Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AM3 X6 vs AM3+ FX X6

Last response: in CPUs
Share

You're preference?

Total: 9 votes

  • AMD AM3 X6
  • 67 %
  • AMD AM3+ FX X6
  • 34 %
March 6, 2012 4:38:18 PM

I'm aware that there's a good deal of material on this subject out there. That being said I'm trying to see what are the up to date "true" user reviews & opinions are. Not trying to be a jerk but some @$$hat always chimes in with intel. I'm not looking to buy a new intel set up for 2 comps. Not to mention I have a kid on the way. I've always avoided the the rat race of which ones faster at the time. A month, 3 months go by. And something bigger and better comes out and what you bought costs half of what you paid now. Thank you.

More about : am3 am3

a c 184 à CPUs
a b å Intel
March 6, 2012 4:52:12 PM

Phenom x6 is much faster than fx-6100.
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 5:21:53 PM

Yes I have the p2 x6 and i helped a friend build a fx x6 and his is OC to 4.7 mine 4.2 and the old p2 still wins by quite a bit... I love mine he loves his so.... I suggest getting an SSD for boot I know off track on subject but biggest upgrade we both got and its insane how big the diffrence is.

Thent
Related resources
March 6, 2012 5:23:27 PM

amuffin said:
Phenom x6 is much faster than fx-6100.


Proof or it didn't happen...
March 6, 2012 5:46:56 PM

loneninja said:
This is proof enough that Phenom II X6 is faster than FX 6100.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100.html


Thank you. Now this is what I need. If you see my previous quote that amuffin said Phemon X6 is Much faster, which in this review all I can see is phenom had an advantage, but in most cases trades blows with fx6100...And fx use less power.

Quote "Six-core FX-6100 is similar in speed to mainstream Phenom II X6 processors, and in comparison to competition, it falls between top Core i3 and junior Core i5 CPUs. Besides, in most general-purpose applications, including games, its performance is closer to that of dual-core Core i3".
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 5:54:38 PM

True on the less power why it overclocks better. The question is if the OP wants better performance or better power useage there is not a both here either or. Intel has cornered the both in this situation but not an option sooo oh well.

Thent
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 5:56:17 PM

Don't!!, The Phenom is better. I use the FX 6100, its crap. don't buy it. if your gonna buy a new CPU. Just find the best quad core from intel you can afford and go with it. Anything is better than this FX 6100....
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2012 5:59:13 PM

Well, thats one article. In general the FX 4100 or the 8 core variants are considered a better value than the 6 core. I think AMD should lower the price of all the FX CPUs, but in this case if one is going to buy the 6100, then you'd better make sure it is priced lower than the Phenom IIs.

Good point about the Core i3, it is less expensive yet.

@OP- check Microcenter they have some great bundles with FX CPUs, in some cases you can get a free mobo.
March 6, 2012 6:10:08 PM

I would not bother with the Bulldozer. It only does decent in a very few programs and unless you happen to be using one of those programs its just not worth it. If you can still find a 6 core Phenom II get it. They will give better performance over the Bulldozer.
March 6, 2012 7:01:27 PM

I found a 1100T but it was the last one I've from a reputable vendor. And not one that's WAY over priced. I'll more than likely grab a 3.3 or 3.4 quad for my wife's pc. Finding a 3.4 is as hard as finding a X6 above a 1055t. Either they sell really fast or there just are not enough made for the demand. I never really understood why you wouldnt want to meet the demand. I've seen 1100T's and 1090T's used sell on ebay for 250 + used. After seeing that I stopped lookingon ebay for one. The difference of .1 ghz wont even be noticable. As for SSD I've heard conflicting reports and most are saying it's not worth it. And it's another upgrade that's out of my $ range. Besides when my kid gets here I wont have time for $#it anyway. I doubt playing BF3 will bepossible while changing diapers. I'll just give it a last huah until then. Thanks for the input either way though.
March 6, 2012 7:21:32 PM

Why do you think an SSD is a waste. IMO it's definitly worth it, all my computers have SSD's. Yes they are expensive but getting a small SSD just as a boot drive is worth it. SSD's are faster and less likely to fail compared to a regular HDD. So if your regular HDD fails you just put in a new one. You don't have to re-install Windows and go through all that junk.
March 6, 2012 7:49:00 PM

Slickrick214 said:
Why do you think an SSD is a waste. IMO it's definitly worth it, all my computers have SSD's. Yes they are expensive but getting a small SSD just as a boot drive is worth it. SSD's are faster and less likely to fail compared to a regular HDD. So if your regular HDD fails you just put in a new one. You don't have to re-install Windows and go through all that junk.


I'm just going by first hand reviews from friends. And all your points are valid. Except I've never had a drive fail other than a SCSI back in the day. I've replaced Hd's when upgrading both my HD and O.S. On the rare accasion I have had an issue with a drive (boot issue) I just replace it and tranfer the data via HDD ghost to a new drive. No reinstall needed. I get a Tarabyte now for under 140.00 if the need arises. We could have this pissing contest all day. And I'll switch over eventually. After they become more reasonably priced.
a c 184 à CPUs
a b å Intel
March 6, 2012 9:19:39 PM

SSD's have limited writes. That is why a hard drive has longer lifetime.
!