AMD FX 4100 good cpu?

[mynameiskobe]

For my first build I'm really considering the AMD FX 4100. I like the 3.60 quad core for only 119.99 (tigerdirect)
My main use is going to be gaming.

 

[abekl]

For about 110 dollars, this is a fine cpu.

 

[HostileDonut]

Do you plan on OCing?

 

[bruyiell]

I was even thinking of the fx 6100 but every review says that the high end i3's or low end i5s are better

 

[thently]

My friend has the FX 6100 we overclocked it to 4.7ghz and it still is not able to max skyrim it got better as we got faster but its not the 560Ti thats the issue its the crap AMD proccessors and I'm not a basher have the 1090T myself.

Thent

Guess I never answered I would not go AMD for this generation Go intel more expensive up front but oh so worth it have an i7 laptop that just smokes.

 

[harna]

It's very lucky for you that you have a i7 laptop. Now you can load Skyrim up on that and show your mate how the game should be played. I'd love to see the video.....

 

[Deleted member 217926]

That processor is only $109 at newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103996

Now if you are going to overclock it to 4.5Ghz+ then it might be decent for the price. If you are going to leave it stock get the Intel 2120.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115077

$20 more but it beats the crap out of the stock FX4100. It can not however overclock.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100.html

 

[4745454b]

Interesting link Anort.

If you can't afford an Intel system, I highly suggest getting an AM3+ board now along with a good AM3 CPU. (955, 1055, etc.) OC it and be happy. If the dozers ever get improved you can at least upgrade then. You'd be better off with an i5 2400 however. (Or do what I did and pick up an i5 750 for cheap as someone upgraded.)

 

[sunnk]

dont get an fx 4100 if u are thinking of gaming because the fx chips are not good in gaming if u can go for an amd phenom ii x4 be then go for it because the multiplier on black edition are unlock and if u cannot find that chips on online store go and check on hardware shop which is near you or if u wanna buy from online shop only then go for the 960t it can do both the things overclocking and unlocking of 2 cores but your motherboard should be good.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103995

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

My friend has the FX 6100 we overclocked it to 4.7ghz and it still is not able to max skyrim it got better as we got faster but its not the 560Ti thats the issue its the crap AMD proccessors and I'm not a basher have the 1090T myself.

Thent

Guess I never answered I would not go AMD for this generation Go intel more expensive up front but oh so worth it have an i7 laptop that just smokes.

No CPU above Core 2 Duo bottlenecks any game from 2011. I am sure that the GTX 560ti its your problem.

 

[Deleted member 217926]

No CPU above Core 2 Duo bottlenecks any game from 2011. I am sure that the GTX 560ti its your problem.

Oh yeah?

"This game clearly relies on CPU power, and you need a Sandy Bridge-based Core i3 at 3 GHz or a Phenom II at 3.5 GHz to provide a minimum 30 FPS. Bear in mind that we're using the ultra detail setting here, and processing requirements drop significantly as you start stepping back. So, you can make due with a less potent chip when you dial in detail options appropriately."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074.html

 

[de5_Roy]

most amd cpus will deliver playable (e.g. 40+) fps @1080p with gtx 560ti. but, intel core cpus will deliver higher minimum fps compared to phenoms and fx cpus (core i3 vs ph ii x4 955, fx 4100 @ stock). overclocking will help the min. fps a bit at the cost of increased power consumption.
in dual card or higher multi card configurations, amd cpus will bottleneck the gpus at 1080p and lower resolutions, sometimes at 1440p or 1600p resolutions.
that said, fx 4100 is a very cheap, overclockable, power hungry semi-quad core cpu. it's decent for single card configs and gpu bound games.

 

[HostileDonut]

I would get the 960t over the FX-4100. The 960t also can unlock to a hexa-core CPU sometimes and is faster per clock. It is a little more expensive though. I think about $10 more.

 

[hellfire24]

AMD phenom II 555,955 and 965 are my favorite.others are crap.go with intel.

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

Oh yeah?

"This game clearly relies on CPU power, and you need a Sandy Bridge-based Core i3 at 3 GHz or a Phenom II at 3.5 GHz to provide a minimum 30 FPS. Bear in mind that we're using the ultra detail setting here, and processing requirements drop significantly as you start stepping back. So, you can make due with a less potent chip when you dial in detail options appropriately."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074.html

So you can have a 30 FPS on Ultra, with an i3 @ 3 GHZ or Phenom 2 @ 3,5 but you need a GTX 570 . As far as i know the GTX 560 ti its slower then the gtx 570.

 

[4745454b]

So you can have a 30 FPS on Ultra, with an i3 @ 3 GHZ or Phenom 2 @ 3,5 but you need a GTX 570 .

Huh? Looking at the clock speed graph, a 3.5GHz PhII will get you ~45FPS, while a 4.5GHz 2500k will get you 60+. I'm not sure why they didn't give us a 2500k at 3.5GHz as well, but a 3.0GHz 2500k will do just shy of 55FPS. I'm not sure where you get this 30FPS from.

The sad part is when you look at the core graph. Even a dual core with HT will give you more FPS then an AMD hex core. (Both chips at 3.0GHz.) Going back to the original argument, a PhII or even AthlonII at stock clocks will have issues with this game. They will be very close to the 30FPS avg mark and you'll have problems is busy areas. I think thats what anort was trying to show.

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

So you can have a 30 FPS on Ultra, with an i3 @ 3 GHZ or Phenom 2 @ 3,5 but you need a GTX 570 .

Huh? Looking at the clock speed graph, a 3.5GHz PhII will get you ~45FPS, while a 4.5GHz 2500k will get you 60+. I'm not sure why they didn't give us a 2500k at 3.5GHz as well, but a 3.0GHz 2500k will do just shy of 55FPS. I'm not sure where you get this 30FPS from.

The sad part is when you look at the core graph. Even a dual core with HT will give you more FPS then an AMD hex core. (Both chips at 3.0GHz.) Going back to the original argument, a PhII or even AthlonII at stock clocks will have issues with this game. They will be very close to the 30FPS avg mark and you'll have problems is busy areas. I think thats what anort was trying to show.

thently, sayd that he cant max out skyrim with an FX 6100 @ 4,7 GHZ with GTX 560 ti. Then Anort 3 posted a link where i can see that Skyrim runs on 1080 p Ultra with a Phenom 2 @ 2 GHZ with a minimum of 18 and a max of 29 FPS. This is where i get the "30 FPS". I am sure that the FX 6100 @ 4,7 GHz is alot better then the Phenom 2 @ 2 GHZ. 99% of the games are single core/ dual core optimized and only a few games take advantage of quads. My opinion is that @ 110$ ill rather have a quad core FX then a dual core i3.

 

[mynameiskobe]

So would no one recommend a athlon series CPU? I was thinking about getting a 3.4 triple core and just unlocking the fourth core.

 

[amuffin]

i3-2100.

 

[rage33]

I've personally had hands on experience with both the FX-6100 and the FX-8120, both performed very well for me and both ran skyrim just fine with out any stuttering or low FPS, despite all the nay sayers.

The FX chips Overclock very well and give sizable performance, they just don't deliver the expected performance that was claimed prior to release, and they are on par or slightly under sandy bridge. For $109 you will not be disappointed, in fact in real world gaming you will not be disappointed with any of the mentioned CPUs' that have been mentioned on this thread, any of them will game just fine IMO. Though I'm sure according to several people I'm a idiot and don't know what I"m talking about lol so take my comments for what they are.

 

[4745454b]

It's not that they can't game, they just don't game as well as other CPUs out there. Why buy a CPU that does X FPS if you can buy a different one that provides more? From the gaming benchmarks I've seen a 2500(K) will provide better frame rates then the 8120/8150.

 

[rds1220]

It's not that they can't game, they just don't game as well as other CPUs out there. Why buy a CPU that does X FPS if you can buy a different one that provides more? From the gaming benchmarks I've seen a 2500(K) will provide better frame rates then the 8120/8150.

If your satisfied with just good enough performance get the Bulldozer. Some people aren't satisfied with just good enough performance, they want the best speed and the best performance and the Intel Sandy Bridges will give you that.

 

[rage33]

Its not just simply getting a Intel processor, not only is the intel processor going to cost more money, now you need a Intel supported motherboard, which is also cost more money, especially if you want a good motherboard that has a lot of options and supports SLI/CF. Not to mention future upgrades are also limited as every new Intel architecture requires a new motherboard.

AMD platforms may not offer the absolute fastest speeds and all bragging rights, but are still very fast, high performing machines in there own right with out costing near as much once you put the whole system together.

 

[4745454b]

1155 and 1156 boards can be rather cheap. Good ones for $75-100+. And the new SB based Pentiums are rather good as well. You might be surprised how good a cheap Intel can perform.

 

[rds1220]

Its not just simply getting a Intel processor, not only is the intel processor going to cost more money, now you need a Intel supported motherboard, which is also cost more money, especially if you want a good motherboard that has a lot of options and supports SLI/CF. Not to mention future upgrades are also limited as every new Intel architecture requires a new motherboard.

AMD platforms may not offer the absolute fastest speeds and all bragging rights, but are still very fast, high performing machines in there own right with out costing near as much once you put the whole system together.

Go onto Newegg and look at both P67 and Z68 boards. Both can be bought for 75-125 dollars. So that whole argument is pretty much useless because both can be bought for around the same price. Once again it all comes down to the actual CPU. Yea the Intel cost more but again you get what you pay for. With the Intel you're getting faster performance.