Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX 6100 @ 4.5GHz vs X6 1100T @ 3.5GHz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 6, 2012 2:20:37 PM

The title says everythink. Which is best for gaming at 1080p on max settings? Would any of them at stock frequency bottleneck a HD6970?
Please don't say buy 2500k.

More about : 6100 5ghz 1100t 5ghz

a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 2:34:01 PM

I would say both can do it....what game you mostly play.
March 6, 2012 2:36:12 PM

I take it that you want to stick to your current motherboard :) 

But then again, we still needs to know what exactly your motherboard is.

If the current chipset you have actually supports the FXs, I'd say go for it. I don't think they are far better from the Phenom but still, they are roughly more powerful, regardless of architectural flaw people use to complains about.

I had a friend that just bought an FX4100 combined with his old HD5670 and 4 GB RAM, he tells me he never regret purchasing it for upgrade from Rana 440 since he feel significant improvements. Just for a case example.

But if your motherboard does not supports them, the Phenom should deliver an equal performance as the FX does.

And both chip should not be a bottleneck to your GPU regardless which you choose.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 2:38:51 PM

you can easily oc 1100t to 3.7 at stock voltage, and upto around 4.4ghz with a great board + great cooling

to beat that you need fx6 at 5.5ghz

4.3-4.5ghz fx6 equals 1100t at stock in almost all things.

So 1100t is a better choice, or even a oem p2 x4 980 with a good cooler to overclock it is a good choice for gaming
March 6, 2012 2:50:24 PM

I'm building a new computer, and I'm on very tight budget. Motherboard would be Asrock 970 Extreme 3. I play new games: BF3 (multiplayer), Skyrim,... Both CPU's cost around the same, that's why I'm asking. Oh, would an SSD perform worse under X6 then FX.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 6, 2012 3:07:38 PM

FX6100 @ 4.5ghz still gets embarrassed by a stock i3-2100 in gaming. FACT.
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 3:09:32 PM

GET THE PHENOM!. Trust me when i say this, you will be way more happy. the FX 6100 is $#@!. Its cooler than the Phenom six cores but the performance you get from the FX is just......i would rather have forked out the extra money to get the Intel Core I5
a c 83 à CPUs
March 6, 2012 3:11:43 PM

Why are we comparing 3.5Ghz vs 4.5Ghz? The Phenom II is just as likely to reach 4.0Ghz as the FX is of reaching 4.5Ghz, and with that comparison the Phenom II is going to win at most tasks.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 6, 2012 3:18:17 PM

Hopefully Win8 will fix the problems with FX performance, from everything I've read it will.
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 3:18:47 PM

wow
miracle
misterious man malmantel replied a thread with a answer (no benches/facts/agreements/chit-chat etc)
:lol: 
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 3:29:29 PM

:lol: 
i saw that, you changed your post (changed the arangement of quote)
March 6, 2012 3:51:25 PM

loneninja said:
Why are we comparing 3.5Ghz vs 4.5Ghz? The Phenom II is just as likely to reach 4.0Ghz as the FX is of reaching 4.5Ghz, and with that comparison the Phenom II is going to win at most tasks.


Because, I would actually buy x6 1045T and overclocked it to 3.5GHz (around stock 1100T).
March 6, 2012 3:57:57 PM

The only other choice is X4 960T or X4 965BE.
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 4:05:09 PM

960T OC's nicely, can go a fair way on stock cooler and alot further on a better cooler. If your lucky it will manage 6 cores too (though dont bet the farm on that).

and its cheap :D 
March 6, 2012 4:14:29 PM

geekapproved said:
FX6100 @ 4.5ghz still gets embarrassed by a stock i3-2100 in gaming. FACT.


Please be serious. I have fiddled with both and with a X4 955, and the DUAL CORE i3 doesn't stand a chance. HT is deent for some stuff, but sometimes is better to turn it off.
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 4:38:23 PM

Get the 1100T, it is a beast. I use both Intel and AMD and in gaming environments I notice very little difference with todays GPU's being so good. At best SB is 10-15% faster but BD still games well enough. If you can still get a 1100T thats the way to go, the FX6100 is the worst performing BD for some odd reason.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 6, 2012 10:33:17 PM

I never said there was hope for FX. I said WIN8 will improve performance, even if it's only 1%, that's already a known fact.

It's not ips issue, it scheduler and core parker issue. I've read all about it, don't feel I need to explain what you don't know, but that's ok.

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 6, 2012 10:35:19 PM

radnor said:
Please be serious. I have fiddled with both and with a X4 955, and the DUAL CORE i3 doesn't stand a chance. HT is deent for some stuff, but sometimes is better to turn it off.



I never said anything about a X4 955, please pay attention before quoting me. Appreciate it bud.

For those who are staying on topic, I have seen the i3-2100 vs FX4100 at 4.5ghz benchmarks, the FX4100 still loses. Fanboys can't accept it.
March 7, 2012 12:28:28 AM

If you need AMD and 6 or more cores... Get a phenom II x6 BE.
If you need to game and that's about it, then get a phenom ii x4 BE C3 stepping.
The only FX with any value is the 4100 and even then, it's mainly because the phenom ii's are getting hard to find, or at least hard to find for a reasonable price.
8120/8150 is overpriced IMO and the 6100 is just a waste compared to a decent Phenom II x6
a c 126 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2012 12:34:29 AM

geekapproved said:
I never said there was hope for FX. I said WIN8 will improve performance, even if it's only 1%, that's already a known fact.

It's not ips issue, it scheduler and core parker issue. I've read all about it, don't feel I need to explain what you don't know, but that's ok.


The main problem is that until it comes out and is final release, we will be hearing about 15-20% better performance.

OP, the FX6100 would be fine but if you want the best 6 core performance, a Phenom II X6 is better than the FX6100.
March 7, 2012 12:39:43 AM

fanboy555 said:
The title says everythink. Which is best for gaming at 1080p on max settings? Would any of them at stock frequency bottleneck a HD6970?
Please don't say buy 2500k.


the phenom, i have a 1055t which i run at 3.5 and a 6950@6970 on a 1080p monitor and i dont see any major bottlenecking. im pretty happy with the performance.
March 7, 2012 12:42:06 AM

Quote:
out of the three options he listed; 965BE, 960T and 1045T.
965BE C3 stepping = FTW..
period.

(out of those three..)


965 For gaming I agree, 4ghz was no problem at least with the chip my friend had. Just a multiplier bump and one step higher for voltage to be 24h prime95 stable.
a c 185 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2012 3:13:10 AM

What is the entire budget for the system? I seriously suggest you steer away from fx, and either go phenom x4 or an i3-2100 and z68 board.
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2012 9:15:01 AM

If you must go.amd stay away from fx.
965 and above are great as far as amd goes
March 7, 2012 11:59:19 AM

It has come down to:
i5 2310 + ASRock H61M/U3S3 with stock cooler
X4 960T + ASRock 970 Extreme 3 with better cooler (@4GHz)
Stock i5 looks faster, the only thing bothering me is the mAtx board.
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2012 12:05:10 PM

and why so?
That i5 (95w) build will save you alot of power in comparision to 960t (140w after unlocking).
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2012 12:25:35 PM

fanboy555 said:
It has come down to:
i5 2310 + ASRock H61M/U3S3 with stock cooler
X4 960T + ASRock 970 Extreme 3 with better cooler (@4GHz)
Stock i5 looks faster, the only thing bothering me is the mAtx board.


consider i3-2120. Why does matx bother you? That's all I use anymore. If the board has all the features I need, I don't care what the size is.

The board I have now is seriously about 9"x9".
March 7, 2012 1:05:26 PM

I don't consider i3, because I do some video editing and I need four cores. So, i5 looks good?
March 7, 2012 1:51:40 PM

This forums are getting worse every year, whatever the question is, the replyis to get the I5-2xxx. Jesus, nobody thinks outside the box anymore ? This remind of the Q6600 times, same speech. AMD were supossedly not overclacable and i was running an X2 4800+ at 1Ghz OC.

This is a sadder world everyday. Just a chatterbox, copy + paste, nothing else.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2012 2:33:06 PM

radnor said:
This forums are getting worse every year, whatever the question is, the replyis to get the I5-2xxx. Jesus, nobody thinks outside the box anymore ? This remind of the Q6600 times, same speech. AMD were supossedly not overclacable and i was running an X2 4800+ at 1Ghz OC.

This is a sadder world everyday. Just a chatterbox, copy + paste, nothing else.


Outside the box like what? Apple? IBM? ARM? He's asking about a gaming cpu for a PC, what's outside the box??

So far your the only one that's posted who has trouble with reading comprehension. You failed to even quote me right.

The OP asked what is best for gaming at 1080p. Of his choices everyone clearly stated the X6 was the best. Others stated the X4 was better. Some recommended i5, so what? It's a public forum where people ask questions and give advice.

Clearly I wouldn't recommend building on AM3+ unless we know for sure Piledriver will be AM3+. Who knows if Piledriver, whichever year that comes out, will even be able to outgame a dual core i3.

Don't take it personally and get your panties all in a bunch.

If the OP had stated video creation in his original post, my suggestion would have been X6. However, he stated gaming, which is why I recommended the clearly superior i3.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2012 2:40:18 PM

Dang you quoted me before i changed the last line. Oh well, same crap different wording.
a c 185 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2012 3:16:25 PM

fanboy555 said:
It has come down to:
i5 2310 + ASRock H61M/U3S3 with stock cooler
X4 960T + ASRock 970 Extreme 3 with better cooler (@4GHz)
Stock i5 looks faster, the only thing bothering me is the mAtx board.

How about an asrock z68 extreme 3 gen 3.
March 7, 2012 3:20:16 PM

amuffin said:
How about an asrock z68 extreme 3 gen 3.


yeah that board is the best bang for buck Z68 board i think, you can pop in an ivy bridge CPU in it later if you want and it also supports PCI-E 3.0, CF/SLi etc. and is a great OCer, i have seen people hitting 5ghz with that board. of course that depends on how lucky you get with the chip...

heck its only $119.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
March 7, 2012 3:33:28 PM

geekapproved said:
Outside the box like what? Apple? IBM? ARM? He's asking about a gaming cpu for a PC, what's outside the box??


A Dell Poweredge 1950 can be cheap these days. And it is hard to beat that for video.

geekapproved said:

So far your the only one that's posted who has trouble with reading comprehension. You failed to even quote me right.


I quote so people know who i am addressing.

geekapproved said:

The OP asked what is best for gaming at 1080p. Of his choices everyone clearly stated the X6 was the best. Others stated the X4 was better. Some recommended i5, so what? It's a public forum where people ask questions and give advice.


Gaming as is , is manly GPU bound. Toms already reported it, so did anandtech and so personal experience from various posters. GPU > CPU in gaming. In Video a Raid 0 and loads of RAM makes all the difference. More than just CPU. The CPU difference only is notable when HDD/RAM aren't bottlenecks.


geekapproved said:

Clearly I wouldn't recommend building on AM3+ unless we know for sure Piledriver will be AM3+. Who knows if Piledriver, whichever year that comes out, will even be able to outgame a dual core i3.


Intel changes socket so fast, it is even sad.

geekapproved said:

Don't take it personally and get your panties all in a bunch.


It is a forum, nothing personal. I'm quite laconic by nature, so i get misunderstood sometimes.

geekapproved said:

If the OP had stated video creation in his original post, my suggestion would have been X6. However, he stated gaming, which is why I recommended the clearly superior i3.


Whatever is the CPU he picks, at 1080p , the GPU will be the decisive factor. Even toms started to show that with the new types of graph bars. After 60 FPS, it is a e-peen contest. What really pisses me off, is that people give to much credit to the CPU. When benchmarking, toms/anand and the rest of the gang makes sure that the rest of the hardware is top notch. Here you guys just scream I5-2xxx without looking to the bigger picture. Now that makes me sad. An opinion is useless if it isn't and educated one.

Following this thread makes me realize that.

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2012 3:48:56 PM

That's great, but next time makes sure when you quote somebody, it's relevant to the conversation. LOL

As far as gpu limited.....then explain this, with same HD7970, how does stock i3 consistently throw higher fps than much faster clocked quad and hexa FX processors.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

March 7, 2012 4:22:42 PM

geekapproved said:
That's great, but next time makes sure when you quote somebody, it's relevant to the conversation. LOL

As far as gpu limited.....then explain this, with same HD7970, how does stock i3 consistently throw higher fps than much faster clocked quad and hexa FX processors.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...


So, Startcraft II :

That argument could be valid if i wasn't an avid SCII and SC:BW. While SCII is MAINLY CPU bound i can assure you that with a stock X4 955 i never recall having below 20 FPS or mid game stuttering. In single player there isn't too much action, and MP the most units you can have in your map is if some nub comes with a Death Ball Terran attack. Yawn. Or some mass ultralisks. Witch doesn't happen too often. And we aren't talking about that much units. One decent nuke works like a charm. Or 6 Dark Templars. Or some (6-8) void rays. Doesn't matter.

So.... While those benchies have educational value, in-game they are pretty useless. Unless you really like to frap 2000 zerglings vs 1 ghost movies in youtube, witch is retarded anyway. SCII isn't a FPS, so you really don't NEED 100+ FPS to enjoy a drone mining crystals again and again. And again. And again. Yawn.

So, Skyrim :

And in Skyrim the difference between and i3-2100 and a FX-6100 is marginal. And considering that second graph, with most of the CPUs showing in the "statistical marginal error", i figure out, that there must be another bottleneck. While the CPU matters, maybe investing in other parts is worthwhile. For example the FX-4100 (4.5) and 6100(4.5) perform equally (ignoring statistical marginal errors). That means the game ignores more than 4 Threads. Or it is just useless. Skyrim, looking at the graph looks mostly GPU bound. Or just multi-threads like crap.

Witch, is the truth, or else why would the freaking Pentium G630 would be so high in that chart ? 2 Cores with 2 threads.
http://ark.intel.com/products/53483

So, Just Cause 2 :

And FX-4100 (4 Th) and a FX8120 (8 Th) perform equally. Well, the 4100 performs even better !!! And while minimum FPS grow, MAx FPS grow really slow, meaning, that was another crappy benchie from a game that multi-threads like crap, and an Athlon 631 or Pentium G630 are good enough, considering you slap a top notch GPU.

So, you gave 3 examples. One(SCII), when playing doesn't really matter, because you would probably would never reach that amount of clutter while playing. And the other that is just badly coded (Skyrim) and a C2D 8600 OCed would most likely perform like an I5 (Ignoring statistical marginal errors). The third (JC2) one is alreayd pretty much playable with a crappy sub 100$ CPU.

The only point i see, is that the CPU doesn't matter that much !!


The numbers don't lie, but you really need to look at them with open eyes.
While i understand this is the CPU part of the forums and we should give advice on that matter, we should also look to other bottlenecks. CPU isn't everything. I got 10 VMs working atm in a E-350. And they run really well. Why ? Because CPU in this case is irrelevant. An Atom would do but ESXi doesn't work because Intel is a cheap ass.

Got my point now ?

Edit: Just for the record, i think all FX CPU are overpriced atm. Only the FX-4100 could offer "some" value if it was 20$ or so cheaper.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2012 4:39:21 PM

No I don't get your point. Almost ALL MMO's are cpu bound....

Quote:
And in Skyrim the difference between and i3-2100 and a FX-6100 is marginal.


MARGINAL?? 7 FPS Is MARGINAL with the same video card on ULTRA settings at 1080p?? That's what you call GPU bound? LOL Your Delusional.
March 7, 2012 5:00:33 PM

geekapproved said:
No I don't get your point. Almost ALL MMO's are cpu bound....

Quote:
And in Skyrim the difference between and i3-2100 and a FX-6100 is marginal.


MARGINAL?? 7 FPS Is MARGINAL with the same video card on ULTRA settings at 1080p?? That's what you call GPU bound? LOL Your Delusional.


Yes, i call a minimum FPS diference of 2 and a max diference of , wait the FX-6100 win by 0.3 FPS !!! Witch by any standards is marginal.

Are you seeing the same graphs you posted ?

CPU----------------MINFPS------MAXFPS
I3-2100--------------29------------34.2
FX-6100(4.5)--------27------------34.5

What ? It is not my fault the 2100 cant be overclocked. And the FX is unlocked. And anyway, usually the statistical error margin is 3% ! They are mostly equivalent.
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2012 5:34:21 PM

I have been running a FX 8120 for 3 days now, I got it after selling my i5 2500K build and so far I have played Metro, Skyrim, F1 2011 at my monitors max 1600X920 resolution and maxed out with a 560Ti and now my new 7950 OC and it is virtually all the same frames per second, I don't and never did agree with TH's assesment and placing of the FX amongst C2Quads and Athlons, because unless you are running really high resolutions and multiple monitors you are not going to get the performance drop with bottlenecks.


My assesment on AMD is that they are a work in progress, the road map is far more creative and adventurous than Intels and by the time they sort out the model of SMT that they are pushing, and software writers take the time to program games and OS to better understand a module that will be a turning point. Intel are pushing die shrinks and efficiency but reducing core expansion, HT is at best 20% boost, compare this to the fused core modulation and SMT AMD are looking at, if you can have more cores sharing resources each handling its own separate software thread while gradually reducing the die and maximizing efficiency, Intel will have a bit of an issue then, I also know that everyone is on the team blue or red bandwagon whatever the case may be, but for people to make the assertions that the IB will offer 5-15% yields over the SB while costing the same is a fallacy, almost like the fallacy of intel claiming backward compatibility but if you want IB features you need a Z77 chipset.


AMD have progression and for the good of the market we hope they do sort out these issues but have the far more exciting products, sure BD didn't live up to expectations, that said it is overcritically called a failure with only a bunch of random numbers rounding off to mare nano seconds and borderline fanboism as the reason to talk it down. SB is better right now, and maybe until late PD revisions and Steamroller before we will see AMD back, for the better of the desktop market, when I see a 2320, 2405, 2550, 2700, 2120, 2105, 2125, 2130 all with maybe 1% improvements or better IGP a part of me dies inside.
March 7, 2012 5:43:36 PM

I Agree with sarinaide.

OP if you really want more performance, get loads of RAM (16GB) witch is dirty cheap right now. RAM Prices fluctuate alot.

If you are serious about rendering, get a boot disk ( anything will do ) and a raid 0 for the rest. If you are not that serious about rendering get a fast boot disk and a big data disk.

As you could see from all the e-peen fighting, the CPU doesn't matter...much. Just get the one that offers more value. Most likely an unlocked X6.
March 7, 2012 6:18:14 PM

radnor said:
Yes, i call a minimum FPS diference of 2 and a max diference of , wait the FX-6100 win by 0.3 FPS !!! Witch by any standards is marginal.

Are you seeing the same graphs you posted ?

CPU----------------MINFPS------MAXFPS
I3-2100--------------29------------34.2
FX-6100(4.5)--------27------------34.5

What ? It is not my fault the 2100 cant be overclocked. And the FX is unlocked. And anyway, usually the statistical error margin is 3% ! They are mostly equivalent.


The point of showing this was mainly that for a cheaper price, the i3 performs better and you don't have to OC to get the performance. The wide majority of people don't want to OC and are afraid to say the least.

I still say a 960T or 1090/1100 is the best option since they will be using the 6 cores outside games and is on average better than the 6100.
June 24, 2012 10:00:11 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5VsEuWCBaM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klWCz2PiRxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HNSwWKIuBY
stop fanboyin both cpu's. none of the fx series will give you any bottleneck it 2days games. this tread is pathetic. advising a phenom 965 ober a 6100? :@ wtf. any1 try but a phenom x6 now there rare as ***. mid to high end go for 6100-6200. higher end 8120+. the most cpu demanding game out today is battlefield 3. and with a gtx 680 maxed setting my 8120 stays at 50% cpu usage so how will the 6100 perform!. ppl stop bumming you intel cpus yes they are better (higher end i7 ivy sand bridges) but you dont need a £300 cpu for gaming. WISE UPP PEOPLE
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 25, 2012 12:06:55 AM

geekapproved said:
FX6100 @ 4.5ghz still gets embarrassed by a stock i3-2100 in gaming. FACT.

And completely irrelevant to this discussion.
----

My guess is the Phenom II 1100T will be the superior choice.
June 25, 2012 3:08:17 AM

Revive 3 month old thread?
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 25, 2012 3:09:30 AM

I didn't realize it was that old until after I posted. Random guy from google found it and revived it I guess.
June 25, 2012 3:12:20 AM

Yeah, was mainly to the random guy that must have went looking to troll amd vs Intel threads.
June 25, 2012 3:23:20 PM

Quote:
thread revival.... :/ 


You can thank MNeXuSK for that one.
June 25, 2012 3:38:24 PM

Quote:
omega21xx my dude... :p 
how you been.?


Haven't been on here in a few months.... Reddit somehow took all my attention, I got an email about this old forum revival so... Here I am. Lol

I'm doing fine,playing Diablo 3, you? :) 
!