Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Fx-4100 vs. 955 p2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 12, 2011 6:39:59 PM

I cureently have a amd rana 445 tri core processor wondering If I should upgrade to the 4100 fx ( this is the quad core model) or just go with the 955. ( Intel is out of the question unless its an i3 2100) Budget is only 130$ already got the am3 motherboard.

More about : 4100 955

a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 7:11:57 PM

the few euro reviews I've seen of the 4100 shows it keeping pace with the 2100, so I'd say go for it, and overclock it
Score
0
Related resources
October 12, 2011 10:42:42 PM

Mastervivi10 said:
ITS A TRAP:lol: 

LoL jk.

OT: In honesty, If its for Gaming i3 2100 is my recommendation.

Here is the Source of my recommendation:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289


Did you see the part where he said he already had an amd mobo?


Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:50:48 PM

Novulux said:
Did you see the part where he said he already had an amd mobo?

Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:55:20 PM

Is the fx-4100 even out yet? Canada only has the 8 and 6 cores. Check reviews to see which is faster before you buy.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 11:18:11 PM

right now, you might as well get the 980 BE if you can find it in your budget; the current FX processors arent as fast as everyone expected. You can also wait for the 2nd run to come out Q1 2012 to see how the 4170@4.1ghz out of the box will perform before you pull the trigger on any upgrade. the 955 is a good chip and you can get a good OC on it, and not really even see that much of a difference at all; im on a 925@3.5, and am waiting to see whats in store for the 4120/4170 to make my next purchase as well.
at any rate either of those two will be an upgrade, but if you are wanting to pull the trigger on a new FX processor, i would def wait for Q1 2012, and if you cant wait, then either chip will do you just fine and have good OCing potential
Score
0
October 13, 2011 5:27:20 AM

Novulux said:
Did you see the part where he said he already had an amd mobo?

Did you see the part where he said "unless its an i3 2100"?
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
October 13, 2011 6:20:59 AM

go with the 955, its cheaper and better.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 7:31:38 AM

think I am going to wait now. Seeing reviews on the 8150 on par with the 2600k now.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 3:51:41 PM

I wouldn't trust that much all the reviews that are right now. Most on them use only Asus Formula V and Nvidia 580. How come most of them use pretty much the same configuration in which, of course, Intel wins?! And even a stranger thing is that the websites that used different configuration AMD wins in more tests. Don't get me wrong most of my pc and laptops have Intel so I like Intel's processors but for me was a bit wierd. I saw test done with ATI card and AMD managed to be between intel 2500 and 2600 or even beat intel.
Now back to your question. My suggestion is to wait a bit for proper reviews of FX 4100 but if you can't wait, go for it. I think FX 4100 is a pretty good processor for this money.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 10:22:21 PM

hefox said:
My suggestion is to wait a bit for proper reviews of FX 4100 but if you can't wait, go for it. I think FX 4100 is a pretty good processor for this money.

Proper review... lol, wow. So a "proper review" of an FX-4100 would pair it up with an AMD graphics card. Not sure why that would effect affect productivity, content creation, and synthetic CPU benchmarks, but okay.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:35:25 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
go with the 955, its cheaper and better.


+1, raise the multiplier from 16 to 18 in BIOS and you get an instant 980 which outperforms the FX- quad in gaming.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 10:37:03 PM

hefox said:
I wouldn't trust that much all the reviews that are right now. Most on them use only Asus Formula V and Nvidia 580. How come most of them use pretty much the same configuration in which, of course, Intel wins?! And even a stranger thing is that the websites that used different configuration AMD wins in more tests. Don't get me wrong most of my pc and laptops have Intel so I like Intel's processors but for me was a bit wierd. I saw test done with ATI card and AMD managed to be between intel 2500 and 2600 or even beat intel.
Now back to your question. My suggestion is to wait a bit for proper reviews of FX 4100 but if you can't wait, go for it. I think FX 4100 is a pretty good processor for this money.


care to link one of these reviews by an independent third party or is this one of AMD's reviews on a synthetic benchmark?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:08:04 PM

many reviews said something true, that bulldozer should be reviewed as a platform not the cpu itself, 50% of the reviews i read about the fx-8150 said it was good, and the other half said it was bad, i dont think AMD would launch a cpu without testing it first and knowing it is going to be better, i dont think they would launch a cpu that is slower than the current line up. They should make a review with an AMD platform, thats what their marketing is saying, that it works better as a platform.
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 1:46:39 AM

dragonsqrrl said:
Proper review... lol, wow. So a "proper review" of an FX-4100 would pair it up with an AMD graphics card. Not sure why that would effect productivity, content creation, and synthetic CPU benchmarks, but okay.

That's affect not effect.

Anyway, the reviews of the 3.6GHz FX-4100 quad core I have seen show it to perform at the level of the 980BE in the absolutely best case ALU performance:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...

This makes sense that it would be the best case scenario based on how AMD was talking about ALU performance being extremely important.

However, in most other tests, it performs at worst only as good as a 2.6GHz phenom II and consistently underperformed the 3.0GHz Athlon IIx4.

Let's explore overclocking. I've only seen the 8150 being overclocked online. Between 4.4-5.2GHz. Apparently it also heats up like a pentium 4 bitch.

Let's say you can get this thing to 5.2GHz and get a phenom II to 4GHz. Mathematically, the P-II wins in performance at 4GHz vs a 5.2GHz FX-4.

So... get a phenom II 9xx processor model. BE if you want to overclock.

Edit: So AMD released an awesome processor to retail just prior to the FX launch:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
The 960T:
-Has turbo
-is BE
-has two locked cores that will serve you well if you get lucky and they are stable at the frequencies you want.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 2:36:35 AM

enzo matrix said:
That's affect not effect.

Thanks for seeing that, corrected.
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:56:23 AM

dragonsqrrl said:
Thanks for seeing that, corrected.

Thanks for not taking offence :p  . I have a horrible tick when it comes to affect and effect.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 4:25:54 AM

enzo matrix said:
That's affect not effect.

Anyway, the reviews of the 3.6GHz FX-4100 quad core I have seen show it to perform at the level of the 980BE in the absolutely best case ALU performance:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...

This makes sense that it would be the best case scenario based on how AMD was talking about ALU performance being extremely important.

However, in most other tests, it performs at worst only as good as a 2.6GHz phenom II and consistently underperformed the 3.0GHz Athlon IIx4.

Let's explore overclocking. I've only seen the 8150 being overclocked online. Between 4.4-5.2GHz. Apparently it also heats up like a pentium 4 bitch.

Let's say you can get this thing to 5.2GHz and get a phenom II to 4GHz. Mathematically, the P-II wins in performance at 4GHz vs a 5.2GHz FX-4.

So... get a phenom II 9xx processor model. BE if you want to overclock.

Edit: So AMD released an awesome processor to retail just prior to the FX launch:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
The 960T:
-Has turbo
-is BE
-has two locked cores that will serve you well if you get lucky and they are stable at the frequencies you want.


The 980 costs 169.99 the fx-4100 costs 129.99. If I can get the same performance should I save the extra 40$
Score
0
October 14, 2011 5:26:18 AM

The 4100 is mostly worse than an Athlon II X4...
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 5:35:23 AM

enzo matrix said:

Edit: So AMD released an awesome processor to retail just prior to the FX launch:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
The 960T:
-Has turbo
-is BE
-has two locked cores that will serve you well if you get lucky and they are stable at the frequencies you want.

lmao, that funny. they release bulldozer and a new phenom.
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 5:53:15 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
its less than a phenom 980, i would hardly call that fine. I would call it, worse than the old model.


Actually it matches the the Phenom 980 at high resolutions in Crysis 2 . Its only ONE frame per second behind the i7 2600k.
and In the Farcry 2 test both exceed 60 fps which is what a monitor will run at anyway

Since it costs way less I'd have to say thats WAY better than the Phenom
Share
October 14, 2011 7:04:04 AM

Best answer selected by Dyjon54.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 7:04:37 AM

Thanks Outlander saving me some money that can be used for better parts!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:16:55 AM

Dyjon54 said:
Thanks Outlander saving me some money that can be used for better parts!



Thats exactly the issue . The i7 2600k costs nearly $200 more and for that $200 you get ONE fps on a 1080p monitor

Spend that $200 on a better graphics card and you get a massive gaming improvement .
Im going to use the 4100 for my next build
Score
0
October 14, 2011 7:29:19 AM

Outlander_04 said:
Actually it matches the the Phenom 980 at high resolutions in Crysis 2 . Its only ONE frame per second behind the i7 2600k.
and In the Farcry 2 test both exceed 60 fps which is what a monitor will run at anyway

Since it costs way less I'd have to say thats WAY better than the Phenom

And it under performs its price range in practically everything else. I guess that's fine if all you do with your system is play certain GPU bottlenecked games, or if you buy into the argument that no one could possibly need any more performance then what AMD currently provides.

I honestly don't understand how any impartial reader could recommend this processor at its current price. It offers very few advantages over other similarly priced offerings, and many, many disadvantages. It's still prone to the same erratic performance as the rest of the FX lineup, it lacks the principle strength of the Bulldozer architecture (wide highly threaded execution), its turbo core is cut back, a feature the Bulldozer architecture desperately needs to offset its abysmal single and lightly threaded performance (a result of decreased IPC and performance per clock). And if it's anything like the FX-8150, it probably consumes more power at load then its 45nm predecessors.

Sorry, but if you want performance in Crysis 2 and Far Cry 2 (or games in general), spend an extra $10 and get an i3-2100.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:38:48 AM

dragonsqrrl said:
And it under performs its price range in practically everything else. I guess that's fine if all you do with your system is play certain GPU bottlenecked games, or if you buy into the argument that no one could possibly need any more performance then what AMD currently provides.

I honestly don't understand how any impartial reader could recommend this processor at its current price. It offers very few advantages over other similarly priced offerings, and many, many disadvantages. It's still prone to the same erratic performance as the rest of the FX lineup, it lacks the principle strength of the Bulldozer architecture (wide highly threaded execution), its turbo core is cut back, a feature the Bulldozer architecture desperately needs to offset its abysmal single and lightly threaded performance (a result of decreased IPC and performance per clock). And if it's anything like the FX-8150, it probably consumes more power at load then its 45nm predecessors.

Sorry, but if you want performance in Crysis 2 and Far Cry 2 (or games in general), spend an extra $10 and get an i3-2100.


really?

Where did you see the benchmark run off between the i3 2100 and the FX 4100

Score
0
October 14, 2011 7:59:24 AM

would not be an extra 10$ seeing as I don't have an Intel motherboard.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 8:08:38 AM

@Dragonsqrrl
Just because people don't have the same opinion like you, doesn't mean they are wrong. Is it so hard to understand that he doesn't want to change his motherboard and he only wants to upgrade his cpu? What I meant with "proper reviews" is reviews that actually test the cpu and not try to show how great the Intel cpus are. Most of the websites test only 8150 and not 4100. Before telling us how horrible 4100 is, we should wait for some reviews first.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 8:21:49 AM

Outlander_04 said:
really?

Where did you see the benchmark run off between the i3 2100 and the FX 4100

It really isn't too difficult to extrapolate based on the other processors in the benchmark. Do you really need confirmation from a direct comparison in order to come to the conclusion that an i3-2100 would probably outperform an FX-4100 (especially in those particular benchmarks)?

really?

... actually you know what, if you really want to convince yourself otherwise, then have at it. I'm just worried the advice you're giving Dyjon54 isn't entirely accurate.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 8:25:58 AM

Dyjon54 said:
would not be an extra 10$ seeing as I don't have an Intel motherboard.

Sorry, based on your first post I thought you were actually legitimately considering the i3-2100 as a possible option.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 11:36:09 AM

dragonsqrrl said:
It really isn't too difficult to extrapolate based on the other processors in the benchmark. Do you really need confirmation from a direct comparison in order to come to the conclusion that an i3-2100 would probably outperform an FX-4100 (especially in those particular benchmarks)?

really?

... actually you know what, if you really want to convince yourself otherwise, then have at it. I'm just worried the advice you're giving Dyjon54 isn't entirely accurate.



I've read time and time again on these messageboards for the last 6 months that the i3 2100 is so fabulous that there is no point building a system with an AMD processor even if you have a severely restricted budget .

It turns out all the people saying that were fanboys with no real knowledge . When Toms got around to the latest $500 system builder marathon computer it turned out that the Phenom 955 kicked sand in the face of the puny i3 2100 in every benchmark except gaming . And then since the Phenom can be over clocked and the i3 cant the Phenom kicked its butt there too .

So extrapolate all you want .
But I would settle for benchmarks, thanks

and why even suggest he buys a new mb and processor , and probably copy of windows just so he can own an intel? Thats actually REALLY stupid
Score
0
a c 108 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 2:51:33 PM

Dyjon54 said:
I cureently have a amd rana 445 tri core processor wondering If I should upgrade to the 4100 fx ( this is the quad core model) or just go with the 955. ( Intel is out of the question unless its an i3 2100) Budget is only 130$ already got the am3 motherboard.


AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition Deneb 3.5GHz: $130


Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:03:40 PM

Outlander_04 said:
I've read time and time again on these messageboards for the last 6 months that the i3 2100 is so fabulous that there is no point building a system with an AMD processor even if you have a severely restricted budget .

It turns out all the people saying that were fanboys with no real knowledge . When Toms got around to the latest $500 system builder marathon computer it turned out that the Phenom 955 kicked sand in the face of the puny i3 2100 in every benchmark except gaming . And then since the Phenom can be over clocked and the i3 cant the Phenom kicked its butt there too .

So extrapolate all you want .
But I would settle for benchmarks, thanks

and why even suggest he buys a new mb and processor , and probably copy of windows just so he can own an intel? Thats actually REALLY stupid


i would not call the intel i3-2100 puny, you sound like the intel fan boys with no real knowledge. I have a phenom II x4 OC and I would say it's a push compared to the intel i3-2100 and I've yet to see any gaming benchmark where an oc phenom II x4 loses bad to the i3-2100 or kicks its butt.
Score
0
October 14, 2011 10:40:52 PM

Outlander_04 said:
I've read time and time again on these messageboards for the last 6 months that the i3 2100 is so fabulous that there is no point building a system with an AMD processor even if you have a severely restricted budget .

It turns out all the people saying that were fanboys with no real knowledge . When Toms got around to the latest $500 system builder marathon computer it turned out that the Phenom 955 kicked sand in the face of the puny i3 2100 in every benchmark except gaming . And then since the Phenom can be over clocked and the i3 cant the Phenom kicked its butt there too .

So extrapolate all you want .
But I would settle for benchmarks, thanks

and why even suggest he buys a new mb and processor , and probably copy of windows just so he can own an intel? Thats actually REALLY stupid

It's amazing how you're able to switch up your argument so many times over the course of a single thread.

But you "would settle for benchmarks"?... Dude, honestly why don't you stop putting up the act (you're really terrible at it) and just come out and admit to being an epic AMD fanboy. You're going for the FX-4100 yourself, while recommending it to others on brand name alone, nothing more. So the original basis of your argument was a single favorable gaming benchmark, largely an abnormality amongst an abundance of evidence clearly disfavoring the FX-4100, while indirectly implying that it would therefore perform well in most other games (pseudo extrapolation). To which I responded, if that's the case why not get an i3-2100 which has already proven itself an excellent gaming value, and would almost certainly provide superior gaming performance for a similar price. You then argue that the x4 955 would provide better all around performance both in and outside of games, implying that the i3-2100 provides limited value by comparison. The irony in this apparent switch up in your reasoning is that limited value (amongst many other issues) was my very criticism of the FX-4100, which you originally favored on the basis of gaming value alone...

It's also interesting to note that the benchmark you point out also happens to clearly favor Intel's architecture.

You block out a wide range of issues surrounding the FX-4100 and concentrate on a single very limited affirmation of value, playing down the significance of better all around performance, while later arguing the exact opposite... Is this kind of how you were able to ignore all the points I made in my previous comment, and concentrate your following responses exclusively on the last sentence, which served only as a counter argument to your own? Dude, you're a joke. Why don't you just be honest with yourself?

So like I said before, if you really want to convince yourself otherwise, if you really want to buy the FX-4100 for brand loyalty (despite having superior options from both AMD and Intel), then go for it. There really isn't anything wrong with that. Just stop trying to look impartial by attempting to argue your way out of it, your reasoning is less consistent then Bulldozers performance.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 11:11:30 PM

dragonsqrrl said:
It's amazing how you're able to switch up your argument so many times over the course of a single thread.

But you "would settle for benchmarks"?... Dude, honestly why don't you stop putting up the act (you're really terrible at it) and just come out and admit to being an epic AMD fanboy.



There are four desktops in this house . Three , including my gaming computer, have intel cpu's . The other has a Phenom quad
[EDIT : 5 there's an old Dell with a pentium 4 as well I forgot to mention ]

There are four laptops . Three have intel processors . They're all a year or two old so the Fusion APU in the fourth one spanks them

I tend to build computers for my self when I need too , and I build using the best bang for buck components . It has worked out for a while that its been an intel system followed by an AMD system . Last time I got an intel because my $50 cpu cooler fitted it .

But if you want an example of brainless fanboyism then try reading the posts of the people dismissing the FX 4100 without seeing head to head benchmarks . Generally you find these people have a poor understanding of how digital technology works . Like thinking that 100FPS is "better" than 80 FPS .

but if you pay extra for it , and it doesnt change the user experience, its not . Its just more
Score
0
a c 680 à CPUs
October 16, 2011 3:13:42 AM

I would just save your money for now. It would be somewhat of an upgrade, but for most things not enough, IMO, to justify the cost. If you feel you have to upgrade, I would try to increase budget and get a Ph II X6 then sell the x3 you have now.
Score
0
October 16, 2011 3:59:30 AM

go with the phenom IIx4, it's performance has already been proven. BD still has unknowns.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2011 5:20:47 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!