourself unless otherwise asked for your opinion..

"forget the 6100 get the 1090T" <<< so out of topic, the topic being Overclocking 6100

how can one believe that x6 are better in real life with 6100 when your using a Core 2 Qxxx! Brains please
m
0
l
November 10, 2012 6:38:18 AM

I'm GONNA BUY the FX6100. :D 
m
0
l
December 9, 2012 11:26:25 AM

do not fully trust, 100% trust benchmarks from websites.. companies pay them to do reviews and stuff. one should expect that they'd favor those who sponsor them better or sponsors them the most
m
0
l
June 6, 2013 2:27:06 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossf... < all you need to do is read that and you wont bother with this FX joke of a cpu, and get yourself a phenom II or intel SB.


yea there was a bios update to fix that threading problem now its totally fixed and playing games https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyuDePeHquY then after fix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZnFsLXFIeU. these processors blow phenoms away now. as for the overclocking part yea they blow phenoms away on that note also on the price part yea its the same across the board intel fanboys must of started a different post on an intel user only site or somit or there just hiding it out.
m
0
l
July 13, 2013 7:33:59 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
step 1 - sell fx6100
step 2 - buy Phenom II 1090t and OC to 3.8 - 4ghz
you now have a faster cpu with lower power consumption than a fx6100@4.5ghz.


It's like 5% faster and $350 more expensive. Are you stupid?

m
0
l
July 21, 2013 6:20:46 PM

claec said:
Hey guys,

I took the plunge and bought an AMD FX-6100 CPU and a Gigabyte 990FX UD3 motherboard with the intention of hitting 4.5-4.75 Ghz on the CPU.

I have Kingston HyperX DDR3 1333 RAM (16gb) and 2x 4870 GPUs. The CPU is cooled by a Xigmatek Dark Knight cooler. I have it wrapped in a Thermaltake V5 case (Don't judge me, it was cheap) powered by a Thermaltake TR2 650 watt PSU.

Basically, I want to overclock the CPU in the BIOS, but, though I have been building PCs for years, this is my first foray into the world of manual overclocking. I would like to know what MOBO features to disable/enable, as well as a good method for determining voltage. I've scouted around for guides, but I really couldn't find any good ones, especially for this CPU/MOBO.

-Any- help would be greatly appreciated :) 

Thanks a lot!


m
0
l
July 21, 2013 6:26:51 PM

i have the FX 6100 and i have it over clocked to a steady 4.7ghz and a HT Link of 3055.05 Mhz , i have Kingston HyperX Beast 2133 memory clocked at 2192mhz and the MSI 970A-G46 Mobo with bios update 2.4 and a soon to be Gigabyte GTX 760 oc windforce rv2, right now i have the Sapphire HD 7950 oc/with boost stupid thing wont let me over clock the memory over 1500mhz, and my PSU is a Apower 900 watt
m
0
l
January 28, 2014 5:37:06 AM

I know this thread is old but I'm bored at dinner time at work.
The FX6100 is actually an alright chip for the money regardless of what everyone else is running.
The worst thing about the OP's setup is the 1333mhz memory, the FX will perform a lot better with 1600mhz on tightest timings possible.
4.4ghz would be the overclock I would expect on stock voltage with a decent cooler, to go over 1.4v you will need to crank up the LLC although the chipset will be getting a bit hot then. 1.4v should get between 4.6 & 4.8ghz stable.
The memory settings and Northbridge will greatly affect stability, the highest overclock doesn't always give the best performance.
Although Phenoms work better with most software newer games like Skyrim and Shogun 2 total war seemed to play better (more frames on FRAPS) with the FX chips I've tested.
For 24/7 overclocks you shouldn't need to change too many settings in the bios, every board is different I just go by trial and error.
m
0
l
!