Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD A6-3650, Phenom II X4 965 or an FX 4100

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 31, 2011 5:35:15 PM

So yeah I've been planning to build a CPU. I have a GTX 465 right now.
I'm confused with which to buy between these 3.
I heard that the A6 has an AMD graphics with it and will it work with my gtx 465?
Would a CORSAIR Memory PC 2x 4GB DDR3 PC-1280 be good enough?
I'm using it only for gaming though.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2011 5:40:52 PM

for gaming go with the Phenom II 965, the a-6 is an integrated and can only play on low settings, and the fx 4100 just sucks
m
0
l
December 31, 2011 5:46:36 PM

oh yeah another question, if my build is like this
Nvidia Geforce GTX 465
ASROCK 970 Extreme4
WESTERN DIGITAL CAVIAR GREEN 1TB
AMD Phenom II X4 965
CORSAIR Memory PC 2x 4GB DDR3 PC-1280

would a Cougar CMX 550w be enough for it?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2011 6:00:15 PM

yes :) 
m
0
l
a c 228 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 31, 2011 7:30:58 PM

There is no reason to build with an AMD chip right now as Intel does better at every price. If you would fill out this we can help you better.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261222-31-build-advic...

Oh and you don't build a CPU, you buy a CPU to put in your computer ;) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 31, 2011 7:37:07 PM

anort3 said:
There is no reason to build with an AMD chip right now as Intel does better at every price. If you would fill out this we can help you better.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261222-31-build-advic...

Oh and you don't build a CPU, you buy a CPU to put in your computer ;) 
thats clearly not true as a phenom II x4 will beat an i3 in just about anything threaded. The difference in gaming is realistically 1 fps and will be in the phenom's favor if there is anything that happens to run in the background.
m
0
l
December 31, 2011 7:37:50 PM

I think he meant CPU as in "computer" abbreviated.
m
0
l
a c 88 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 31, 2011 8:45:14 PM

girarae said:
oh yeah another question, if my build is like this
Nvidia Geforce GTX 465
ASROCK 970 Extreme4
WESTERN DIGITAL CAVIAR GREEN 1TB
AMD Phenom II X4 965
CORSAIR Memory PC 2x 4GB DDR3 PC-1280

would a Cougar CMX 550w be enough for it?

good build, but no for the PSU. Get a more well known reliable brand like Antec, Seasonic, Corsair, XFX. 550w is enough for that build. As has already been said, the FX cpu's suck and the A8/A6 cpu's arent really for gaming, more of a general use cpu.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2011 9:05:15 PM

and when it comes to I3's and PHII's, my quad core PHII costs 100$ whereas the i3 wouldve cost about double that
m
0
l
December 31, 2011 9:34:18 PM

^ +1
m
0
l
a c 228 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 31, 2011 9:40:52 PM

esrever said:
thats clearly not true as a phenom II x6 will beat an i3 in just about anything threaded. The difference in gaming is realistically 1 fps and will be in the phenom's favor if there is anything that happens to run in the background.



As the OP specifically stated:

Quote:
I'm using it only for gaming though.


Do you actually read the articles that Tom's does every month on what is the best gaming CPU?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overcloc...

Giving AMD the sub $80 category might have just been out of pity as the Pentium G850 beats the x3 455.

Quote:
The difference in gaming is realistically 1 fps


Really? Let's look at the 6 core 1055T compared to the dual core i3 2100.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=289

Yes if the OP was building a productivity computer the Thuban would be a better choice but for gaming......

Dragon Age Origins: i3 is up 21 FPS
Dawn of War II : .....14 FPS
World of Warcraft :.........31 FPS
and on
and on.

In fact of the 37 benchmarks the Thuban wins 20 of them.

Now the x4 955 vs the i3 2100

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

30 benchmarks and the 955 takes 14 of them. The AMD chip come a little closer in gaming though because of the higher clock speed. It still loses all the gaming benchmarks just not by as much.


Quote:
and when it comes to I3's and PHII's, my quad core PHII costs 100$ whereas the i3 wouldve cost about double that



Really? Here is the i3 2120 that by the way is faster than the i3 2100 in the above benchmarks for $119. For double your money you almost could buy a 2500K.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Ok it's on sale I will give you that. The everyday price of the i3 2100 is $124.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

In fact here is an i5 2500K for $217 with a $15 off promo code.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Look I am no fanboy either way. But the numbers don't lie. For a gaming computer at any price Intel wins. When AMD was ahead back in the days of the "real" FX processors I used to tell people to buy those. I just try to give an unbiased look at true bang for your buck.
m
0
l
December 31, 2011 9:59:55 PM

anort3 said:
As the OP specifically stated:

Quote:
I'm using it only for gaming though.


Do you actually read the articles that Tom's does every month on what is the best gaming CPU?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overcloc...

Giving AMD the sub $80 category might have just been out of pity as the Pentium G850 beats the x3 455.

Quote:
The difference in gaming is realistically 1 fps


Really? Let's look at the 6 core 1055T compared to the dual core i3 2100.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=289

Yes if the OP was building a productivity computer the Thuban would be a better choice but for gaming......

Dragon Age Origins: i3 is up 21 FPS
Dawn of War II : .....14 FPS
World of Warcraft :.........31 FPS
and on
and on.

In fact of the 37 benchmarks the Thuban wins 20 of them.

Now the x4 955 vs the i3 2100

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

30 benchmarks and the 955 takes 14 of them. The AMD chip come a little closer in gaming though because of the higher clock speed. It still loses all the gaming benchmarks just not by as much.


Quote:
and when it comes to I3's and PHII's, my quad core PHII costs 100$ whereas the i3 wouldve cost about double that



Really? Here is the i3 2120 that by the way is faster than the i3 2100 in the above benchmarks for $119. For double your money you almost could buy a 2500K.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Ok it's on sale I will give you that. The everyday price of the i3 2100 is $124.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

In fact here is an i5 2500K for $217 with a $15 off promo code.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Look I am no fanboy either way. But the numbers don't lie. For a gaming computer at any price Intel wins. When AMD was ahead back in the days of the "real" FX processors I used to tell people to buy those. I just try to give an unbiased look at true bang for your buck.

The Phenom II x4 955 is still a best value gaming CPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 31, 2011 10:02:18 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

1 fps... if you don't choose stupid resolutions like on annadtech.

all games are generally above 60 fps so why does it matter. also you can OC a 955 to more than a 980 stock performance.

also

m
0
l
a c 228 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 31, 2011 10:30:06 PM

esrever said:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

1 fps... if you don't choose stupid resolutions like on annadtech.

all games are generally above 60 fps so why does it matter. also you can OC a 955 to more than a 980 stock performance.

also

http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/W/280040/original/MultiTasking.png



They choose those "stupid" resolutions because that is where the CPU does more work than the GPU, thus making it a test of the CPU and not the graphics card.

Not sure what you are trying to prove with that chart but it looks to me that even in your multitasking benchmark that the i3 comes damn close. Really damn close........closer than I would have expected.

1075T gets 57.3-55.3

x4 970 gets 56-49

i3 2100 gets 56-45.7

Not too shabby for a dual core. And oh yeah the 970 costs $20 more than the i3. Pretty sure the 1075T has been discontinued to make consumers buy the "superior" Faildozer parts.
m
0
l
December 31, 2011 10:36:40 PM

anort3 said:
They choose those "stupid" resolutions because that is where the CPU does more work than the GPU, thus making it a test of the CPU and not the graphics card.

Not sure what you are trying to prove with that chart but it looks to me that even in your multitasking benchmark that the i3 comes damn close. Really damn close........closer than I would have expected.

1075T gets 57.3-55.3

x4 970 gets 56-49

i3 2100 gets 56-45.7

Not too shabby for a dual core. And oh yeah the 970 costs $20 more than the i3. Pretty sure the 1075T has been discontinued to make consumers buy the "superior" Faildozer parts.

In gaming the higher the res the more load is put on the GPU and less load on CPU and Overclock Phenom II 955 is still a good option.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 31, 2011 10:41:10 PM

why the *** does it matter if its stronger at lower resolutions? it won't even matter in realist situation. you are buying a cpu to play games at normal situations not to sit there and stare at your 30 higher fps at 1280x720 or w/e...

also if you look all the decent cpu are within 5 fps of eachother. and dropping from 56 to 46 is kinda a big deal...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2011 10:42:34 PM

okay, well for 20$ less, i get 4 physical cores... and from what ive read hyperthreaded cores are slower...
and when it comes to multi tasking, who is going to be compressing with winrar while playing metro 2033, thats just dumb

but the OP had 3 processors picked out, why dont we stick to those parts?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 31, 2011 10:48:20 PM

nna2 said:
okay, well for 20$ less, i get 4 physical cores... and from what ive read hyperthreaded cores are slower...
and when it comes to multi tasking, who is going to be compressing with winrar while playing metro 2033, thats just dumb

but the OP had 3 processors picked out, why dont we stick to those parts?
its just show the cpu playing a game with a secondary load. which would sometime come up. I would like to see something more realistic like running fraps and music with a youtube video in the background but thats the best multitasking benchmark I can fine.

I do prefer 4 physical cores to 2 +2 hyper-threaded. maybe its just because hyper-threading used to be so bad when it usually dropped performance in a lot of applications.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2011 11:07:26 PM

Hi there! i´m reading this topic that comes close for my next question.

I didnt wanted to create a new topic if this threat is going to the same way..

Well I was checking on amazon and the Amd Fx4100 is 109 bucks and the Phenom II x4 960t BE at the same price...

Its for games and overclocking so.... Which would be the best option for the money?

The BE surely was made for OC, but theres reviews saying that the FX 4100 have a good room for OC´ing... Now since everybody says that the FX plataform just sucks, sould I go straight for a P II 960t BE? also can you tell what means the "T" at the end for the model?

Sorry if this post is going bother you, I just dont want to make incessary posts for the almost the same questions...

Thanks, and Happy New year guys :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 31, 2011 11:10:34 PM

I'd go with the 960t, its slightly faster and you might be able to unlock it to a 6 core.
The T means its a thuban core which means its a 6 core with 2 cores disabled.

the fx will OC better but the 960 will give you about the same performance when both are OC'ed, and the 960 can be unlocked.
m
0
l
December 31, 2011 11:27:29 PM

esrever said:
I'd go with the 960t, its slightly faster and you might be able to unlock it to a 6 core.
The T means its a thuban core which means its a 6 core with 2 cores disabled.

the fx will OC better but the 960 will give you about the same performance when both are OC'ed, and the 960 can be unlocked.

The 960t is a binned and crippled x6 CPU that did not make the cut and so AMD needs to cut there loses and still make a profit off them crippled binned X6 CPUs hence the 960t. Deneb is a better more powerful per Clock/Core architecture over Thuban and Deneb was AMDs last decent architecture to bad they never built on it being that Tuban and BD are less powerful clock for clock. 6 cores Thubans need 2 cores disabled to perform on par with an overclocked 955BE AMD screwed themselves out of their own niche market and only now when the 955BE dry up that people start recommending the 960T makes sense.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2012 12:04:37 AM

^^ uhm... what, no the locked cores where considered faulty, so they disabled them and resold them as 1,2,3,4 core processors to try and recover some lost money

but as it goes, people unlocked these cores.... and they worked with somewhat stability... and also, the weakest arcitecture in the PHII market is propus

edit: stable not stability lol
m
0
l
January 1, 2012 12:08:30 AM

nna2 said:
^^ uhm... what, no the locked cores where considered faulty, so they disabled them and resold them as 1,2,3,4 core processors to try and recover some lost money

but as it goes, people unlocked these cores.... and they worked with somewhat stability... and also, the weakest arcitecture in the PHII market is propus

edit: stable not stability lol

the point is 955 is still better than 960t
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2012 12:12:38 AM

i still think your wrong, enabling 2 cores would up preformance on things like video editing ect ect, so disabling 2 cores would put it on par...
m
0
l
January 1, 2012 12:14:00 AM

nna2 said:
i still think your wrong, enabling 2 cores would up preformance on things like video editing ect ect, so disabling 2 cores would put it on par...

people are to quick to assume more is always better
m
0
l
January 1, 2012 12:20:16 AM

horaciopz said:
Hi there! i´m reading this topic that comes close for my next question.

I didnt wanted to create a new topic if this threat is going to the same way..

Well I was checking on amazon and the Amd Fx4100 is 109 bucks and the Phenom II x4 960t BE at the same price...

Its for games and overclocking so.... Which would be the best option for the money?

The BE surely was made for OC, but theres reviews saying that the FX 4100 have a good room for OC´ing... Now since everybody says that the FX plataform just sucks, sould I go straight for a P II 960t BE? also can you tell what means the "T" at the end for the model?

Sorry if this post is going bother you, I just dont want to make incessary posts for the almost the same questions...

Thanks, and Happy New year guys :) 


Short answer: 960T

The 960T is built off an older tech, which also means that the tech has been perfected over time to be the best it can. BD is a new approach which means there is still a lot of work to be done. Eventually it may improve in quality, but at the present it does not perform any better than older solutions. It is not "terrible", just not as good as it should be. Updates in the OS may or may not improve quality. IMO Bulldozer is just around to get the tech right so the next gen Piledriver will work well and anyone using it is only helping AMD perfect the next gen.

Llano is also a very solid offering for the price. You are paying a slight price increase for integrated graphics, but not much more than you'd pay for an integrated graphics motherboard. Comparing the new OCable Llanos to a nonOC i3 at the same price is going to be rough on Intel fans.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2012 12:22:10 AM

^i agree with you but Llano is good, but not good for gaming... course then intel hd3000 is worse lol
m
0
l
January 1, 2012 12:27:30 AM

nna2 said:
i still think your wrong, enabling 2 cores would up preformance on things like video editing ect ect, so disabling 2 cores would put it on par...

With a Thuban when 6 cores are enabled it cant reach the same per core clock speed as an Overclocked Deneb 4 core so in essence unless it is a very heavily 6 core dependent software in use the faster 4 core Deneb will always come out on top and in gaming clock speed is far more useful than 6 cores that only one game to date can use and even then a faster per core CPU will always win.
m
0
l
January 1, 2012 12:27:55 AM

kinggraves said:
Short answer: 960T

The 960T is built off an older tech, which also means that the tech has been perfected over time to be the best it can. BD is a new approach which means there is still a lot of work to be done. Eventually it may improve in quality, but at the present it does not perform any better than older solutions. It is not "terrible", just not as good as it should be. Updates in the OS may or may not improve quality. IMO Bulldozer is just around to get the tech right so the next gen Piledriver will work well and anyone using it is only helping AMD perfect the next gen.

Llano is also a very solid offering for the price. You are paying a slight price increase for integrated graphics, but not much more than you'd pay for an integrated graphics motherboard. Comparing the new OCable Llanos to a nonOC i3 at the same price is going to be rough on Intel fans.


With a Thuban when 6 cores are enabled it cant reach the same per core clock speed as an Overclocked Deneb 4 core so in essence unless it is a very heavily 6 core dependent software in use the faster 4 core Deneb will always come out on top and in gaming clock speed is far more useful than 6 cores that only one game to date can use and even then a faster per core CPU will always win.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 1, 2012 12:45:35 AM

the thuban cores are the same as the deneb cores. they just added 2 more. even the caches and everything is the same.

they don't OC as well cause the chip is bigger and still has the same thermal roof.
m
0
l
January 1, 2012 1:01:16 AM

nna2 said:
^i agree with you but Llano is good, but not good for gaming... course then intel hd3000 is worse lol


The real problem with Llano gaming is hybrid crossfire. It's not a bad idea on paper, combine the APU with a 6670 and the crossfire is about the performance of a 6770. That isn't good for people with high res/high settings, but a 6770 is good enough for people who don't have high expectations. But hybrid crossfire doesn't always work like it should, needs the correct profiles, might have micro stuttering, and doesn't work for DX9, which some are still using. If they get hybrid Xfire working all the time, this could be a great solution, and it's still an alright solution in low/mid range needs. But if you don't use the integrated graphics, you can get an equal CPU for cheaper and use a discrete card just as well. Still alright though, it's not like it'll bottleneck any worse than an athlon/phenom II would.
m
0
l
January 1, 2012 1:06:56 AM

esrever said:
the thuban cores are the same as the deneb cores. they just added 2 more. even the caches and everything is the same.

they don't OC as well cause the chip is bigger and still has the same thermal roof.

Thuban and Zosma have no improvements over Deneb in fact Deneb is superior for it's higher TDP. 4 more powerful cores spread thin into 6 slower cores which is really the difference between Phenom II x4 and Phenom II x6 Thuban is not really faster except maybe on paper and in synthetic benchmarks programs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2012 1:30:59 AM

kinggraves said:
The real problem with Llano gaming is hybrid crossfire. It's not a bad idea on paper, combine the APU with a 6670 and the crossfire is about the performance of a 6770. That isn't good for people with high res/high settings, but a 6770 is good enough for people who don't have high expectations. But hybrid crossfire doesn't always work like it should, needs the correct profiles, might have micro stuttering, and doesn't work for DX9, which some are still using. If they get hybrid Xfire working all the time, this could be a great solution, and it's still an alright solution in low/mid range needs. But if you don't use the integrated graphics, you can get an equal CPU for cheaper and use a discrete card just as well. Still alright though, it's not like it'll bottleneck any worse than an athlon/phenom II would.


i think low expectations is a little over stated, i can use high settings in pretty much every game i use.... but i do see your point, Xfire has always had problems
m
0
l
January 1, 2012 2:05:33 AM

nna2 said:
i think low expectations is a little over stated, i can use high settings in pretty much every game i use.... but i do see your point, Xfire has always had problems

I never had problems with Crossfire seems like I lot of talk from people that have never run it and would not know any better.
m
0
l
January 1, 2012 6:26:56 AM

Thanks for the reply guys, didn't thought it would get this many replies.
For the psu, I've already bought the cougar so I'll be using that. Next time I'll remember to buy a corsair psu or something better.
Before I was going to buy an intel processor but when I found out about AMD prices I quickly changed my mind.

Oh yeah I think I'll be unlocking my Nvidia Geforce GTX 465 to a 470, would this be a good idea?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2012 6:39:45 AM

^ yeah, it's a good idea :p 
m
0
l
!