Would I be bottlenecking?

[dkm2]

I am curious because I have been reading more and more about bottlenecking and when I build my new PC I dont want to run into it.

I will be using a AMD FX-4100 and a Radeon HD 6950.

Keep in mind that I do plan on OCing the CPU to whatever the highest I can that is stable with a Hyper 212 evo. I may also flash the HD 6950 to the 6970 IF it doesnt hurt performance anymore.

Should I just go with the 6100 and spend the extra 50 dollars??

Please, please, PLEASE. No one tell me to switch to intel. Im sick of hearing it. Thank you!!!

 

[esrever]

the 6100 will not help at all.

the 4100 will probably be better than it.

depending on the price you'd be better off going with a phenom.

phenom > FX.

 

[inanition02]

Ummm...something will always be the bottleneck. Either CPU, video card, RAM, storage, etc - something will limit you.

 

[guavasauce]

just a thought, i would wait untill the second serries bulldozers, or atleast till windows starts playing better with it.

true, might be better off getting a phenom II

 

[shanky887614]

how much you looking to pay total?

with the cost of the cpu you may be better off getting a sandy bridge build


you can get the motherboards for £50-100 (i paid £80)

i3 2100 for around £90
i5 2400 for £140 (i paid this for mine)


plus you could always throw in a core i7 in the future if you wanted to upgrade without throwing away motherboard

 

[dkm2]

This is dkm2. Im on my phone so i cant login for some reason.

Im just wondering if i have a 4100 or a 6100 if buying a 250 dollar gpu isnt going to make me regret not getting a 150 dollar gpu.

I want to be able to play skyrim, swotor, d3, and bf3 without a hiccup.

 

[dkm2]

About 1500 usd budget including the monitor and 100 dollars for a mouse and keyboard.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

from experience in owning a FX 4100 @ 4.4ghz.....
dont get the first gen FX processors. If you want to wait to see what the next stepping brings then go ahead; but the 955 BE and above are better performers even in gaming than the fx 4100 even overclocked all to hell. I own the 980 BE@ 4.0 and it is marginally faster than the FX 4100@4.4 i got rid of.
i saw a huge bottleneck on skyrim especially with the fx 4100 that seemed to go away with the 980 BE.
and forget playing Deus Ex with an FX processor; they will only work off of one core it is a problem alot of people including myself had with the FX 4100/6100

 

[bwrlane]

All computers are bottlenecked somewhere; if they weren't they'd run at infinite speed. The bottleneck simply refers to the slowest part of your system and it varies with the task at hand. Eg provided you have a competent CPU and don't have a crazy gpu setup, most games will be gpu bound. For video editing computers are generally CPU bound. For booting and copying large files, you will normally be disk bound. The thing about bottlenecks is if you remove them, they will just reappear elsewhere. (As an example, since getting a fast ssd, some parts of my boot sequence are now CPU bound).

The 4100 is competent enough of a CPU (especially when overclocked) for most games to be gpu bottlenecked, in most situations. This means that there's not much benefit getting a faster CPU if your main use is games, particularly as few games use more than 4 cores. A 6950 is a very fine card but will still be the limiting factor in most games. If the choice is between a 4100 paired with a 6970, or a 6100 paired with a 6950, I would choose the former. A single 6950 will struggle on max settings in bf3.

Note, one slight exception to this is skyrim, which is more CPU dependent than most games, but a 4100 should be enough to give you a decent experience.

If it were my money, however, I'd be waiting for a 7970.

I won't tell you that at this moment in time, intel CPUs deliver superior price/performance at virtually every price point because you have specifically asked me not to

 

[FlintIronStagg]

All computers are bottlenecked somewhere; if they weren't they'd run at infinite speed. The bottleneck simply refers to the slowest part of your system and it varies with the task at hand. Eg provided you have a competent CPU and don't have a crazy gpu setup, most games will be gpu bound. For video editing computers are generally CPU bound. For booting and copying large files, you will normally be disk bound. The thing about bottlenecks is if you remove them, they will just reappear elsewhere. (As an example, since getting a fast ssd, some parts of my boot sequence are now CPU bound).

The 4100 is competent enough of a CPU (especially when overclocked) for most games to be gpu bottlenecked, in most situations. This means that there's not much benefit getting a faster CPU if your main use is games, particularly as few games use more than 4 cores. A 6950 is a very fine card but will still be the limiting factor in most games. If the choice is between a 4100 paired with a 6970, or a 6100 paired with a 6950, I would choose the former. A single 6950 will struggle on max settings in bf3.

Note, one slight exception to this is skyrim, which is more CPU dependent than most games, but a 4100 should be enough to give you a decent experience.

If it were my money, however, I'd be waiting for a 7970.

I won't tell you that at this moment in time, intel CPUs deliver superior price/performance at virtually every price point because you have specifically asked me not to

the 4100 is barely better than a PIIx4 925 C2.
How is this a good choice that wont bottleneck a gpu?
I have played skyrim on a 4100@ 4.4ghz with a gtx 570 and my gpu was strangled by it ( not exaggerating).
all of these factors you listed dont come into play, because OP wants to play games. For gaming the FX 4100 needs to be paired with a 6770 or 6850 at the most to lessen the bottleneck, not counting the compatibility issues some games have with the FX line of processors.
I still say go with the 955BE or greater, esp with a higher end gpu like the 6950