Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom X6 or FX-6100 from Phenom X2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 28, 2011 8:44:59 AM

Hi Guys,
I'm in the market for a new processor. I currently have an AMD Phenom II X2 550BE unlocked to a Quad core and overclocked to 3.6GHz. I get a bit of CPU bottlenecking with my 6850s in crossfire when running games that rely on the CPU a lot. Plus I think this processor is on it's way to the little CPU heaven in the sky.

I currently have an Asus Sabertooth 990FX Mobo, and so I have a nice choice of processors I can use. In the UK the AMD FX-6100 is £119.99 (cheapest) and the Phenom X6 1090T is around £140 - £160. I know the bulldozers have received bad press for being slower than the phenoms, but is it true they overclock very well? I wouldn't say I'm good at overclocking but I'm confident in my ability not to murder the chip, and so I'd be willing to OC to push the most out of it. Are either of these a decent upgrade from my current processor?

My Spec:
CPU - AMD Phenom X2 550BE (Unlocked to Quad @ 3.6GHz)
RAM - 4GB 1333MHz HyperX Blu
GPUs - 2x 6850s in CFX
PSU - OCZ 1010w (Can't remember exact name)

My main use will be for gaming, but it would be nice for the PC to be snappier in general. Also, I heard of rumours about a Phenom X8, do these hold any truth and do you think it would be worth the wait?

Thanks,
Tristan

More about : phenom 6100 phenom

December 28, 2011 9:29:14 AM

Your computer is like your bedroom when it is a mess it cant find anything hence the slower speed on the desktop. My advice clean up your computer's OS and get faster HDDs in RAID 0 or and SSD.
December 28, 2011 9:35:52 AM

I've got a fresh installation of Windows :)  was installed on Christmas Day
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 9:42:18 AM

I would strongly reccomend the PII X6 1100T - Its a strong CPU when overclocked and the Performance per clock is higher than that of the FX-8150 in games.

Overclocking the 1100T is a simple procedure, but will require aftermarket cooling as you may already know. 4.2ghz is not uncommon for these chips and that should drop the bottleneck significantly.

Avoid the FX Series for gaming - I simply cannot reccomend any of them over the tried and tested Phenoms.

Just to make you aware, the 1100T will not eliminate the bottleneck entirely - Skyrim for example, whilst intensive on 2 cores (to the point of 100% load) will not use much on the other 4 cores (if any) bringing it down performance per thread/core. The Phenoms are still behind on this so you will be riding on the Clock speed here.

The Phenom X8s are rumoured to be cut down FX Processors (As hard as that is to beleive...) Avoid these like the plague if this is true.

@ Headspin_69

Seriously bro - Reinstalling windows? New HDD?

This is the level of advise people get at Currys/PC World/Best Buy
December 28, 2011 10:09:59 AM

Damn, I wish AMD would just release a processor to match the 2500K :p  A cut down FX, wow that must be bad. I might get a 1100T, I guess the turbo feature would come in handy for games that don't use many cores?
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 10:21:57 AM

Overclocking negates the need for a turbo core anyway

The 1100T will be ample for your needs - Clock it to 4.2ghz (or higher if possible) and you'll be on track for a perfectly balanced system.
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 10:23:47 AM

the 6 cores don't improve gaming at all and also don't really make things snappier considering it would all rely on the caches and ram and hdd.

the FX is not worth an upgrade for gaming or much of anything as of now.
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 10:41:55 AM

esrever said:
the 6 cores don't improve gaming at all and also don't really make things snappier considering it would all rely on the caches and ram and hdd.

the FX is not worth an upgrade for gaming or much of anything as of now.


6 Cores may not improve Gaming performance right now no, but running a 3.6ghz B55 Quad is going to slow things down in comparison to a Thuban at 4.2ghz +

My reccomendation stands.
December 28, 2011 11:08:55 AM

deadjon said:
6 Cores may not improve Gaming performance right now no, but running a 3.6ghz B55 Quad is going to slow things down in comparison to a Thuban at 4.2ghz +

My reccomendation stands.


Yeah even a 1055t overclocked will help. However 1055t's are harder to overclock I will give them that. But still a strong CPU ;0)
December 28, 2011 11:16:10 AM

tjcoops: I'm lucky enough ( 60 yrs. old) to own 3 computers - 2 with i2500k CPUs and 1 with an 1100T. The Intel rigs are faster but the AMD 1100T is no slouch. I'm using an Asrock 970 Extreme 4 mb with the 1100T and a solid over clock of 3800. Your mb is better so an OC of 4000 should be no problem (4200 might be iffy). I am running 2 MSI Cyclone 460 GTX - 768s in SLI. The 1100T runs like a dream. The I2500k will beat it in benchmarks, but honestly, in game play, you hardly know the difference. Go with the 1100T.
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 11:33:46 AM

Or the 1090t , I have both 1100t and 1090 , almost no dif between the 2 in benchmarks and in use NO difference . The 1090t will OC within a few hz of the 1100t if you're lucky . Amazon had a deal on 1090 $149.00 a few weeks back .
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 11:54:16 AM

guskline said:
tjcoops: I'm lucky enough ( 60 yrs. old) to own 3 computers - 2 with i2500k CPUs and 1 with an 1100T. The Intel rigs are faster but the AMD 1100T is no slouch. I'm using an Asrock 970 Extreme 4 mb with the 1100T and a solid over clock of 3800. Your mb is better so an OC of 4000 should be no problem (4200 might be iffy). I am running 2 MSI Cyclone 460 GTX - 768s in SLI. The 1100T runs like a dream. The I2500k will beat it in benchmarks, but honestly, in game play, you hardly know the difference. Go with the 1100T.


4.2ghz is very possible on these chips as far as I can see, but the X6's vary massivley - some will do 4.2 on 1.425v and be perfectly stable and some will do 4.1 on 1.525v and then crash.

Good chips though, one of AMDs gems of the last 2 years.
December 28, 2011 1:15:30 PM

Get the Phenom II. I've got a Phenom II x4 @ 3.8ghz and I can play GTA IV, Crysis 1 and 2, BC2, etc all on high/max settings limited by my GTX460 1gb.

Bulldozer clock for clock just doesn't really improve upon Phenom's architecture. The 3 module 6 thread Bulldozer will be barely as fast as the 6 physical core Phenom II x6 in just about any practical application.
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 1:47:36 PM

An X6 would work great for you.
December 28, 2011 2:06:08 PM

I dont recommend either. I have a 1055t and its a massive bottleneck to my 5850 crossfire. I would have never thought it would be such a massive bottleneck but it is.

The sad part is yours is OCED to 3.6 which makes it faster than mine. You will be spending money for something that performs on par with what you have.
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 2:16:47 PM

chaosgs said:
I dont recommend either. I have a 1055t and its a massive bottleneck to my 5850 crossfire. I would have never thought it would be such a massive bottleneck but it is.

The sad part is yours is OCED to 3.6 which makes it faster than mine. You will be spending money for something that performs on par with what you have.


Since when is a B55 X4 a 1055t?

And since when is a 1055t a 1100T?

I Suggest you read the thread before replying.

@ 4.2ghz the bottleneck will be there but it will be minimal - and the Phenom II 1100T is the strongest chip you can buy for the 990FX Platform as far as gaming goes I beleive (unless you want to fork out £220 on an FX 8150 overclock it to 4.8ghz and still have a chip slower than the i5 2500k) and will provide a huge increase on top of his unlocked B55 @3.6 in terms of performance.

a c 108 à CPUs
December 28, 2011 2:29:39 PM

If you have a C3 PhII x2 550BE, I would re-lock it to a dual and crank that sum beach to 4GHz+. That gives you 2 higher-clocked cores (good for most games) with higher total L3 cache per core. You may even test each core, disable the core with the worst voltage characteristics, and run an over-clocked triple-core (No truth to to the rumor - LOL - that the weak core is Core2 :D  )

Even a C2-stepping dual-core at 3.8-4GHz would be a slight improvement especially when you increase the IMC/NB to 2400MHz+** to boost your frames.

If you want snappy, clone your OS/Apps to an SSD. If you want to max your snappy, clone your OS/Apps to two SSDs and see just how high that SATA 6Gb/s will go. I suspect 2 SSDs may be purchased for roughly the same cost as a BD or Thuban upgrade (and I'd wait a few months for the new BD stepping if that is where you want to go).


**__ It cannot be stressed enough the importance of bumping the IMC/NB. For each 10% you increase above stock 2000MHz IMC/NB, memory bandwidth is increased 3-4% and latency is reduced 3-4%. This may have a significant impact on your frames.



From Anand Phenom II X3 720BE & CrossFire X Performance


With your RAMs your 'sweet spot' is a clock at 250MHz (something your motherboard can easily handle). Drop the memory divider from 6.67 to 5.33. Drop your HT to 8x (or the 1600MHz setting). Leave your IMC/NB at 10x (or the 2000MHz setting). Lock your PCIe at 100MHz. Raise your NB to 1.25v.

16x250MHz = 4GHz with the IMC/NB at 10x250MHz and your RAMs spec 5.33x250MHz. 15.5x250MHz would be sweet, too.

If the above chart is followed, that may boost your frames by as much as 10%.

[:jaydeejohn:5]


edit: I fergit ...

A fresh OS install is never really a bad thing -- especially if you have run a bunch of updates and changed out your hardware. It can cure some ills :lol: 

December 28, 2011 2:29:58 PM

Thanks very much for the replies. It looks like the 1100T with an overclock is the way to go. I'll keep my options open for the time being as there may be deals on certain processors around this time of year. So if an FX-8150 can barely perform on par with the 1100T I guess the FX-6100 is a waste of time? I have to ask as pretty much all the reviews I've seen on BDs focus completely on the 8150.
a c 103 à CPUs
December 28, 2011 3:12:36 PM

1100T and up the multiplier.
December 28, 2011 3:47:53 PM

deadjon said:
Since when is a B55 X4 a 1055t?

And since when is a 1055t a 1100T?

I Suggest you read the thread before replying.

@ 4.2ghz the bottleneck will be there but it will be minimal - and the Phenom II 1100T is the strongest chip you can buy for the 990FX Platform as far as gaming goes I beleive (unless you want to fork out £220 on an FX 8150 overclock it to 4.8ghz and still have a chip slower than the i5 2500k) and will provide a huge increase on top of his unlocked B55 @3.6 in terms of performance.



It being OCED its on par with a 1055t if not faster. 1055t and 1100t have very little difference WHEN oced, they both get the same max oc ALMOST.

I have done more research on this topic than you have. Im stuck in a rut because I cant buy a faster cpu. Several old benchmarks showing what is needed to pull the 5850CF and 6850CF. Its more than anything AMD has to offer.

Also your suggesting a novice OC to 4.8GHZ? Get real.
December 28, 2011 3:57:15 PM

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_...


OP is experiencing the same problem I am. We have near identical setups. Trying to save him a lot of money/headaches.

A 1100T OCED to 4.5GHZ would eliminate our Bottlenecks but how plausible is that?

My 1055T @ 2.8 GHZ = 1 GPU load 100% 2 GPU load 15%
My 1055T @ 3.6 GHZ = 1 GPU load 100% 2 GPU load 40%

OP it looks like you bought a new motherboard thinking it was the X4 lane?
No its the cpu. I DID THE SAME DAMNED THING! But I took the board back.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/317673-33-6850-perfor...

HE HAS THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM I HAVE! He even bought a new board. Trust me a 1100T wont save you. I doubt Bulldozer will either, Because its what im contemplating getting myself.
December 28, 2011 4:50:23 PM

Damn. I feel tricked by AMD and Asus almost. Why sell a motherboard with the capability of Quad Crossfire for AMD CPUs when NO AMD CPUs could even possibly come close to feeding those graphics cards.

I highly doubt my parents would let me return the motherboard as I've changed my thoughts on what's been causing the bottleneck so many times they don't believe me.

I'm sure AMD will react to the bad reception of the Bulldozers with a new chip but what about people like me who need a processor to power our needs. I can't wait months for performance I should already be able to buy.

Thanks for your reply
a c 108 à CPUs
December 28, 2011 5:05:44 PM


Exchange your motherboard for what?

And I explained a really simple way to make your computer feel 'more snappy' and produce 10% more frames in gaming.

December 28, 2011 5:10:54 PM

How come I see people running 6970 Crossfire rigs with the AMD 1100T, if it will still bottleneck dual 6850s then it must be terrible on dual 6970s?


Wisecracker said:
Exchange your motherboard for what?

And I explained a really simple way to make your computer feel 'more snappy' and produce 10% more frames in gaming.


If I could I'd exchange my motherboard for an 1155 mobo and get a 2500K, that will not happen though :p 

I will try what you said however :) 
December 28, 2011 5:25:20 PM

Thats an expensive @$$ MOBO return it asap even with a restocking fee. What good will it do? We need a chip that exceeds 4.2 GHZ. Your old one with a H100 Cooler should do it. Me im screwed my mobo doesnt OC hardly at all. A new board is dumb.

My only suggestions are.
1. Return that board.
2. Get a damned good cooling unit with returned money and oc, Hope the cooler will transfer to the next CPU (Pile Driver or w/e comes out next.

Im in a worse boat than you. But same problem. Not a fan of Intel in any shape or form. But that 2500K combo with good MOBO is $350.

It still isnt enough wisecracker.
December 28, 2011 5:42:00 PM

I guess you're right, it's a waiting game.
a c 108 à CPUs
December 28, 2011 5:57:52 PM

The Sabertooth 990FX AM3+ is as good, if not better in many cases, than any s1155 motherboard. The only thing it doesn't have is eSATA 6Gb/s, and you can fix that with a $5 bracket.

It seems to me you are now simply trolling instead of seeking the best performance possible from your current rig.

You guys have lost your minds thinking that spending a bunch of money on switching to a 2500k is a solution. It's mind-numbing, in fact.

Why doesn't the OP post some legitimate benchies and specific concerns so we can all see how he is 'struggling' in BF3 to get 70fps on ultra at 1900x1200? Then folks can help him instead of incessantly whining about meaningless drivel.

Otherwise, it's wasting our good time.

December 28, 2011 6:06:26 PM

Sorry :( 
I get 65-70FPS on BF3 Multiplayer (High, not Ultra)
Crysis 2 I get a smooth frame rate until I turn with the mouse
Skyrim I get around 35FPS around towns and up to about 50 in open areas
Test Drive Unlimited 2 I get 30 - 35 FPS
Rage runs smoothly, but doesn't seem to improve with crossfire
Crysis Warhead runs a couple frames a second quicker, but crossfire introduces 1-2 second freezes when turning with the mouse (similar to crysis 2)
I run 1920x1080
December 28, 2011 7:31:38 PM

Problem = CPU bottleneck
Solution = ?????? + $$$$$$$ = :D 

We both have the same problem, except his CPU is faster. I cant oc because MSI 8xx series have bad capacitors that blow when over 125 watts AND no cooling for the bridges.

How is a $200 mobo going to provide any help to this problem?

Skyrim should be maxed easy 1 5850 can do it but with FPS drops in populated areas. Though thats a clear sign of either CPU or Vram bottlenecking. Turn off Crossfire and try it.


December 28, 2011 8:02:26 PM

Runs a lot smoother without crossfire. Will try to overclock some more taking into account what Wisecracker said and report back tonight or tomorrow :) 
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 8:31:36 PM

Something doesn't add up here. There is no reason a quad core at 3.6 should "bottleneck" anything less than say 560ti's or 6950's and even then it is very doubtful.
Perhaps try a different set of drivers, sometimes even going back 2 driver sets can help in some games but of course you will loose some changes made for others.

Try 11.11 drivers and move up from there. Getting less frames with 2 cards enabled would indicate something might be wrong with the second card.
Take out card 1 and test card 2 all by it's self.

Benchmark to see if you get similar results. Are the cards the same make and model ?
They have enough power LOL.
Perhaps try another cord from the PSU ?
What are the temps like ?
When the second card is engaged perhaps it is overheating the top card.
Are you oc'ing them at all ? If so drop the OC
If the stock speeds are different try them at a between point and if that fails try with the clock speeds of the slower card.
Do not upgrade you CPU for anything AMD has out right now or you will be wasting your money.

All this said I am assuming you are using the latest CCC.
Are you also using an OC tool ? Maybe disable that if you are.
This is a problem but I really feel that everyone is barking up the wrong tree here.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 28, 2011 8:36:29 PM

tjcoops said:
Sorry :( 
I get 65-70FPS on BF3 Multiplayer (High, not Ultra)
Crysis 2 I get a smooth frame rate until I turn with the mouse
Skyrim I get around 35FPS around towns and up to about 50 in open areas
Test Drive Unlimited 2 I get 30 - 35 FPS
Rage runs smoothly, but doesn't seem to improve with crossfire
Crysis Warhead runs a couple frames a second quicker, but crossfire introduces 1-2 second freezes when turning with the mouse (similar to crysis 2)
I run 1920x1080

look, you have been given a lot of bad advice in this thread, not all, but a lot. I suggest you start a new thread and hopefully wou will get some replies that will help. First of all, Skyrim is cpu bound, 35fps or lower is normal around towns, its a very cpu bound game, only thing to increase fps in this is to get an intel SB cpu and overclock it. As for things not being smooth when you move the mouse it could be a few things:
1. RAM, get more, you want 8gb.
2. you have some crossfire issues that may/may not be able to be resolved. You neeed to make sure you have your cardsin 16x/16x or 8x/8x slots. If you put the cards in 4x slots or any mixed speed slots you will get more stuttering. Check this with GPUZ.
3. http://www.overclock.net/t/796040/new-crossfire-micro-s... < do that, it should help some stuttering.
4. Make sure you have latest game patch installed, AMD drivers installed and the latest Application profiles downloaded & installed. > http://sites.amd.com/us/game/downloads/pages/crossfirex...
5. Use Driversweeper in safe mode to remove all AMD drivers and reinstall only the latest ones + profiles
6. Enable/disable vsync - play around with it, use whatever is smoother.

The advice about getting 6 core CPU's, its highly unlikely to help your problems, and the chances of getting these to 4ghz+ is lower than getting a quad core cpu to that speed. A 6 core cpu at 4ghz will generate more heat than an air cooled solution can cope with. Your problems seem to be mostly crossfire/software related anyway.

If you want good advice, here is a list of people you can trust with good answers in no particular order: rolli59, malmental, Haserath, amuffin, k1114, Supernova1138, jsc, obsidian86, davcon, JackNaylorPE, HEXiT, dirtyferret, rubix_1011, nforce4max < get some answers from these guys and you will get your problem solved, not saying there arent some other experts in this forum but these guys give pretty consistent good answers.
December 28, 2011 9:43:51 PM

According to GPU Z, both cards are running at the same clock speed and both x16. I currently have AMD Vision 12.1 installed with the latest CAP, this is a fresh install of Windows from Christmas Day so I didn't have any drivers installed before this. Dirt 3 has to have Vsync on for it to look smooth, it helps on BF3 as well, it doesn't seem to affect it as much on other games.

Temps at Idle:
Primary - 42c
Secondary - 30c

Temps playing BF3 on Caspian Border:
Primary - 54c
Secondary - 50c

Here is a screen it took of my second monitor capturing my PCs usage from Caspian Border gameplay. The frame rate seemed lower than earlier when I last played.



a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 10:05:02 PM

Wow your ram usage is super high I guess 8GB's is needed.
After seeing the CPU usage I am starting to agree with everyone else but something isn't right there.
Put in another hour or two and try to gain some more clock speed out of the cpu.
Squeeze out another 200 mhz and see if you CPU usage drops to 90%.
If it does clearly there is a bottleneck. Try disabling uneeded processes but seeing as how this is a fresh installation i'm really skeptical.

Also I noticed 3 GPU's this looks like a problem.
Hybrid xfire is engaged ? that makes no sense but something is wrong with that software or in your bios
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 10:11:48 PM

wow thats weird. I have a 955 and nothing short of a CPU stress test brings the cpu over 70% even with 2 games running. I also only have 4 gigs of ram and it only gets used up when I have 2 games running.
December 28, 2011 11:01:32 PM

Maybe the three seperate temps are different sensors on the cards? Maybe one for each fan (2 on each) and one on the GPU? Wild guess, have no idea :p 
Just ordered another 4GB RAM, exact same as my current RAM.
December 28, 2011 11:12:22 PM

That ram is only a mild help. BF3 uses like 2 GB (of ram and Vram!).

78 processes? Wtf you got going on lol. Mine is a fresh install of only 45.

Im going to attempt something stupid and OC my 1055t as high as possible on X2 and X4 cores. I cant exceed 125 Watts or its new mobo time (it blows).
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2011 11:14:08 PM

mine has 77 processes and its just normal stuff like web browser and general aps I like open like skype and steam.

and 4 gigs of ramp is plenty unless I have a game running and I alt tab.
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2011 7:52:11 AM

@ Chaosgs - The 1055T tends to OC a bit lower than the 1100T and is more difficult to get stable (FSB OCing vs DERP MULTIPLIER). And 4.8ghz is doable on an FX-8150 by looking at a guide. Its not rocket science, infact its very simple - patience is key.

@Iam2thecrow - Ive been running 4gb of RAM for a long time and my RAM usage never hits the limit.

In general Skyrim screws every single game up for CPU usage. They broke it when it was ported and the only way your gonna get GPU usage out of it is if you crank it up to 2560x1080 with full MSAA and AF.

Also, CPU usage on BF3 @ 96%? Crank the settings up to ultra with max AF/AA and it will become GPU bound - its a balancing act, again, patience is key.
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2011 8:37:55 AM

tjcoops said:
According to GPU Z, both cards are running at the same clock speed and both x16. I currently have AMD Vision 12.1 installed with the latest CAP, this is a fresh install of Windows from Christmas Day so I didn't have any drivers installed before this. Dirt 3 has to have Vsync on for it to look smooth, it helps on BF3 as well, it doesn't seem to affect it as much on other games.

Temps at Idle:
Primary - 42c
Secondary - 30c

Temps playing BF3 on Caspian Border:
Primary - 54c
Secondary - 50c

Here is a screen it took of my second monitor capturing my PCs usage from Caspian Border gameplay. The frame rate seemed lower than earlier when I last played.
http://i.imgur.com/U1Na3.png

The 1100T will free up ~20% of your cpu usage in single player, should ammount to not running 100% on multiplayer.

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-perfor...

Those are single player usages. obviously MP cranks the PII x4 up at least 30% since your pegging 100%. free clocks gives your cpu more time to communicate to the GPU instead of robbing it.
December 29, 2011 1:33:56 PM

Maybe this processor is close to dying :p  How would I go around testing the CPU's health? I can't seem to get the processor above 3.8GHz without a bluescreen. Part of me thinks that the high CPU Utilisation is a software problem, but I didn't install/uninstall or do anything between the night BF3 was running smoothly and when it wasn't.
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2011 2:19:10 PM

Is Caspian Border Multiplayer? If so you may run into a few issues there, and you probably arent running it on high enough settings to utilize your Xfired GPUs.

Its an unlocked Dual Core - Its running as a Quad, but it doesnt mean AMD didnt see it and say "Well, this is a naff Quad core - chuck it in the Dual Pile" - you tend to sacrifice the higher overclocks to unlock them to Quads.

You say it was working before? no changes? No windows updates? No driver updates? No BF3 Updates?
December 29, 2011 2:47:35 PM

Yes, Caspian Border is a multiplayer map, it's quite a large one and ran at a lovely 60FPS (Vsync) on High settings, then the morning after, BAM, about 25-40FPS. I've tried on both high settings and ultra (apart from textures as there isn't enough VRAM) and there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference in frame rate.

There was absolutely no change in my system between the two times, no updates, no changes in clock speed, no nothing.

CPU Utilisation gets as high 96% sometimes and both GPUs only get to around 40-50%.
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2011 2:51:57 PM

Have you checked all the processes for CPU time?

Go back into the BIOS and reset to Default

Boot the system and then go back in and setup your unlock + overclock again.

Also incase you missed something, do a system restore from the night it was working smoothly.

December 29, 2011 2:53:47 PM

I'm off to give it a go :) 
December 29, 2011 3:37:32 PM

tjcoops said:
Damn, I wish AMD would just release a processor to match the 2500K :p  A cut down FX, wow that must be bad. I might get a 1100T, I guess the turbo feature would come in handy for games that don't use many cores?



Don't listen to these people. The FX 6100 is the better buy as there will be a patch for it as soon as January that will increase perf on ALL FX chips. Also, when using all cores, the FX does beat everything except the 980\990X. Look around at benchmarks.
December 29, 2011 3:42:17 PM

tjcoops said:
Damn. I feel tricked by AMD and Asus almost. Why sell a motherboard with the capability of Quad Crossfire for AMD CPUs when NO AMD CPUs could even possibly come close to feeding those graphics cards.

I highly doubt my parents would let me return the motherboard as I've changed my thoughts on what's been causing the bottleneck so many times they don't believe me.

I'm sure AMD will react to the bad reception of the Bulldozers with a new chip but what about people like me who need a processor to power our needs. I can't wait months for performance I should already be able to buy.

Thanks for your reply



Perhaps you should Google FX Reviews and you'll see that NO CPU can really drive Quad SLI, but that ALL CPUs above dual Core can use a HD6970 or GTX 580 at 1920. Don't be such sheep.
December 29, 2011 4:36:37 PM

According to System Restore, an update was installed for Microsoft C++ Redistributable. Thought I had turned off automatic updates, but I restored to the date and there seems to be a slight performance increase. From a maximum of about 40FPS to 60FPS on BF3, performance still seems a bit off as I'd expect more than 60FPS (On High, No Vsync) with 2x 6850s, also the CPU Usage still reaches the mid 90s which is worrying, even after deadjon's advice.
December 29, 2011 5:25:10 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Don't listen to these people. The FX 6100 is the better buy as there will be a patch for it as soon as January that will increase perf on ALL FX chips. Also, when using all cores, the FX does beat everything except the 980\990X. Look around at benchmarks.


In this case I will wait for a bit, see how much performance increase there is with the patch and make my mind up then. As for my current CPU, I'd like to get it running a bit better, just for a taste of crossfire but I think it may be on deaths door.

Thanks
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2011 5:55:56 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Don't listen to these people. The FX 6100 is the better buy as there will be a patch for it as soon as January that will increase perf on ALL FX chips. Also, when using all cores, the FX does beat everything except the 980\990X. Look around at benchmarks.


What the?

Trolling?

In gaming the FX-6100 doesnt stand up to s**t - its a triplecore with HyperThreading for all intents and purposes.

The benches are on alot of highly threaded apps - find a game that uses 8 threads, and we might have a winn...oh wait - that means the i7 can use all its threads too! gg.

The update is rumoured to increase performance only by a small amount - there are TONS of benches for games where the 1100T trounces all of the FX chips, including the 8150.
!