Is anyone here using a FX 4100

[AtomicZ]

I've heard a lot of talk from a lot of people but is anyone here running an AMD FX-4100?
Don't just throw out a bunch of benchmarks. Is anyone actually running this processor?

 

[Ulkesh]

I've heard a lot of talk from a lot of people but is anyone here running an AMD FX-4100?
Don't just throw out a bunch of benchmarks. Is anyone actually running this processor?

I actually built a rig yesterday running the FX4100, 9 series AM3+ Asus Motherboard and an Asus Radeon 6850. I havent had much time on it but I like everything I've experienced so far. I played a couple of games of Star Craft 2 at between 70-110 FPS and smooth play. Overall its a 7.2 on the WEI. Its a worthy upgrade to my Athlon II X4 620

 

[sarinaide]

I am pretty sure it runs things pretty well, the trouble starts when it turns into a "not as good as" debates. For its price it is a decent alternative to Intels lower end chips. It will be interesting to see how your experiences pan out.

 

[AtomicZ]

I actually built a rig yesterday running the FX4100, 9 series AM3+ Asus Motherboard and an Asus Radeon 6850. I havent had much time on it but I like everything I've experienced so far. I played a couple of games of Star Craft 2 at between 70-110 FPS and smooth play. Overall its a 7.2 on the WEI. Its a worthy upgrade to my Athlon II X4 620

Your athlon II X4 620 is a few tiers higher than my dual core E6750 is (According to the Gaming cpu heirarchy chart). I'm just looking for some feedback from people who have actually used these. As sarinaide has stated all I have heard so far is "not as good as" but the price is cheap and the OC potential is high. Plus if you have an AM3+ board your set for a little while.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

I've heard a lot of talk from a lot of people but is anyone here running an AMD FX-4100?
Don't just throw out a bunch of benchmarks. Is anyone actually running this processor?

so you dont want factual information, you just want some random persons opinion. Because with a statement like that, its all your going to get. Benchmarks are the only factual way to measure a cpu's performance, and the FX 4100 performs worse than amd's previous generation Phenom II x4 line. Just because a couple of people are running them and they say they perform "fine" is just an opinion, not a fact.

 

[AtomicZ]

so you dont want factual information, you just want some random persons opinion. Because with a statement like that, its all your going to get. Benchmarks are the only factual way to measure a cpu's performance, and the FX 4100 performs worse than amd's previous generation Phenom II x4 line. Just because a couple of people are running them and they say they perform "fine" is just an opinion, not a fact.

I suppose I could have phrased my first post a little differently. The point was that anyone can browse the charts and say this is the best or that is the best. I was merely asking those who have actually built a system with these chips to share their experiences, good or bad on how they perform in real gaming situations and so forth. Which is what Ulkesh has done. Apparently Ulkesh is the only person who has actually built a system with an FX-4100. If you are into gaming (as I am) and visit the pc gaming forum you'll see people are running BF3 / Skyrim / MW3 / SC2 and other of the latest games on some older hardware with minimal problems.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

^+1

 

[AtomicZ]

i can run all those games with my web surfing PC with no problem (phenom II x2, ati 5570, 720p resolution) which is more powerful then a PS3 or xbox360 (both also play all those games but SC2). the vast majority of games are simply console ports that have options (higher resolution, AA, AF, shadows) that make them more hardware demanding on a PC. also, the CPU is the robin to the GPU as batman. you can easily game at 1080p with a $70 CPU tied to a $200 GPU. a lot of PC gaming noobs & snobs like to pretend you can't game with out anything less then an intel 2500k & GTX570. It's not true as the majority of gamers still use dual cores with the nvidia 8800/9800GT or ATI 4850. developers create games that have to run across a majority of platforms for them to maximize revenue including the top consoles & average PC set ups.

all of that makes the FX 4100 a capable CPU. where you expecting stories of builders unable to post with the CPU? games unable to run or uninstalling themselves when they saw the FX CPU?

unfortunately none of that makes the FX 4100 the best investment for your dollar as I stated above. the phenom II x 4 840 is cheaper and offers identical gaming performance, the phenom II x4 955 offers better performance for the same price.

the intel i3-2100 offers better performance and the better upgrade path for the same price.

So then the bottom line is what platform you want to invest in. 1155 or AM3+.

 

[hyperreader]

well , its pretty good considering the fact that its cheaper than the 965 , which is better for budget users .

 

[iam2thecrowe]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossfire-ssd,3098-10.html < dont buy an fx cpu for gaming.

 

[noob2222]

Something seems amiss on the build.

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2011/amd_fx_6100_4100_review/index29.php

single 6950 gets 63 fps on F1, 1680x1050

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossfire-ssd,3098-11.html

crossfire 6950 gets 46.9 on F1 1680x1050?

I don't expect the 6100 to pass the 2500k, but this CF vs single card setup just doesn't look right at all.

closest comparison I could find to the setup.

 

[noob2222]

true but a drop of 16 fps makes no sense unless the crossfire setup is seriously messed up. Heck, even a 2.66 ghz I5 750 single card is faster than the crossfire setup.

 

[full_out]

My system:
FX-4100 OC'd to 4.7ghz
Corsair Air series A50
Corsair Vengeance OC'd to 1700mhz
Sapphire HD 5850 Crossfire, OC'd to 891/4700mhz
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3
Antec Three hundred Case
Antec High current pro 850W

I love this CPU. Sure it doesn't win all the benchmarks, but it runs very fast. It overclocks amazing and stays cool. I can play all current games on Ultra with great frame rates. If you wanted opinions, then here is mine: This is a great CPU for the money! And the great thing about upgrading to this CPU is you will have an AM3+ board that will fit new CPU's down the road. For $130 you can't go wrong with this piece.

 

[rds1220]

I've heard a lot of talk from a lot of people but is anyone here running an AMD FX-4100?
Don't just throw out a bunch of benchmarks. Is anyone actually running this processor?

So you want to ignore benchmarks, test that prove how poor a performer the Bulldozer is...ok. In that case sure the Bulldozer is great, it destroys Intel and it's the greatest CPU ever..

 

[megagabobe1]

So you want to ignore benchmarks, test that prove how poor a performer the Bulldozer is...ok. In that case sure the Bulldozer is great, it destroys Intel and it's the greatest CPU ever..

he is not interested in destroying intel bro, he just wants to know from personal experience if its a good chip

 

[megagabobe1]

if you will not run any crossfire or sli setup you will be fine

 

[rds1220]

he is not interested in destroying intel bro, he just wants to know from personal experience if its a good chip

Obviously someone doesn't understand sacrasm. He wants to know if it's a good CPU or not the quick answer is no it's really not.

 

[full_out]

Obviously someone doesn't understand sacrasm. He wants to know if it's a good CPU or not the quick answer is no it's really not.

Rds1220: That is such a garbage Intel fanboy response. The Bulldozer didn't live up to the hype, we get it. But the FX-4100 is a very nice upgrade and works very well. And overclocks amazing while staying cool. I have been running it for a couple months now and couldn't be happier. Get off your high horse and realize that just because it doesn't bench mark well doesn't mean it's not a good solution for a low cost gaming system.

And PS, for someone not looking to blow their whole wad on an expensive system. You can get a good Gigabyte board/FX-4100 combo for $240 at NCIX right now. That's almost the cost for one of your fancy holy-er than thou i5 CPUs alone.

 

[rds1220]

Rds1220: That is such a garbage Intel fanboy response. The Bulldozer didn't live up to the hype, we get it. But the FX-4100 is a very nice upgrade and works very well. And overclocks amazing while staying cool. I have been running it for a couple months now and couldn't be happier. Get off your high horse and realize that just because it doesn't bench mark well doesn't mean it's not a good solution for a low cost gaming system.

And PS, for someone not looking to blow their whole wad on an expensive system. You can get a good Gigabyte board/FX-4100 combo for $240 at NCIX right now. That's almost the cost for one of your fancy holy-er than thou i5 CPUs alone.

Hype doesn't even begin to describe all the problems with the Bulldozer. It's slow, slower then the old phenom. Even when over clocked to it's max it can't beat the Phenom and doesn't even touch the I5. It's not a good chip it's poor at best. Look at the benchmarks the facts are right there. It's a piss poor chip and the fact that people still buy it is sad. You are obviously an AMD fanboy who lives in your AMD fantasy world. Keep telling yourself the Bulldozer isn't that bad if that's what helps you sleep at night and gives you relief from knowing you bought an over hyped CPU.

 

[megagabobe1]

lets go back to the topic: "Is anyone here using a FX 4100"

 

[rds1220]

I don't have to wonder why I know why.

 

[full_out]

I'm actually fairly new to AMD and like the fact that you don't have to change your board every time you want to upgrade a CPU. Junk? I don't think so. Not the greatest CPU out there, but good for the price. When the Piledriver comes out and if it's a worthwhile upgrade, I will buy it, swap it out, then fire up my machine and it will work without any screwing around. That's why I like AMD.

 

[megagabobe1]

im sure that cpu will run any game just fine, maybe not with the fps of an i5 or i7, but with a good gpu you will not notice anything

 

[megagabobe1]

anything more than a GTX 560 or HD 6850 and it will be a detriment under high settings.
but YES, it can run a game.
just not as good.

"it will run any game fine" "just not as good" that's what i meant with my comment

 

[rds1220]

Rds1220: That is such a garbage Intel fanboy response. The Bulldozer didn't live up to the hype, we get it. But the FX-4100 is a very nice upgrade and works very well. And overclocks amazing while staying cool. I have been running it for a couple months now and couldn't be happier. Get off your high horse and realize that just because it doesn't bench mark well doesn't mean it's not a good solution for a low cost gaming system.

And PS, for someone not looking to blow their whole wad on an expensive system. You can get a good Gigabyte board/FX-4100 combo for $240 at NCIX right now. That's almost the cost for one of your fancy holy-er than thou i5 CPUs alone.

O and no I'm not an Intel fan boy Im an AMD hater. Everything I have owned by AMD has been nothing but Another Major Dissapointment. Phenom II had disappointing performance and IMO was noticeably slow especially now when compared to the I5. Cheap 5570 video card was junky but that's to be expected. That's not the problem the problem came with AMD's drivers. Radeon 6970 was good but I wasn't impressed, had problems with it and again had trouble with the latest drivers. So Im done with AMD and will never buy another AMD CPU or video card. If they go under I could really care less.