Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

[Request] Benchmark comparison - fx6100 vs X6 1100T

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Benchmark
  • Components
  • Phenom
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 3, 2011 4:08:35 PM

Does anyone have these 2 components to benchmark against each other? Or better yet just have a link to a comparison of these?

If nobody has them, would Tom's be able to run it? I know they have the 1100T against the FX8150, but that's 6 cores vs 8.



*edit*

The quad core comparison I initially messed up on:

Is there a comparison between these?

Phenom II X4 850 (rebranded athlon)
Phenom II x4 960
FX-4100

More about : request benchmark comparison fx6100 1100t

a b à CPUs
November 3, 2011 4:11:32 PM

Both are not quads...
Score
0
November 3, 2011 4:12:37 PM

You sir are quick on the draw, rather tired atm and realized my mistakes
Score
0
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
November 3, 2011 4:24:50 PM

:lol:  That's better. There was a test where they simulated a FX-4100 by shutting off cores on the 8150, I forgot which site it was though :(  I'm sure someone has it bookmarked or something.
Score
0
November 3, 2011 4:31:15 PM

Well, as much as I would love to see a comparison, I fear what it would hold. The FX 8120 and FX 8150 are basically at par with the 1100T. There is no reason to believe the lower priced FX 6100 would perform any better than either of its "8" core family members compared to the 1100T.
Score
0
November 3, 2011 5:00:38 PM

And therein lies the question: do the benchmarks say we should bother with the new architecture if we aren't buying an 8 core?
Score
0
November 3, 2011 5:13:58 PM

Yes and no, to be honest a modest performance gain CPU over CPU isn't exactly uncommon for AMD, look at 1090 to 1100, a lot of people were "meh" over the marginal increase but you don't hear much about it now. The only reason people are more disappointed with the FX release is the marketing and anticipation. A modest increase over their current top end with the 8120/8150 doesn't make it a bad processor, it just means it didn't live up to hype of a Sandy Bridge collapser (hehe). Reality dictates that the FX 6100 will probably be priced shortly to compete more with AMD's cheaper processors and then refined in future generations. It just depends on what they squeeze out of the architecture in the future I think.
Score
0
November 4, 2011 2:56:18 PM

That's why im asking for benchmarks, it would make for a good article if nothing else.
Score
0

Best solution

a c 83 à CPUs
November 4, 2011 7:35:00 PM

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

That has benchmarks for the 4, 6, and 8 core FX processors. Sadly the 4 core loses to the majority of AMDs Athlon II/Phenom II X4 processors and some of the Llano X4 chips as well. The 6 core loses to Phenom II X6 and even the faster clocked Phenom II X4 processors. This new architecture is a joke. :lol: 
Share
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2011 8:59:21 PM

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

That has benchmarks for the 4, 6, and 8 core FX processors. Sadly the 4 core loses to the majority of AMDs Athlon II/Phenom II X4 processors and some of the Llano X4 chips as well. The 6 core loses to Phenom II X6 and even the faster clocked Phenom II X4 processors. This new architecture is a joke. :lol: 

Because Amd went and market their threads as cores. When you benchmark them you need to look at the thread vs thread performance. Its the same as benching a dual core HT pc vs a 4 core pc which doesnt have that feature.

2100 on Intel side is a good example. Core to core it will loose out but thread to thread it will do a bit better. Same with Amds new cpus
Score
0
November 12, 2011 3:11:52 AM

Best answer selected by MasterMace.
Score
0
!