Fx-4100 vs. 955 p2

Dyjon54 · Oct 12, 2011

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.

Mastervivi10 · Oct 12, 2011

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

ScrewySqrl · Oct 12, 2011

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

Novulux · Oct 13, 2011

Mastervivi10 :

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

brandondiep · Oct 13, 2011

Novulux :

brandondiep · Oct 13, 2011

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.

FlintIronStagg · Oct 13, 2011

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

dragonsqrrl · Oct 13, 2011

Novulux :

Did you see the part where he said "unless its an i3 2100"?

iam2thecrowe · Oct 13, 2011

go with the 955, its cheaper and better.

Dyjon54 · Oct 13, 2011

think I am going to wait now. Seeing reviews on the 8150 on par with the 2600k now.

dragonsqrrl · Oct 13, 2011

Dyjon54 :

Guru 3D did a review of the FX lineup including the 4100, here you go:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1

... just as a warning, don't get your hopes up. There are quite a few cases where the Athlon II x4 645 outperforms it.

hefox · Oct 13, 2011

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.

dragonsqrrl · Oct 14, 2011

hefox :

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 [strike]effect[/strike] affect productivity, content creation, and synthetic CPU benchmarks, but okay.

megagabobe1 · Oct 14, 2011

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.

enzo matrix · Oct 14, 2011

dragonsqrrl :

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-and-4100-performance-review/3

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 [strike]pentium 4[/strike] 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=N82E16819103995
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.

dragonsqrrl · Oct 14, 2011

enzo matrix :

Thanks for seeing that, corrected.

enzo matrix · Oct 14, 2011

dragonsqrrl :

Thanks for not taking offence

. I have a horrible tick when it comes to affect and effect.

Dyjon54 · Oct 14, 2011

enzo matrix :

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-and-4100-performance-review/3

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 [strike]pentium 4[/strike] 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=N82E16819103995
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$

MasterMace · Oct 14, 2011

The 4100 is mostly worse than an Athlon II X4...

Outlander_04 · Oct 14, 2011

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/10

performance of the FX 4100 is fine . Go for it

iam2thecrowe · Oct 14, 2011

enzo matrix :

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

iam2thecrowe · Oct 14, 2011

Outlander_04 :

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

Outlander_04 · Oct 14, 2011

iam2thecrowe :

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

Dyjon54 · Oct 14, 2011

Best answer selected by Dyjon54.

Dyjon54 · Oct 14, 2011

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

Fx-4100 vs. 955 p2

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Glorious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Titan

Glorious

Glorious

Titan

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page