Closed

AMD FX 4100 good cpu?

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.
206 answers Last reply
More about 4100 good
  1. For about 110 dollars, this is a fine cpu.
  2. Do you plan on OCing?
  3. I was even thinking of the fx 6100 but every review says that the high end i3's or low end i5s are better
  4. 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.
  5. 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..... ;)
  6. 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
  7. 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.)
  8. 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
  9. thently said:
    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.
  10. crisan_tiberiu said:
    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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. AMD phenom II 555,955 and 965 are my favorite.others are crap.go with intel.
  14. anort3 said:
    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.
  15. Quote:
    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.
  16. 4745454b said:
    Quote:
    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.
  17. 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.
  18. i3-2100.
  19. 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. :-)
  20. 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.
  21. 4745454b said:
    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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. rage33 said:
    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.
  25. i agree with with 47....b
    my dad has i3 2100 and it works nice!
  26. rage33 said:
    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.



    The problem most of us have with Bulldozer is that AMD took a giant step backwards with it. The IPC is so bad it's slower clock for clock than Phenom II. That is bad for everybody. And now with Phenom being phased out your only choice soon will be Bulldozer. AMD already was behind Intel with Phenom having an IPC similar to Intel's Core 2 architecture. The one good thing about Bulldozer is high clock speeds. The bad thing is even with those high clock speeds it still can not compete in any area except massive multithreaded apps.

    AMD admits now they can no longer compete with Intel in the high end CPU market and they are not even going to try anymore. Quite a few heads rolled at AMD because of the Bulldozer fiasco.

    Did you read the xbitlabs article I linked to above? AMDs flagship FX8150 in most cases competes directly with the i3 2120, a dual core with Hyperthreading. The one place the AMD chip competes well is in rendering/modeling. Like I said above that is bad for everybody. Once Intel's tick/tock strategy reaches Haswell next year will they even have the incentive to keep improving their chips with no direct competitor?

    I wanted them to succeed. I wanted at least an equal to first generation i5/i7. That would be better for us all in the long run.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_5.html#sect1
  27. LOL easy everybody, I'm not attempting to nor am I implying that AMD is the best and fastest. The original post asked if the FX-4100 was a good CPU for $119 (tigerdirect), the answer is yes its a good chip and it will not give him poor gaming performance. However I think that FX has more real world performance then people give it credit.

    I don't rely on synthetic benchmarks to sway me either way. I have had hands on experience with two FX chips (6100, 8120) and both outperformed my Phenom II 945, which was a fine performer (and yes I realize that that was not the fastest chip either lol) in its own right for what I used it for. Not to mention how easy and well they overclock. I get that its not the fastest biggest performer and all the enthusiasts were incredibly disappointed with fact they FX didn't crush SB, but at the end of the day it's not a bad chip and will give good performance for a reasonable price.

    At end of the day my comments don't really mean anything, I'm just providing an opinion representing the other side.
  28. I wouldn't quite say its that bad. In CPU tasks the 8150 can often do as well if not better then the 2500K. I think its more appropriate to say that the 2100 can keep up with the 8150 in gaming then the other way around.

    It is sad that AMD lowered the IPC. A reworked PhII arch would have been better.

    Edit: Rage, I'm not so sure. I'd bet that if you looked at the 4100 vs other ~$120 CPUs the other CPUs would win most of the benchmarks.
  29. Anything is possible :-) to be fair I have only dealt with the 6100 and 81xx so my argument specific to the 4100 is limited.
  30. guys here you go-
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html
    best cpus for money.AMD is good for tight budget cpus but intel is better with it's all round better performance.
  31. anort3 said:
    The problem most of us have with Bulldozer is that AMD took a giant step backwards with it. The IPC is so bad it's slower clock for clock than Phenom II. That is bad for everybody. And now with Phenom being phased out your only choice soon will be Bulldozer. AMD already was behind Intel with Phenom having an IPC similar to Intel's Core 2 architecture. The one good thing about Bulldozer is high clock speeds. The bad thing is even with those high clock speeds it still can not compete in any area except massive multithreaded apps.

    AMD admits now they can no longer compete with Intel in the high end CPU market and they are not even going to try anymore. Quite a few heads rolled at AMD because of the Bulldozer fiasco.

    Did you read the xbitlabs article I linked to above? AMDs flagship FX8150 in most cases competes directly with the i3 2120, a dual core with Hyperthreading. The one place the AMD chip competes well is in rendering/modeling. Like I said above that is bad for everybody. Once Intel's tick/tock strategy reaches Haswell next year will they even have the incentive to keep improving their chips with no direct competitor?

    I wanted them to succeed. I wanted at least an equal to first generation i5/i7. That would be better for us all in the long run.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_5.html#sect1



    There's no good reason for AMD to have to follow the same strategy as Intel. The margin that Intel enjoys in IPC is eroded in multi-threaded software and there is more of that coming in the future. Games these days are pretty much ports from gaming consoles, and pretty ordinary ports at that. The code seems very poorly optomized to take advantage of modern CPU's, and GPU's do most of the work here anyway.

    The problem you elude to is a bit of bad luck for Intel purchasers like you who might have to pay a bit more for your hardware, but AMD prices remain fairly static and relatively low so we, AMD users are quite happy about this. After all if you want the best you have to pay for it, you don't pay peanuts for a Ferrari or a Bently, so Intel high performance chips come with a premium price, get used to it, it's how the world works. But the AMD CPU's are more than adequate for most of us. Bit like the Intel graphics adage......."the average user doesn't need 3D support'" that's where this vitriol should be aimed, because Intel's graphics performance is truly sub par, not AMD's CPU's IMO.
  32. Easy AMD....

    ...as has they have the high performance platform. Intel remains only a hybrid high performance platform. No AMD or Nvidia and Intel is out of the equation full stop. Used to be platform was the main reason most techs stuck with Intel even though Athlon ruled the roost. Oh how those goal posts keep moving..lol
  33. If you really think about it...Intel drags in about 300 to 400 dollars for their higher end CPU's, but AMD nearly if double that for their higher end GPU's. Since GPU's can be placed on both platforms they'd more than likely be the larger revenue slice for AMD at any rate. It's no wonder they (AMD) are concentrating more heavily on GPU and APU, because it's where the money is for them.
  34. Yea thats why they're concentrating on APU's and graphics cards. It can't be because the Bulldozer is garbage and they've fallen so far behind Intel that they can't compete anymore with them. Yea everything is just flowery and awsome at AMD and the Bulldozer is the greatest thing since the invention of the personal computer.
  35. ...well that's all a bit overstated, but there have been worse problems than BD. The 939 t0 940 transition and the first Phenoms come to mind.

    ......But, let's not forget that BD also includes the APU arch. Remember to that Microsoft wants into the mobile market with Win 8 so it needs to be up to scratch with Apple and Android where I see the real battle is taking shape.

    If these a fore mentioned OS's get up over Windows, and it can happen, the whole PC landscape will change, and I don't know that I'd be particularly thrilled about running some Linux derivative. The development of the 2000/3000 HD graphics is the first sign that Intel has finally got the message that it needs to be more competitive. let's hope they(Intel) persist and get some presence in the graphics industry, but by hang they have really fallen off the pace and it will take some pegging back.

    Maybe it's already too late.... :-(
  36. Quote:
    I'm staying focused on the fact that the single core performance is so damn dreadful that I can't recommend an FX chip to anyone..
    as far as the rest of the business and what they do, well that's another thread.
    the FX-4100 is not a good recommendation or buy for someone who wants real performance.
    I do not care what the price of it is.



    ..well that's fine, but it's nice to have performance out of the box that does not wholly rely on the highest performing parts. That's how you bring products to mainstream. If more people can play at reasonable reses and frame rates we might even get back to pc's being an important market for games. The way things are going we'll all need to buy gaming consoles and we won't need Ivy Bridge after that. I know this is what's happening because I have seen that this is whay my son and his cohort of computer enthusiast friends are doing. Stick you head in the sand if you want, but uber-powered CPU's are not what the PC industry needs right now.
  37. ...it's not my love for AMD, rather what I think is the unreasonable lamb-basting of BD. The expectations on it's performance came largely out of computer forums rather than AMD's offices. Sure put up a few benches and explain how you can build a killer system usuing an i series processor. I have no problem with that. But to call BD crap and then label AMD as crap, yes then I will ask for an explanation.

    BD's need significant change in software execution, and we, "the enthusiasts," should know better than most that execution speeds depend on execution code.

    We know that in highly threaded software BD screams along, it's entirely expected that single threaded high IPC reliant code will retard it. However BD does handle it and execute it efficiently to the point that most user's won't feel it that much.

    ...but GPU's are another fish altogether, here you have a player (Intel) that chokes, splutters and dies when asked to deliver some now mainstream graphics code. As enthusiasts we should be making more effort in eliminating that problem, because that is what is holding the Windows platform back, simply because the majority of pc's out their use Intel GPU's so I see it as their responsibility to fix it.

    Don't worry, if AMD's CPU get into the same state as Intel GPU's I wouldn't buy them either.
  38. harna said:
    There's no good reason for AMD to have to follow the same strategy as Intel. The margin that Intel enjoys in IPC is eroded in multi-threaded software and there is more of that coming in the future. Games these days are pretty much ports from gaming consoles, and pretty ordinary ports at that. The code seems very poorly optomized to take advantage of modern CPU's, and GPU's do most of the work here anyway.

    The problem you elude to is a bit of bad luck for Intel purchasers like you who might have to pay a bit more for your hardware, but AMD prices remain fairly static and relatively low so we, AMD users are quite happy about this. After all if you want the best you have to pay for it, you don't pay peanuts for a Ferrari or a Bently, so Intel high performance chips come with a premium price, get used to it, it's how the world works. But the AMD CPU's are more than adequate for most of us. Bit like the Intel graphics adage......."the average user doesn't need 3D support'" that's where this vitriol should be aimed, because Intel's graphics performance is truly sub par, not AMD's CPU's IMO.


    + 1 but good luck with that argument lol it's a tough crowd out there :-)
  39. Intel doesn't seem to have a single thread issue and does just fine with multi threaded apps. Its one thing to do really well in multi thread, its a failure to take a step back in IPC. Losing 10% IPC is what I find unacceptable.
  40. ....they've paid for the privilege, I expect they'll defend to the death.
  41. I have a 4100, and hate it, it bottlenecks my SLI 560 ti setup and screws me up on games. BF3 runs at 16-50FPS and Photoshop is slow on it as well as Autodesk maya. I oc'd it to 4.6 ghz and it still probably can't compete with an i5 2400...Bad decision on my part, should have gone with a phenom 2 or i5.

    (Bf3 is on ultra)
  42. 4745454b said:
    Intel doesn't seem to have a single thread issue and does just fine with multi threaded apps. Its one thing to do really well in multi thread, its a failure to take a step back in IPC. Losing 10% IPC is what I find unacceptable.



    ...then why do all arguments come back to IPC when Thurban or BD have a win in multi-threaded software? BD's handling of high IPC dependent software isn't a full stop, but Intel's GPU is. We are not going back to single threaded software, you are flogging a dead horse there mate. I'll answer it for you, because multi-threaded performance is highly important. Like GPU's, future CPU's will be handling code over multiple threads, and computers will be make increasing use of the GPU. In fact Android is already fully driven by a GPU, and will leave Windows in its wake if not checked.

    As far as sacking incompetent staff goes, my reading of the matter was staff reductions of 10%, regrettable for those affected, but is not outside normal operating practices for large companies. I doubt very much those redundancies were in anyway BD related, except maybe some PR staff. The BD arch was laid down for some time and AMD would have been aware of the risk they are taking. However I think that the strategy has been largely successful to this point, but not yet complete.

    You don't have to find 10% IPC loss acceptable, you can say so, and you can buy the oppositions product, but fact remains for general computing, and that includes games, BD is fast and efficient and in the APU's case a great sol'n in a box.
  43. Quote:
    OK.
    so when are you 'side-grading' your 965BE for an FX-4100...? :whistle:



    ...it'l happen around June. It'll be the FX 8150 if nothing faster is out by then, but I'll X-Fire on my way through so I'll know I will see an immediate boost, I do have the option to leave the 965 on the mobo if I desire to wait a while to, so I can do this in stages quite easily.

    ..mind you I am tempted to see what the BD makes of my aging 880G platform, the 965 wasn't supposed to run on my old 770 chip set, but it did right out of the box with no BIOS update, but the voltage restriction meant that 3.1 GHz was tops so I transplanted it and sold off the old mobo with the X2 and got out of the upgrade for under $100 bucks all up so was pretty pleased by that...so you can guess how it'll work this time round too....
  44. ....that's all well and good, but I have never seen a setup that got a huge kick out of a CPU upgrade alone. I swing GPU and CPU upgrades in turn at 18 months a pop. That's what I find is the sweet spot to upgrade. I will do GPU focus this time and CPU is really some 9 months down the track. To be honest I am looking for a bit more than 3.4 to 3.6 GHz, I'm looking for at least 4.0 stock Of course it's not set in stone either.

    Ok so the 4100 let's the fort down a bit, but early P4's lagged behind the fastest P3's of the day to, this quite normal, that's why I developed my alternate strategy. And you know what? I have not once been disappointed, in fact delighted with the strategy and have subsequently stuck to it.

    I learnt the hard way to, we(my son and I) plonked a 900 Celeron on my son's mobo in place of the 600E that was there, stood back and watched the no show. CPU only upgrades don't yield good returns from my experience. Now that was a costly dud.
  45. harna said:
    ....that's all well and good, but I have never seen a setup that got a huge kick out of a CPU upgrade alone. I swing GPU and CPU upgrades in turn at 18 months a pop. That's what I find is the sweet spot to upgrade. I will do GPU focus this time and CPU is really some 9 months down the track. To be honest I am looking for a bit more than 3.4 to 3.6 GHz, I'm looking for at least 4.0 stock Of course it's not set in stone either.

    Ok so the 4100 let's the fort down a bit, but early P4's lagged behind the fastest P3's of the day to, this quite normal, that's why I developed my alternate strategy. And you know what? I have not once been disappointed, in fact delighted with the strategy and have subsequently stuck to it.

    I learnt the hard way to, we(my son and I) plonked a 900 Celeron on my son's mobo in place of the 600E that was there, stood back and watched the no show. CPU only upgrades don't yield good returns from my experience. Now that was a costly dud.


    Overclock all you want but even when overclocked the performance isn't going to be much better. Its still going to fall behind the 2500K.
  46. Quote:
    ...then why do all arguments come back to IPC when Thurban or BD have a win in multi-threaded software? BD's handling of high IPC dependent software isn't a full stop, but Intel's GPU is.


    Not sure I follow. When BD gets a "win", its because its running code that can actually use all of the "cores" that BD has. If you are running something that is highly parallel then it will scale well. This is similar to having a high IPC. You have a lot of clock engines working on the problem. If however you have something that doesn't scale well, then you can only use a few of the cores, and BD worse IPC compared to PhII or Core rears its ugly head. If AMD had done a better job then poorly scaling programs wouldn't do any worse on BD then it does on a PhII.

    Quote:
    future CPU's will be handling code over multiple threads, and computers will be make increasing use of the GPU.


    Not saying this is wrong, but we aren't there yet. You can't shoot for tomorrow before it arrives.

    Quote:
    As far as sacking incompetent staff goes, my reading of the matter was staff reductions of 10%, regrettable for those affected, but is not outside normal operating practices for large companies.


    Sacking of staff? How did that get in here?

    Quote:

    You don't have to find 10% IPC loss acceptable, you can say so, and you can buy the oppositions product, but fact remains for general computing, and that includes games,


    Indeed. For general use even a HT P4 would be fine. But for those who come on here asking about CPUs to use for gaming machines, I believe they will find BD lacking. For a gaming box you are better off with a Core based CPU or even an old PhII then a BD CPU. All the benchmarks I've seen say so.
  47. ..I 4.0 meant stock clock, we don't have that processor yet, but you should also notice the "9 months," by which I am keeping in mind that we might see more optomized software for the BD. I'll probably also want a better look at what Piledriver has before plunging in. I think there is a new chip set in the wings so there's a lot to think about at the moment.

    Any way, for my needs I don't need an i7 or a BD, and I am gaming very happily with my 965 and 1090T, they are great CPU's and will let me pick my time to upgrade.

    I also need to factor in my transition to Windows 8. That software should be better coded for BD and it'll be then that I will get the processor kick from the new CPU.

    So to recap...initial upgrade GPU transitioning to new CPU platform, and then new CPU with new software. Both moves will lead to performance increases, I hope with out buying shares in the power company...lol

    I never said that the i7 was crap, just unnecessary.
  48. "Not saying this is wrong, but we aren't there yet. You can't shoot for tomorrow before it arrives."

    You can if your new arch does a half decent job on the IPC demanding apps, which BD does, so it can shoot for tomorrow. If we all stayed in our burrows and didn't try something new, then nothing new will come of it.

    "Indeed. For general use even a HT P4 would be fine. But for those who come on here asking about CPUs to use for gaming machines, I believe they will find BD lacking. For a gaming box you are better off with a Core based CPU or even an old PhII then a BD CPU. All the benchmarks I've seen say so."

    Why on earth would you recommend that....if you are coming from a low spec PC there is no way you will notice the IPC drop from BD to P2. So tell me someone buys a pc today, you convince them to buy Phenom 2 and when they upgrade to Win 8 they have a slower system then they could have had for the same price. Well beg my pardon if I choke a bit on that one.....
  49. Ive owned an older piix4, a fx 4100, and a 980be.
    The fx 4100 was barely faster than the piix4 925 and i give credit to that at the higher clocks.
    The 980be is faster at 3.7 stock than the 4100@4.4ghz; not to mention all the gaming compatibility issues. Certain games wont launch and.there.are a few.that only utilize one.core of this new.architecure. So if someone were to only play games from when developers embrace this new arch, why would anyone want a cpu that only works for some games and not that well in a gaming system?
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Quad Core Build AMD Product