Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Is anyone here using a FX 4100

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 15, 2011 1:28:30 PM

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?

More about : 4100

December 15, 2011 3:22:04 PM

AtomicZ said:
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
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2011 3:57:43 PM

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.
Related resources
December 15, 2011 6:27:41 PM

Ulkesh said:
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.
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2011 6:37:51 PM

the FX4100 can obviously do the job, the issue with it is three fold

1. it's not an upgrade over a phenom II x4, in fact it can often perform worse
2. for the same price you can get an intel i3-2100 which outperforms it in gaming
3. with an intel 1155 set up yocan upgrade to an i5-2500k, 2600k, or the new quads coming out. Upgrading to an FX eight core is not worth it from a phenom II x4 making it barely worth from a FX- quad.
a c 79 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 15, 2011 6:51:57 PM

AtomicZ said:
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.
December 16, 2011 11:14:10 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
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.

a b à CPUs
December 16, 2011 2:32:24 PM

AtomicZ said:
you'll see people are running BF3 / Skyrim / MW3 / SC2 and other of the latest games on some older hardware with minimal problems.


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.
a c 79 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 16, 2011 8:12:52 PM

^+1
December 17, 2011 11:46:22 AM

dirtyferret said:
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+.
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2011 1:48:23 PM

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


correct

December 20, 2011 11:20:31 AM

well , its pretty good considering the fact that its cheaper than the 965 , which is better for budget users .
a b à CPUs
December 20, 2011 9:14:15 PM

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.
December 21, 2011 6:07:37 PM

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.
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 21, 2011 6:11:45 PM

AtomicZ said:
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.. :pfff:  :pfff: 
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2011 6:52:12 PM

rds1220 said:
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.. :pfff:  :pfff: 

he is not interested in destroying intel bro, he just wants to know from personal experience if its a good chip
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2011 6:53:04 PM

if you will not run any crossfire or sli setup you will be fine
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 21, 2011 6:55:03 PM

megagabobe1 said:
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.
December 21, 2011 7:06:19 PM

rds1220 said:
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.
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 21, 2011 7:18:00 PM

full_out said:
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.
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2011 7:22:50 PM

lets go back to the topic: "Is anyone here using a FX 4100"
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 21, 2011 7:26:10 PM

I don't have to wonder why I know why.
December 21, 2011 7:30:02 PM

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.
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2011 7:30:57 PM

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
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2011 7:36:37 PM

Quote:
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 :) 
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 21, 2011 7:39:21 PM

full_out said:
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.
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2011 7:41:51 PM

rds1220 said:
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.


well i got a 1090t running stock right now and it runs everything i want flawlessly
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2011 7:43:52 PM

Quote:
we're cool bro, I have no animosity and not trying to argue... :sol: 
I'm not a fan to much of the Thuban's but I'll take a 1090T or 1100T and clock it before I go FX-6xxx.
as for the FX-8150, I don't need 8 week cores but I do hope the stepping revisions and the software updates help out.

at least amd is trying to get new things to the table which in my opinion is not a bad move, sometimes you need to risk yourself i guess, but not every time you will succeed
December 21, 2011 8:09:23 PM

rds1220 said:
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.


You better hope they don't go under, unless you want Intel to increase prices by 100-500%. Even if nobody buys AMD, it forces Intel to make their prices competitive. If AMD wasn't around for sandy bridge, the 2600k would be the best CPU out right now and cost close to 1k, with the 2500k not far behind I'm sure. I'm sorry for your driver issues, but there are plenty of users out there that have never had a problem and their performance per dollar is on par, if not better than, Nvidias offerings.

On topic:
At $120 (newegg), it's hard to recommend the 4100, espcially when the 960t is 5 dollars more and will perform better in games (and can possibly unlock). In the end it is up to you how you spend your cash but the 4100 doesn't look like the smartest choice at the moment.
a c 79 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 21, 2011 11:30:41 PM

here's a good benchmark, it directly compares the similarly priced fx 4100 and phenom 955. the 4100 is slower for the same price, what more is there to say......
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...
in metro 2033 it doesn't maintain playable fps but the 955 does. So while it may run games fine most of the time, it will struggle with others. So getting someones opinion of this cpu is not the best way to get the information you need as it doesnt eexpose all circumstances and someones version of "good performance" would be ddifferent from yours.
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2011 1:23:38 AM

Quote:
I'll forward this thread to one of my buddies that has a FX-4100 and use it to replace his 925 C2..

Hi .
I currently am running my 4100 at 4.2ghz. I upgraded from a 925 and I can say it was a definite upgrade. The 109.00 price tag is fitting seeing as how it performs along that price bracket. Here's what im trying to say- it performs lower than the 965+ with c3 stepping. Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that i needed a new cpu and had an itch to try the new tech for myself, then I would have gotten the 965 and oced it. The reason I went with the 4100 was price and im going to replace it with the next stepping with the 4170 and didn't want to spend the extra money if I didn't have to. If you want a solid rig and don't want to upgrade for a while the pIIx4 965 and above are a better choice than the FX 4100.
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2011 2:19:14 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
here's a good benchmark, it directly compares the similarly priced fx 4100 and phenom 955. the 4100 is slower for the same price, what more is there to say......
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...
in metro 2033 it doesn't maintain playable fps but the 955 does. So while it may run games fine most of the time, it will struggle with others. So getting someones opinion of this cpu is not the best way to get the information you need as it doesnt eexpose all circumstances and someones version of "good performance" would be ddifferent from yours.

I play metro with everything cranked cept DoF and I never reach unplayable fps. Lets be realistic here. I dont have any issues in game with anything I've ran. Maybe i could run witcher 2 at 70 fps instead of 60 having gone with a better cpu...
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2011 5:06:10 AM

like i said, you will run anything you want, but nos as good as many other cpus in the same category
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2011 9:44:08 AM

FlintIronStagg said:
I play metro with everything cranked cept DoF and I never reach unplayable fps. Lets be realistic here. I dont have any issues in game with anything I've ran. Maybe i could run witcher 2 at 70 fps instead of 60 having gone with a better cpu...

Thats because xbit used physX gameplay with a non physX graphics card.

Quote:
here's a good benchmark, it directly compares the similarly priced fx 4100 and phenom 955. the 4100 is slower for the same price, what more is there to say......
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] html#sect0
in metro 2033 it doesn't maintain playable fps but the 955 does. So while it may run games fine most of the time, it will struggle with others. So getting someones opinion of this cpu is not the best way to get the information you need as it doesnt eexpose all circumstances and someones version of "good performance" would be ddifferent from yours.

So at stock in gaming beteween the 955 and the 4100, you lose 1-3 fps in most games, 12 fps in the worst case scenario (note its still ~ 100fps)

Power consumption is lower on the fx-4100, General performance goes to the 4100 in 4/6 tests, Application performance is pretty much tied win some, lose some on the 4100 mostly very close

Overclockablilty is higher on the fx-4100 by quite a bit (3.8 ghz avg to 4.6ghz avg)

then there is availability ... 955 is going fast, $122 and up, pretty much all vendors have the 4100 $105 and up. (equal priced?! --- prices checked with google shopping)

maybe some opinions are lopsided by only looking at half of the picture.

Best solution

December 23, 2011 5:36:01 AM
Share

AtomicZ said:
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?


Hello im a owner of a fx 4100 cpu i have a gpu radeon hd 6870 mobo asus m5a97 evo and 4gb ram, atleats for me, this cpu works great, im able 2 play games like skyrim, bf3, dead island, starcraft 2, all at max settings in 1920x1080 1080p with out any problems, i choose it for the am3 and the price, i was about 2 buy a phenom x4 965 be, but i choose this1.

i hope this help u on your desition. btw i didint OC my cpu
January 2, 2012 12:12:04 PM

Best answer selected by AtomicZ.
!