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

[girarae]

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.

 

[nna2]

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

 

[girarae]

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?

 

[nna2]

yes

 

[Deleted member 217926]

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-advice

Oh and you don't build a CPU, you buy a CPU to put in your computer

 

[esrever]

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-advice

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.

 

[rocknrollz]

I think he meant CPU as in "computer" abbreviated.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

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.

 

[nna2]

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

 

[Engima]

^ +1

 

[Deleted member 217926]

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:

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-overclocking,3077.html

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

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.

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=N82E16819115077

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=N82E16819115078

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

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072


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.

 

[Headspin_69]

As the OP specifically stated:

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-overclocking,3077.html

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

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.

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=N82E16819115077

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=N82E16819115078

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

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072


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.

 

[esrever]

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

 

[Deleted member 217926]

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.

 

[Headspin_69]

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.

 

[esrever]

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...

 

[nna2]

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?

 

[esrever]

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.

 

[horaciopz]

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

 

[esrever]

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.

 

[Headspin_69]

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.

 

[nna2]

^^ 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

 

[Headspin_69]

^^ 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

 

[nna2]

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...

 

[Headspin_69]

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