[Solved] Fx-4100 vs. 955 p2

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

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

go with the 955, its cheaper and better.

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.

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.

care to link one of these reviews by an independent third party or is this one of AMD's reviews on a synthetic benchmark?

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- [...] e-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 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/Prod [...] 6819103995
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.

Thanks for not taking offence . I have a horrible tick when it comes to affect and effect.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

go with the phenom IIx4, it's performance has already been proven. BD still has unknowns.

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey