Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why everyone thinks fx 4100 is so bad

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 23, 2011 4:58:27 AM

Hello i have a gaming pc with a
Cpu fx - 4100
gpu HD radeon 6870
mainboar asus m597 evo
4gb ram

it works great on every game i install i can run skyrim in 1920x1080 1080p everything at max , battlefield 3 same, starcraft2, dead island, and more i have no problems with this cpu, i dont understand why people said this cpu sucks for game atleast for me its great.

More about : thinks 4100 bad

December 23, 2011 5:04:28 AM

Because they look at the benchmarks. Instead of real world use.

Then in benchmarks, it fails compared to Intel products.

More so due to an instruction set, not fully taken advantage of. From what I read.

Then being a paying "beta" tester sucks, to boot.
Score
0
Related resources
December 23, 2011 5:08:53 AM

amuffin said:
Because bulldozer was a fail, http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/9/

i had seen alot of reviews saying that this cpu sucks, but i dont understand how every game runs on max at 1920x1080 any1 got the answer?? is it my gpu maybe??
Score
0
December 23, 2011 5:10:53 AM

keha12 said:
Because they look at the benchmarks. Instead of real world use.

Then in benchmarks, it fails compared to Intel products.

More so due to an instruction set, not fully taken advantage of. From what I read.

Then being a paying "beta" tester sucks, to boot.


maybe u are right, atleast on my comp build this cpu saved me alot of money and i can run the lastlest games at max
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
December 23, 2011 5:13:36 AM

vulcanraven said:
i had seen alot of reviews saying that this cpu sucks, but i dont understand how every game runs on max at 1920x1080 any1 got the answer?? is it my gpu maybe??

Because all of the games you have listed are mostly calculated in the gpu.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 5:14:54 AM

Yea its not a horrible CPU. Its just the fact, it was hyped. To be AMD's top of the line.
Then it failed in benchmarks.

But yea, Should run any games fine with the right hardware. More than fine.
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
December 23, 2011 6:50:04 AM

@ 1920 x 1080 nearly all games will be limited by the GPU, in real life and benchmarks the 955BE and i3 2100 will beat the FX4100 9 times out of 10.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 7:05:20 AM

im glad i stuck with my 955be... april 2012 im building a rendering computer with a i7-3930 or most likely dual xeon 1240's....sure intel is big evil but they know what theyre doing. some day they will have to pay property tax in oregon.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 7:29:05 AM

simon12 said:
@ 1920 x 1080 nearly all games will be limited by the GPU, in real life and benchmarks the 955BE and i3 2100 will beat the FX4100 9 times out of 10.

Is it me or does this sentence contradict itself?

AFAIK for many, gaming @ 1080p = real life application. Therefore, it's sufficient for it's task with a mid range GPU.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2011 8:33:18 AM

Everybody expected that BD would pe on pair with i5 2500k and i7 2600k, everybody expected that AMD could close the 3 year gap to Intel. I did not expect that because simply it cant atm. The budget of Intel compared to AMD it is WAY bigger and Intel can invest alot more money then AMD in research. The gap to Intel was considerably reduced once the OS's gonna otimize theyr software to the new arhitecture of BD. Many people say that 5 - 10 % increase by software optimisation (se microsoft patch for BD, not in the final stage but they are working on it) its crap...i say it is not, it is preety decent.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
December 23, 2011 8:34:56 AM

crisan_tiberiu said:
Everybody expected that BD would pe on pair with i5 2500k and i7 2600k, everybody expected that AMD could close the 3 year gap to Intel. I did not expect that because simply it cant atm. The budget of Intel compared to AMD it is WAY bigger and Intel can invest alot more money then AMD in research. The gap to Intel was considerably reduced once the OS's gonna otimize theyr software to the new arhitecture of BD. Many people say that 5 - 10 % increase by software optimisation (se microsoft patch for BD, not in the final stage but they are working on it) its crap...i say it is not, it is preety decent.

patch was recalled :kaola: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2011 1:32:21 PM

the fx4100 should be marketed as a dual core cuz thats what it essentially is
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
December 23, 2011 1:52:00 PM

obsidian86 said:
the fx4100 should be marketed as a dual core cuz thats what it essentially is

The fx 8120 and fx 8150 should also be marketed as a quad core.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
December 23, 2011 2:05:24 PM

the fx 4100 is a dual module, quad core cpu. afaik two of it's (the every second core?) cores are not full cores in traditional terms.
amd markets 4100 as a quad core. that is a bit misleading.
the 4100 doesn't start keeping up with a core i3 2100 until it's overclocked to 4+ ghz.
at that speed, it uses much more power than a core i3 or pentium.
it is a castrated fx 8150. it has roughly half the already-lower-than-sb memory performance of 8150.
in some tests a locked llano (2.9 ghz 4 core a8) beats it. wonder how better will the new, 3 ghz, unlocked llanos will be.
it will almost certainly bottleneck high end gaming cards up to 1080p. at higher than 1080p e.g. 2560x1600, the gfx cards does most of the gfx-intensive work.
only listed the bad things i could think off the top of my head.
good parts:
good encryption performance.
unlocked - easier to play with. intel has no unlocked cpu at 4100's price point - possibly making it the cheapest unlocked 32 nm cpu available right now.
cheap.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
December 23, 2011 2:13:17 PM

de5_Roy said:
the fx 4100 is a dual module, quad core cpu. afaik two of it's (the every second core?) cores are not full cores in traditional terms.
amd markets 4100 as a quad core. that is a bit misleading.
the 4100 doesn't start keeping up with a core i3 2100 until it's overclocked to 4+ ghz.
at that speed, it uses much more power than a core i3 or pentium.
it is a castrated fx 8150. it has roughly half the already-lower-than-sb memory performance of 8150.
in some tests a locked llano (2.9 ghz 4 core a8) beats it. wonder how better will the new, 3 ghz, unlocked llanos will be.
it will almost certainly bottleneck high end gaming cards up to 1080p. at higher than 1080p e.g. 2560x1600, the gfx cards does most of the gfx-intensive work.
only listed the bad things i could think off the top of my head.
good parts:
good encryption performance.
unlocked - easier to play with. intel has no unlocked cpu at 4100's price point - possibly making it the cheapest unlocked 32 nm cpu available right now.
cheap.

cheap but crap! :lol: 
Score
0
December 23, 2011 2:50:02 PM

It's not that it sucks, it's that there are better options for desktop users. The Bulldozer chips are too expensive and use too much power for the work they do.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2011 7:58:57 PM

vulcanraven said:
i had seen alot of reviews saying that this cpu sucks, but i dont understand how every game runs on max at 1920x1080 any1 got the answer?? is it my gpu maybe??


Not many games are CPU limited. Most half-way decent CPUs are fast enough for them not to be a factor in gaming performance.

Likewise with most applications, there are few benefits of having a fast CPU vs slower ones and you won't see them in real life.

The issue comes when you start using applications that are CPU limited. Unfortunately Bulldozer turned out to be quite disappointing. Whether this matters depends on the types of application you use and whether they are CPU limited.

On the flip side you could think of it like this: Bulldozer is fast enough, and so is a perfectly valid choice for CPU in most situations.
Score
0
a c 88 à CPUs
December 23, 2011 9:40:00 PM

vulcanraven said:
Hello i have a gaming pc with a
Cpu fx - 4100
gpu HD radeon 6870
mainboar asus m597 evo
4gb ram

it works great on every game i install i can run skyrim in 1920x1080 1080p everything at max , battlefield 3 same, starcraft2, dead island, and more i have no problems with this cpu, i dont understand why people said this cpu sucks for game atleast for me its great.

some people need more FPS than what an fx4100 can provide, it may be perfectly acceptable to you but not everyone. It is not a good value cpu and it is slower than AMD's previous phenom II equivelant. Now why would you pay money for a new product that is inferior to an old product, weather you notice the difference or not? You know whats even funnier, my 5 year old core 2 quad can pull of the same gaming FPS as your brand new fx4100. So if your happy with a brand new cpu that is as fast as a 5 year old CPU, good for you. I wouldn't be happy with that, I expect a little more.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
December 23, 2011 10:08:29 PM

Quote:
Especially beating I5 2500 in 4/6 tests. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Just because it doesn't work for your needs doesn't mean no one else can utilize what its designed to do. Biggest issue is people want to believe that everything should be treated as a one-size-fits-all, but RL there are strengths and weaknesses in everything.

If your concerned about 1-3 fps in games, while sacrificing appliction performance, well, thats your prerogative.

As for being more expensive ... ya the 8150 is stupidly priced, but the $80 cheaper 8120 is the sweet spot. ($266 vs $185 on google shopping)

The 4100 can be had for $109 wich makes it a good value, much cheaper than any currently available Phenom II with similar performance at stock (955 for $125) with much higher overclocking potential.


Yeah, it wins in tests that can use all 8 cores, and by a small margin while costing more to purchase and costing more to run due to much higher power draw. Once the 2 are overclocked the I5 would win as it has more overclocking head room. Intel has the price/performance advantage for the first time in years. FX would be an alright choice for select workloads IF AMD would drop the price.
Score
0
a c 152 à CPUs
December 24, 2011 3:57:15 PM

loneninja said:
Yeah, it wins in tests that can use all 8 cores, and by a small margin while costing more to purchase and costing more to run due to much higher power draw. Once the 2 are overclocked the I5 would win as it has more overclocking head room. Intel has the price/performance advantage for the first time in years. FX would be an alright choice for select workloads IF AMD would drop the price.


Yes exactly. I was going to say the same thing but you got it first.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2011 5:21:51 PM

Biggest issue is people want to believe that everything should be treated as a one-size-fits-all, but RL there are strengths and weaknesses in everything.

apparently thats the only way BD can fail since thats all you can come up with.

more overclocking headroom .... lol both avg at 4.6-4.9 with occasional 5.0+

More power consumption ... omg, its going to cost me an extra $2.50 a month to use 24/7

As for the newegg review ... rofl @ someone who doesn't know how to troubleshoot his issues ...

memory bandiwdth = 12 http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an... If your system isn't running up to speed, fix the problem. My 8120 - 18.72gb/s ( g.skill 8-9-8 $40) with sandara original test with some crappy patriot memory ($15 after MIR)- 11.54GB/s.

Core 2 6600 faster when overclocked, ya, fine, even if you tried to buy it today, its $160 compared to $110 for the 4100, whats your point. Same could be said about buying a brand new shiny i3-2100, q6600 beats it when overclocked.
Score
0
a c 152 à CPUs
December 24, 2011 5:49:56 PM

noob2222 said:


more overclocking headroom .... lol both avg at 4.6-4.9 with occasional 5.0+



Thats great but even overclocked to the max it still can't beat out its compation. It's still get's beaten out by the Phenom, I5 and I7.

noob2222 said:

More power consumption ... omg, its going to cost me an extra $2.50 a month to use 24/7+


For some people it might not matter for others it might. The point isn't that it's going to cost more a month but just the sheer fact that it sucks power like crazy when everyone else in the industry is going to more physical power with less power consumption. That includes both Cpu's and GPU's

It's ok you can't see how bad the Bulldozer really is. Maybe one day you'll wake up to reality and see just how poor the Faildozer really is.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2011 6:05:51 PM

rds1220 said:
Thats great but even overclocked to the max it still can't beat out its compation. It's still get's beaten out by the Phenom, I5 and I7.

In what, selective benchmarking? I can find benchmarks where the i7-920 beats I5 2500k. whats your point? Across the board? not a chance, already proven that.
Score
0
a c 152 à CPUs
December 24, 2011 6:16:42 PM

Score
0
a c 152 à CPUs
December 24, 2011 6:18:54 PM

noob2222 said:
In what, selective benchmarking? I can find benchmarks where the i7-920 beats I5 2500k. whats your point? Across the board? not a chance, already proven that.


Your right across the board there is not a chance that the Bulldozer out performs the I5, I7 and PhenomII in 97-98% of the benchmarks done. Do a search there's been a million benchmarks posted here that prove the Bulldozer is a piss poor performer in almost every field.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2011 6:47:04 PM

rds1220 said:
Your right across the board there is not a chance that the Bulldozer out performs the I5, I7 and PhenomII in 97-98% of the benchmarks done. Do a search there's been a million benchmarks posted here that prove the Bulldozer is a piss poor performer in almost every field.

Hey i can post images too. :bounce: 


Ya, bd is just soo much more horrible than Phenom II



yep, BD lost in almost every field.[:wolfen18:7]

Ever wonder what the world looks like when you open your eyes instead of walking around blinded by some ambition that just isn't true? :o 

Phenom faster than BD in 97-98% of the benchmarks done ... as long as you throw out 75% of them.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
December 24, 2011 7:47:56 PM

noob2222 said:
Biggest issue is people want to believe that everything should be treated as a one-size-fits-all, but RL there are strengths and weaknesses in everything.

apparently thats the only way BD can fail since thats all you can come up with.

more overclocking headroom .... lol both avg at 4.6-4.9 with occasional 5.0+

More power consumption ... omg, its going to cost me an extra $2.50 a month to use 24/7

As for the newegg review ... rofl @ someone who doesn't know how to troubleshoot his issues ...

memory bandiwdth = 12 http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an... If your system isn't running up to speed, fix the problem. My 8120 - 18.72gb/s ( g.skill 8-9-8 $40) with sandara original test with some crappy patriot memory ($15 after MIR)- 11.54GB/s.

Core 2 6600 faster when overclocked, ya, fine, even if you tried to buy it today, its $160 compared to $110 for the 4100, whats your point. Same could be said about buying a brand new shiny i3-2100, q6600 beats it when overclocked.

the problem with fx is you need to oc it in order to see results.
Score
0
December 24, 2011 8:09:26 PM

noob2222 said:
Hey i can post images too. :bounce: 
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41-6r3jsg6L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Ya, bd is just soo much more horrible than Phenom II

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/reviews/AMD/Bulldozer/AMD_FX-8150-201.jpg

yep, BD lost in almost every field.[:wolfen18:7]

Ever wonder what the world looks like when you open your eyes instead of walking around blinded by some ambition that just isn't true? :o 

Phenom faster than BD in 97-98% of the benchmarks done ... as long as you throw out 75% of them.


The point is Bulldozer should be WAY faster than the CPU it's supposed to replace. We can benchmark Bulldozer against Phenoms and Core2Quads all day, but that's not the time we live it. It's on par with CPUs that were release 2 generations ago. Big whoop. For it's price and power usage, it's a terrible buy. They need to be 40% less expensive to compete.
Score
0
December 25, 2011 1:39:09 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

My question is why does everyone say that the bulldozer underpreforms the 2500k so dramatically?

Looking at these bench results, the only areas where I see sandy bridge domination is Sysmark, cinebench r10 single threaded run, and some games, mostly games at 1024x768 (which nobody ever games on) and some 1680x1050 (this one actually matters). In encoding it seems sandy bridge wins the first pass but bulldozer wins the second pass. For me personally it seems that the intel fanboys make the difference between the two so much biger, while the amd fanboys cherry pick benchmarks to make their favored product look better. For gaming I personally wouldn't go with a bulldozer, but in regards to software development or graphics design and rendering along with extreme multi-tasking it seems like bulldozer provides a good option to sandy bridge. The biggest turnoff for me towards bulldozer is the extreme power requirement. I know it wont add that much to a power bill (intel fanboys make it seem like it will add so much more to a power bill then it actually will, $4-5 on average), but the downside is that is the need for a more powerful power supply. Overclocked 8 cores pulling above 400 watts of power is just ridiculous, especially if a person is running 2+ gfx cards.

To summarize, I dont understand why people put the 2500k on a heightened pedestal when compared to bulldozer except in regards to gaming, when they are so similar except for the power consumption.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2011 1:56:52 AM

Quote:
Your obviously a brain dead AMD fanboy that can't face reality. You found one bench mark and you try to claim that proves your point....pathetic. There are far more benchmarks out there that point out the Bulldozer is not the great
CPU you make it out to be in your fantasy world. It's not even worth arguing with you because there is no reasoning with an idiot.

who is the idiot living in Intel's shadow? your saying BD can't even compete with Phenom II, I showed you 21 benches on one site where it does better than phenom in 15 of those.

fine, if you don't believe that site, then lets check toms. Ignoring synthetics since its well synthetic and BD takes almost all of them ... 18/26 benches goes to BD over phenom II and those wins are usually more than 10% losses are less than 5% ... yep, ultimate faiure there ...

maybe your still bent on the fact that you think computers are only built for games, where BD ties Phenom where games only utilize mostly 2-4 cores. ya, ipc is such a failure that it ties in 2-4 threaded games (less than 1 fps is a tie)

Try looking at the actual review instead of skimming the conclusion.
Score
0
a c 152 à CPUs
December 25, 2011 2:56:47 AM

It doesn't matter if it's gaming or for a server it's a fail from all sides. Again look at reviews here you'll see how bad it is. Every argument you've made has just been a repeat of the same garbage over and over again. The only ones who think the Bulldozer is good are the AMD fanboys everyone else see's it's a joke. I really don't think we're all wrong and your right.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
December 25, 2011 3:14:19 AM

i can't believe people are falling for this. the thread title is a bit provocative.
first - you can't change fanboys' opinions. preiod. they're blind to logic. they block out the facts.
second - people will buy what they want to buy. you can throw all the benchmarks and reviews in the world with no avail. if the said people want to defend their purchase, no big deal (e.g. people being satisfied with their purchase of fx 4100).
funny thing is, sometimes the more they feel buyer's remorse, the more fiercely they will defend their choice. most of the times the opposite happens though.
a very wise person told me this:
DNFTT.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2011 3:17:14 AM

Or how I see it:

Whatever Anandtech recommends at the time can't be that far off the best deal.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2011 3:31:24 AM

rds1220 said:
It doesn't matter if it's gaming or for a server it's a fail from all sides. Again look at reviews here you'll see how bad it is. Every argument you've made has just been a repeat of the same garbage over and over again. The only ones who think the Bulldozer is good are the AMD fanboys everyone else see's it's a joke. I really don't think we're all wrong and your right.

ROFL. so BD is a now a failure becuse you say so ... nice proof. Thats right, Intel fanboys don't need proof, Intel sells more cpus so thats proof enough. Anything they say is truth because Intel makes more money.

Your the only ones (fanboys) throwing garbage, trying to see if it will stick. Im too stubborn to listen to it since its just that, garbage. Only thing true in what you have said is BD draws a little bit more power. If your world collapses because of that, well, thats your problem, not everyone elses. But your bent on trying to push your view on everyone else without even enough proof to back it up.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2011 3:32:58 AM

A little?

Hahaha...
Score
0
a c 152 à CPUs
December 25, 2011 3:52:59 AM

noob2222 said:
ROFL. so BD is a now a failure becuse you say so ... nice proof. Thats right, Intel fanboys don't need proof, Intel sells more cpus so thats proof enough. Anything they say is truth because Intel makes more money.

Your the only ones (fanboys) throwing garbage, trying to see if it will stick. Im too stubborn to listen to it since its just that, garbage. Only thing true in what you have said is BD draws a little bit more power. If your world collapses because of that, well, thats your problem, not everyone elses. But your bent on trying to push your view on everyone else without even enough proof to back it up.


You want proof try this. Not that it matters like someone said you can't get through to fanboys they're blinded by stupidty.

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpu...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2011 5:57:34 AM

Mod: Let's have thread closure.

Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
December 25, 2011 6:55:25 AM

amdfangirl said:
Mod: Let's have thread closure.

+1
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2011 7:26:08 AM

rds1220 said:
You want proof try this. Not that it matters like someone said you can't get through to fanboys they're blinded by stupidty.

http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpu...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...

Quote:
maybe your still bent on the fact that you think computers are only built for games,


lol, nice links straight to the games, kinda proves my point
http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpu...

Quote:
At the end of the day the AMD FX-8150 looks to be an interesting processor. It isn't a home run that puts AMD back on top, but the bones of processor look to be pretty solid. AMD is headed in the right direction, but they haven't managed to 'Bulldoze' Intel by any means.

Legit Bottom Line: The AMD FX-8150 offers solid performance and is competitive with the Intel 'Sandy Bridge' series of processors.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/20/


Quote:
With that said, AMD still has a good product on its hands with the FX series. Performance is good; in some workloads the processor significantly outpaces the previous-gen Phenom II. And while it’s true that in some areas the Phenom II can still be faster, the Phenom II’s margin of victory is generally small.
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX8150-8Core-Process...


Keep them coming, for every site that hand picked benchmark bulldozer fail, I can show you a site that tried to show both sides of the story. Its not nearly as one-sided as you think.

here, ill make it easier for you http://www.techpowerup.com/reviewdb/Processors/AMD/FX-S...

This one pretty much hit the nail in the head

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-rev...

Neither failure nor ground breaking,

Quote:
Concluding then. The reality remains that for me personally I would have preferred a faster per core performing AMD quad-core processor rather then an eight-core processor with just 'nice' per core performance. Who knows, for you, that just might not be the case. It's going to be interesting to see what you as an end-user will prefer.


Thats as close as he came to trying to influence anyone, otherwise he stuck straight with the facts, some people will love BD, others won't, it all comes down to what will you be doing. There is no ultimate failure, only fanboys who refuse to see that BD has strong points and focus strictly on gaming, and even that isn't 100% one way or the other.
Score
0
a c 83 à CPUs
December 25, 2011 12:41:47 PM

well.. since it turned into that i'll add some.
the biggest gripe for zambezi is:
they are totally wasted on amd's awesome 970, 990x and 990fx chipsets. the chipsets support so many good features e.g. cfx/sli on the cheapest, cheapest motherboards with dual x8 cfx/sli, loads of ports that you can combo a cheapo ph ii 4 core and be done. you can even use a zosma and take chance with core unlocking. even cheaper, use an athlon ii x2/x3 or ph ii x2/x3 b.e., unlock cores, overclock the hell outta the cpu - it will put zambezi in it's rightful place - be...hind.
if amd had put the northbridge on the cpu die, it'd be a problem ( they did it with llano iirc). but since the northbridge is in the motherboard chipset, there is no need for zambezi. none at all. you can put together a machine with ph ii 960t, 990fx motherboard with dual x16 cfx/sli, coolermaster hyper 212 plus, 16 gb gskill ram, a corsair builder or antec hcg psu, tri-fire or dual cfx radeon hd 6950 or tri/dual gtx 570 and have a gaming monster.
amd puts amd-v support in all its cpus, so you can still unlock the zosma's 6 cores or run vms on its 4 cores.
there is simply no need for an fx 4100 over phenom ii x2/x3/x4/x6 or even athlon ii x3. NONE. >:-E
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2011 12:57:17 PM

Better off buying vintage than anything BD. I got a 990FX build my self but with just a cheap unlocked p2 x4 820 @3.5ghz. Far from the best but it was cheaper than this BD crap out there now and performs better any way. Rather take outdated 1156/1366 over any BD any day.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2011 4:04:28 PM

This topic has been closed by Proximon
Score
0
!