ok I can acquire a brand new in box amd fx 4100 for at the most $75 dollars....to compare against the phen II x6 1045t....I would like to see first hand the difference worth the risk/investment maybe? and heck I can get it for like for probably about $50 cheaper than retail and its still in box and wrap....surely worth the risk right? I know they are getting bad reviews but some people just trend and say what everyone else is saying ya know.....what ya think peeps any intelligent answers or replies are very welcome and appreciated thanx
The 4100 will be better for gaming than the 1045t because it is easier to overclock and you generally don't need 6 cores for gaming.
What a crock of bravo sierra, I highly doubt you would notice the difference; AMD's new CPUS BLOW for gaming. They're awesome for CG work which I do on my other machine but for gaming the 4100 blows IMO
I have a 1065t in my gaming rig which I've OC'd to 4.102ghz @ 1.4875v (had unrelated problems with stability due to RAM which are now fixed)(1065t is OC'd from 2.9ghz)
My 6 cores are awesome. Most games use 2-4 and then two remain fairly idle but managing other tasks. I've not had lag/FPS issues since I OC'd my CPU in most games. (save for some which heavily favour Intel architecture)
In the case he wants to use the old-school method, and OC the 1045t, I pointed out that a 1045t @3.4Ghz/3.8Ghz was slightly faster than an FX@4.4Ghz, (for gaming) but also noted that the 4100 is easier to overclock than the 1045t (with its locked multiplier)
He would indeed see a difference between an overclocked 4100 and a stock 1045t.
I have worked with/overclocked/gamed with both CPU's. I'm relaying my experience with the actual CPU's in question.
The 4100 is easier to overclock than the 1045t
He doesn't need 6 cores for gaming.
A 1045t @3.4/3.8 is slightly faster than a 4100 @4.4Ghz.