Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD FX 4100 vs Phenom II x4 965?

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 5, 2011 12:15:17 AM

I've come across 2 AMD processors that I'm considering using in my computer: the "AMD FX 4100" and the "Phenom II x4 965". The FX 4100 is about 20 bucks cheaper than the Phenom, which struck me as odd because the FX 4100 runs at 3.6 Ghz with quad core, while the Phenom has 3.4 Ghz with quad core. So, is there any real drawback to the FX 4100. I'm going to be using the computer for editing videos (mainly in After Effects), photos, as well as using it for everyday tasks (ie surfing the web, doing homework, etc).

Which processor will serve me better for my needs (please note that I'm not a very intense video/photo editor, I only do that a few hours a week)?

More about : amd 4100 phenom 965

December 5, 2011 4:26:52 PM

hmmmm i would go for the fx 4100
Score
0
December 5, 2011 4:33:44 PM

gtx_560tiuser said:
hmmmm i would go for the fx 4100

Thanks for the reply. Have you worked with the FX 4100?
Score
0
Related resources
December 5, 2011 9:14:38 PM

phenom
Score
0
a b À AMD
December 5, 2011 9:19:24 PM

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/

Strengths and weaknesses . Either is fine , but make sure you use an AM3+ motherboard with ether a 970 or 990 series chip set and RAM that runs at 1.5 volt so you can upgrade later if you want

I would choose the FX 4100 , but thats just me
Score
0
December 5, 2011 10:50:39 PM

if look at the 3d mark 11 scores for the fx4100 it is almost as good as the PII BE 1090t for half the price the winer is easy in this comparision.... -_-
Score
0
December 5, 2011 10:51:55 PM

xspectrum said:
I've come across 2 AMD processors that I'm considering using in my computer: the "AMD FX 4100" and the "Phenom II x4 965". The FX 4100 is about 20 bucks cheaper than the Phenom, which struck me as odd because the FX 4100 runs at 3.6 Ghz with quad core, while the Phenom has 3.4 Ghz with quad core. So, is there any real drawback to the FX 4100. I'm going to be using the computer for editing videos (mainly in After Effects), photos, as well as using it for everyday tasks (ie surfing the web, doing homework, etc).

Which processor will serve me better for my needs (please note that I'm not a very intense video/photo editor, I only do that a few hours a week)?


Go for the Phenom II X4 965. The FX 4100 is not a true Quad core because in reality it only has 2 physical cores but as counted as 4 modules. The 4 modules share resources and unlike the true 4 physical cores of the Phenom II X4 965. Single thread performance of the FX 4100 is very weak, weaker even than the Phenom II X4 and its multithread performance is equal to the Phenom II X4 (despite the fact that it is a 2 cores 4 modules processors).
Score
0
December 5, 2011 11:00:17 PM

Yea the FX are flops. The phenom 965 is boss
Score
0
December 5, 2011 11:12:56 PM

its the lesser of two evils so pick your poison
Score
0
December 5, 2011 11:15:53 PM

lol, the phenoms are better. but they run hot
Score
0
December 5, 2011 11:19:33 PM

it scored 13 points less. GPU plays more on FPS than a CPU
Score
0
a b À AMD
December 5, 2011 11:46:46 PM

mourice12 said:
it scored 13 points less. GPU plays more on FPS than a CPU


on a low resolution monitor it produced 13 fps less , but at 1080p it was 2 fps behind a 2600k , which means it was equal to better than a 2500k .
So if you are building a computer to game at 1080p [ like most people are ] then smart people save $100 they would have spent on intel quad and spend that on a better graphics card .

dollar for dollar you are going to get a better gaming experience than if you built a system using the intel

How does that make the AMD Fx a flop?
Score
0
December 6, 2011 12:16:49 AM

amd fx 8150 is a flop not the fx 4100 guys get your facts right the fx 4100 is a good cpu....PERIOD.
Score
0
a b À AMD
December 6, 2011 12:44:59 AM

gtx_560tiuser said:
amd fx 8150 is a flop not the fx 4100 guys get your facts right the fx 4100 is a good cpu....PERIOD.


The FX 8150 is not good value , but it too has strengths and weaknesses .
The main weakness is that outside servers almost no one needs 8 cores with current OSes and applications . You'd almost always be better off with 4 individually stronger cores as the 2500k

The FX4100 looks like the budget build champion to me .

2500k with a 6950 , or GTX 560 ti will not game as well as an FX 4100 with a 6970 or GTX 570 .
And the FX based computer will usually cost less despite stepping up the graphics card

Its only if you have heavy cpu intensive tasks that the intel becomes value for money .
Score
0
December 6, 2011 1:09:45 AM

i agree. Like video editing
Score
0
December 6, 2011 3:07:05 AM

Outlander_04 said:
The FX 8150 is not good value , but it too has strengths and weaknesses .
The main weakness is that outside servers almost no one needs 8 cores with current OSes and applications . You'd almost always be better off with 4 individually stronger cores as the 2500k

The FX4100 looks like the budget build champion to me .

2500k with a 6950 , or GTX 560 ti will not game as well as an FX 4100 with a 6970 or GTX 570 .
And the FX based computer will usually cost less despite stepping up the graphics card

Its only if you have heavy cpu intensive tasks that the intel becomes value for money .


The question here is not 2500k with 6950 or GTX 560 Ti vs FX 4100 with 6970 or GTX 570. The question here is Phenom II X4 965 with 6970 or GTX 570 or FX 4100 with 6970 or GTX 570. Comparing the 2 options, the Phenom II X4 965 wins hands down for both gaming and video editing due to its true 4 cores instead of 2 cores 4 modules of the FX 4100.
Score
0
a b À AMD
December 6, 2011 3:41:13 AM

jacknhut said:
Go for the Phenom II X4 965. The FX 4100 is not a true Quad core because in reality it only has 2 physical cores but as counted as 4 modules. The 4 modules share resources and unlike the true 4 physical cores of the Phenom II X4 965. Single thread performance of the FX 4100 is very weak, weaker even than the Phenom II X4 and its multithread performance is equal to the Phenom II X4 (despite the fact that it is a 2 cores 4 modules processors).

um.. i think you have the modules and cores backwards.
fx4100 is not a true quad core. it is a true 2 module 4 core cpu. itis actually an fx 8150 with 50% stuff cut off.
the definition of core is diverse. amd advertises the fx 4100 as a quad core cpu, not a dual module, quad core cpu. again, the 4 cores share resources.
the ph ii x4 is a true quad core in the traditional sense.
@xSpectrum: what is your budget for cpu? since both your chosen cpus will perform similarly in video editing, you could get a hex-core thuban. since amd is rumored to eol the ph ii, you might have no other choice but go with the fx 4100. if you can, get a core i5 2500k/2600 with a gtx 570/radeon6970 if you do video editing regularly ( the gtx is for using with adobe's software). for cpu-intensive tasks, intel will outperform the fx. but if you add gfx cards into the mix, e.g. high res. gaming, the fx and core i5 will perform similarly whenever the gfx load is successfully transfered to the gfx card. the core i5 will have slight lead over the fx.
between fx 4100 and the ph ii x4 965, get the cheaper one. also get a good cooler and psu to keep the power hungry cpu running cool. you might need to oc the fx to 4+ ghz to see some performance improvement.
@Outlander_04: imo none of the zambezi cpus are of good value right now. not to mention they're very power hungry for a 32 nm cpu. i checked a few newegg and microcenter prices where fx 4100 is priced higher than a core i3 2100 ( dual core with ht). it is, however, cheaper than a core i5 or may be the 965. in the end, the value of zambezi depends on what you're comparing it against.
Score
0
December 6, 2011 9:22:06 AM

de5_Roy said:
um.. i think you have the modules and cores backwards.
fx4100 is not a true quad core. it is a true 2 module 4 core cpu. itis actually an fx 8150 with 50% stuff cut off.
the definition of core is diverse. amd advertises the fx 4100 as a quad core cpu, not a dual module, quad core cpu. again, the 4 cores share resources.
the ph ii x4 is a true quad core in the traditional sense.


Oops My bad sorry Its the other way around, the FX 4100 is a 2 modules, 4 cores CPU. But the rest of what I said is still correct, its still weaker than Phenom II X4 965 since the Phenom II X4 965 is a true quadcore where the FX 4100 is not a true quad cores. You can treat it like a 3 cores CPU if you must. I wouldnt buy that processor over the Phenom II X4 965 since gaming wise the Phenom II X4 965 is way superior to the FX 4100. The FX 6100 is more of an equivalent to the Phenom II X4 965 for multithread applications but still lack behind the Phenom II X4 965 in single thread performance.
Score
0
December 6, 2011 3:40:01 PM

did you hear amd is going to stop producing amd phenoms IIs...
Score
0
December 6, 2011 3:45:48 PM

jacknhut said:
Oops My bad sorry Its the other way around, the FX 4100 is a 2 modules, 4 cores CPU. But the rest of what I said is still correct, its still weaker than Phenom II X4 965 since the Phenom II X4 965 is a true quadcore where the FX 4100 is not a true quad cores. You can treat it like a 3 cores CPU if you must. I wouldnt buy that processor over the Phenom II X4 965 since gaming wise the Phenom II X4 965 is way superior to the FX 4100. The FX 6100 is more of an equivalent to the Phenom II X4 965 for multithread applications but still lack behind the Phenom II X4 965 in single thread performance.

not really....http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu/AMD_FX-410...
Score
0
December 6, 2011 8:05:03 PM

hmmm i think the benchmark on 3dmark11 webite is innacurate then or usign diffrent ram timings and speed...
Score
0
December 6, 2011 8:13:34 PM

this is a tough choice between the the 2 cpus cus the fx has some improvments over the PII BE 965 but the PII BE 965 also more perfomace in some areas over the fx 4100.... the fx 4100 is cheaper with almost just good peformace as if not better performace then the PII BE 965...
Score
0
December 28, 2011 4:15:53 PM

xspectrum said:
I've come across 2 AMD processors that I'm considering using in my computer: the "AMD FX 4100" and the "Phenom II x4 965". The FX 4100 is about 20 bucks cheaper than the Phenom, which struck me as odd because the FX 4100 runs at 3.6 Ghz with quad core, while the Phenom has 3.4 Ghz with quad core. So, is there any real drawback to the FX 4100. I'm going to be using the computer for editing videos (mainly in After Effects), photos, as well as using it for everyday tasks (ie surfing the web, doing homework, etc).

Which processor will serve me better for my needs (please note that I'm not a very intense video/photo editor, I only do that a few hours a week)?


I have been using phenom ii x4 965 for a while and replaced it with an amd fx 4100 I ONLY changed the CPU and the fx kinda was way better, I was able to play today's games in ultra settings and it was amazing for video editing with an ati hd 6770. I would choose fx 4100 but when it comes to media, video editing, watching movies etc I prefer intel core i5/i7 but when it comes to cheap, go for the fx. And one tip for homeworks and writing, buy Office and for web browsing I prefer fx I can open my browser in one second but intel should be very good too.
Score
0
December 28, 2011 4:25:18 PM

was your phenom overclocked?
Score
0
a b À AMD
December 28, 2011 4:52:38 PM

Dasmit said:
I have been using phenom ii x4 965 for a while and replaced it with an amd fx 4100 I ONLY changed the CPU and the fx kinda was way better, I was able to play today's games in ultra settings and it was amazing for video editing with an ati hd 6770. I would choose fx 4100 but when it comes to media, video editing, watching movies etc I prefer intel core i5/i7 but when it comes to cheap, go for the fx. And one tip for homeworks and writing, buy Office and for web browsing I prefer fx I can open my browser in one second but intel should be very good too.

i didnt know the 6770 could play games at ultra settings...
anyway, for every day tasks, even a sandy bridge celeron dual core would do let alone fx 4100.
@OP: for light video editing and everyday tasks, the fx might suffice, but it will consume a lot of power on load e.g. video editing. so it might benefit from undervolting.
among quad cores, even a core i5 2300 will outperform the fx in terms of power-performance efficiency.
since the OP hasn't answered in a looong time, i don't see any point discussing....
Score
0
December 28, 2011 5:04:17 PM

lets not get any ideas that a true dual core can play modern games well with a high end graphics card. BF3 would be unplayable for instance.
Score
0
Anonymous
January 10, 2012 8:27:13 PM

My new FX-4100 just arrived, i´ll give it a proper try in a week, i will let you know guys.. ;) 
Score
0
January 16, 2012 12:54:15 PM

Quote:
My new FX-4100 just arrived, i´ll give it a proper try in a week, i will let you know guys.. ;) 

Have you used it?
Score
0
January 16, 2012 6:18:09 PM

yeah is it good?
Score
0
January 24, 2012 2:44:01 AM

It would be nice if he let's us know how good it is..................
Score
0
January 24, 2012 3:48:28 AM

its not good. i thought everyone knew that.
Score
0
a b À AMD
January 24, 2012 3:58:30 AM

cbrunnem said:
its not good. i thought everyone knew that.



since you "know" that you'll have some kind of proof .
Lets see it
What other $110 processor is better ?
Score
0
January 26, 2012 1:28:05 AM

the i3-2120 at 120 is better
Score
0
January 30, 2012 8:58:13 PM

The question isn't comparing AMD to Intel. Everybody knows that Intel still has the slight edge. However, AMD has the value card to play, and they play it well.

On topic: The FX series of processors is a new wave of CPUs that blows everything out of the market. They do what they are designed to do better than anything else, and often times for a fair -- if not good -- price. They have been designed to multitask, and that's what they do best. They are of a more expensive series than the Phenoms, and it is difficult to tell if that is partially attributable to the fact that they are newer, or it actually is completely because of their superior processing power.

Looking at AMD's website, it is easy to see that the FX series has the edge over the Phenoms:

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx...
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/pheno...

However, the question now becomes "Which one is the better value, especially for those on a budget who don't require a top-of-the-line system?" And the answer to that is a no brainer - the FX. At $40 cheaper on Newegg.com for comparable (and actually better) specs to it's Phenom counterpart, the FX-4100 3.6 GHz quad core is hands down the better of the two.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

P.S. - The FX series also runs for less power (95W in FX processors compares to the 125W in Phenom processors), and they run cooler by at least 10 degrees Celsius. That alone is a dead giveaway.

P.P.S. - To those who pull out numbers about which one actually runs faster with single vs. multi-threading, there are too many variables to consider. The CPU doesn't work alone, and it's going to be better at certain things than it is at others. The fact of the matter is, every test will provide different results, and there's no way of telling which is better outside the manufacturer's listings, price, and potential usage. that's what it comes down to, and that's the truth.
Score
0
January 31, 2012 1:19:19 AM

Roundaround said:
The question isn't comparing AMD to Intel. Everybody knows that Intel still has the slight edge. However, AMD has the value card to play, and they play it well.

On topic: The FX series of processors is a new wave of CPUs that blows everything out of the market. They do what they are designed to do better than anything else, and often times for a fair -- if not good -- price. They have been designed to multitask, and that's what they do best. They are of a more expensive series than the Phenoms, and it is difficult to tell if that is partially attributable to the fact that they are newer, or it actually is completely because of their superior processing power.

Looking at AMD's website, it is easy to see that the FX series has the edge over the Phenoms:

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx...
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/pheno...

However, the question now becomes "Which one is the better value, especially for those on a budget who don't require a top-of-the-line system?" And the answer to that is a no brainer - the FX. At $40 cheaper on Newegg.com for comparable (and actually better) specs to it's Phenom counterpart, the FX-4100 3.6 GHz quad core is hands down the better of the two.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

P.S. - The FX series also runs for less power (95W in FX processors compares to the 125W in Phenom processors), and they run cooler by at least 10 degrees Celsius. That alone is a dead giveaway.

P.P.S. - To those who pull out numbers about which one actually runs faster with single vs. multi-threading, there are too many variables to consider. The CPU doesn't work alone, and it's going to be better at certain things than it is at others. The fact of the matter is, every test will provide different results, and there's no way of telling which is better outside the manufacturer's listings, price, and potential usage. that's what it comes down to, and that's the truth.


im pretty sure it is safe to say that everything you said in reality is the exact opposite or just wrong.

1: intel has a large lead not slight
2: the fx cpu's dont blow anything out of water but themselves, they are a huge disappointment and on par with the phenom family
3: if they can multitask well how come an i5 2500k is just as good in rendering as the 8150? http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288
4: a phenom x4 is still the best bang for your buck not fx cpu is a better buy for gaming.
5: the fx series is a power hog.(586w at 4.8 ghz!!!!!!!!!!!)http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx...
6: the i7 2600k is better then the 8150 is basically everything and they both have the same amount of threads.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287 (i7 wins in everything but 2 test)


the fx cpu's are a dude face it.
Score
0
a b À AMD
January 31, 2012 5:54:18 AM

^^ shoulda noticed that he posted amd's own benchmarks. his text seems to be taken right out of amd's fx promotion. possible troll.
@OP: here's a link that might help decide why 965 b.e. is better than the fx 4100.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...
there's a link to a multitasking bench at the end of that article, check that out too.
Score
0
February 3, 2012 12:12:51 AM

In AMD's Defense. it is a new architecture that isnt optimized for windows 7. Due to some recent patches for Windows 7 performance has increased, it will also increase with windows 8. To how much we dont know, this new architecture could turn out to be something that puts AMD back on the map, no one knows but as the technology progresses it may hold some good results. As for amd vs intel. AMD is cheaper and it does what it is suppose to. Intel is faster in synthetic benchmarks and it also holds the premium price

Before anyone calls me an AMD fanboy, I use intel (i5-2500k) and i love it.
Score
0
February 3, 2012 12:21:09 AM

mourice12 said:
In AMD's Defense. it is a new architecture that isnt optimized for windows 7. Due to some recent patches for Windows 7 performance has increased, it will also increase with windows 8. To how much we dont know, this new architecture could turn out to be something that puts AMD back on the map, no one knows but as the technology progresses it may hold some good results. As for amd vs intel. AMD is cheaper and it does what it is suppose to. Intel is faster in synthetic benchmarks and it also holds the premium price

Before anyone calls me an AMD fanboy, I use intel (i5-2500k) and i love it.

the latest windows 7 patch was supposed to help its performance but didnt. the optimization thing is a crutch for a broken architecture.
Score
0
February 3, 2012 7:18:40 PM

Well i seen here on the internets that it did increase the performance by alittle
Score
0
February 3, 2012 11:58:06 PM

mourice12 said:
Well i seen here on the internets that it did increase the performance by alittle

i mean the gain was less then 3 fps

edit: phone murdered that response
Score
0
Anonymous
February 4, 2012 11:55:37 PM

xspectrum said:
Have you used it?



Sorry for not to replying, but been quite busy recently. I´ve had to finish all the newest games I couldn´t play on my old pc, so I´ll tell you how fx-4100 performs. With my old nvidia 9600 gt I finished BF3 (low settings because of my old GC but cpu usage 50% only), Crysis 2 (1920x1080 full details no lagging), Hard Reset full, FEAR3 full., COF MW3 full., cpu runs cool even at max load and at about 35 W lower consuption than phenom X4 965 that I wanted to buy instead of this one. Other thing is insanely fast compression with winrar and cutting of movies, amazing how fast it can be. Maybe it doesn´t reach phenom x4 performance in benchmarks (sorely can at 35W lower wattage), but it performs very well and for the price it is very nice piece of hardware. All I can say is, I am satified.
Score
0
February 8, 2012 9:58:07 PM

Quote:
This is very good CPU comparison of 50 cpu´s for game Battlefield 3 that also helped me to decide between fx-4100 and phenom II x4 965. FX-4100 outperformed 965 in all tests. :) 

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7986&pagei...


thanks for the link very interesting, i want to go from my x3 455 to that CPU :D 
Score
0
February 21, 2012 2:33:54 AM

I was doing research on the fx-4100 when my dad finally decided he was ready for his 1st pc, Im thinking about upgrading to the fx from my x4 965 BE but due to the mixed reviews I'm reconsidering it. Fortunately I can I play with my dads budget and since he's not doing any gaming I ordered the fx-4100 for his build. I also bought a asus saber tooth under his budget just in case I decide to stick with the 965. I will go out of my way(I have a very tight schedule due to 65+ hours of work a week.) to do a few tests. Benchmarks, RIFT maxed, burn movies ect.

I will be using all the same components expect switching the CPU to perform the various tests. I will also OC my GPU and both CPUs for a 2nd set of tests. Got my 965 to 4.5 stable hopefully I can do it again. I will have the parts tomorrow. Hopefully will post my results within 3 days.

Current build,
Amd Ph x4 965 BE
Asus m4n98td evo(tests will b done on saber tooth)
Asus gtx 460
2x 4gb Vengeance 1600 ram
2x 500gb 3gbs WD HDD in raid.
H80 cooler
Score
0
February 21, 2012 12:07:05 PM

beyond help said:
I was doing research on the fx-4100 when my dad finally decided he was ready for his 1st pc, Im thinking about upgrading to the fx from my x4 965 BE but due to the mixed reviews I'm reconsidering it. Fortunately I can I play with my dads budget and since he's not doing any gaming I ordered the fx-4100 for his build. I also bought a asus saber tooth under his budget just in case I decide to stick with the 965. I will go out of my way(I have a very tight schedule due to 65+ hours of work a week.) to do a few tests. Benchmarks, RIFT maxed, burn movies ect.

I will be using all the same components expect switching the CPU to perform the various tests. I will also OC my GPU and both CPUs for a 2nd set of tests. Got my 965 to 4.5 stable hopefully I can do it again. I will have the parts tomorrow. Hopefully will post my results within 3 days.

Current build,
Amd Ph x4 965 BE
Asus m4n98td evo(tests will b done on saber tooth)
Asus gtx 460
2x 4gb Vengeance 1600 ram
2x 500gb 3gbs WD HDD in raid.
H80 cooler


Good to know but actually, im waiting for the new revision of FX CPUs... i think im gonna stick for a while with this... but post your benchs anyway :p 
Score
0
February 21, 2012 7:55:41 PM

I own the FX-4100 and so far i am impressed with it, it can play MW3 on full 1080p at 45 fps with the XFX Radeon 6770.
Score
0
!