Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is FX 4100 a good CPU for gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 13, 2012 8:04:33 PM

Hello. I am working on my gaming PC list and i want to choose a AMD FX-4100. However i heard the FX series crahes games. Its my first time building a PC, can you tell me if the FX-4100 is good for games like Skyrim, Battlefield 3, Minecraft etc.

Thanks

More about : 4100 good cpu gaming

a c 203 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 13, 2012 8:24:54 PM

Do you have other options? It's not usually in the top choices of CPUs for gaming.
Related resources
a c 480 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 13, 2012 8:54:03 PM

It's good for gaming... but there are better choices.
a c 83 à CPUs
March 13, 2012 9:01:03 PM

It's capable of gaming, but I wouldn't call it a good gaming CPU.
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 9:05:40 PM

I'd stretch to call it awful from personal experience.
March 13, 2012 9:19:46 PM

given that the fx4100 uses the same board as athlons/phenoms, you would be better off getting an athlon/phenom with 4 real core as opposed to the fx's 4 pseudo cores if your interest is primarily gaming.

The FX has limited uses where it excels, and it tends to be purely in number crunching scenarioes.

Not to mention, all 4 'cores' of the FX are not fully utilised due to problems addressing them in windows 7 (apparently fixed in windows 8).

Summary, if you're stuck with an AMD board, I'd go for a 4 core athlon, if you had a choice go intel with a pentium chip. That way you can at least upgrade if you come into more funds, and it's still competitive.

Quick note: phenom/athlons for socket am3 are disppearing fast it seems.
March 13, 2012 9:42:42 PM

From my personal experience with the Fx 4100, It seems to work just fine for the games I personally play. Stalker, Skyrim, Resident evil 5 etc. Coupled with a decent video card I run all on ultra settings with above 50fps. Imo it's a decent cpu for the price. I don't believe it to be a complete dud like some would say. Intel has some nice cpu's around the same price range as the links above point out. It's pretty much up to you whether your doing a full upgrade or already have an am3+ board. And what you wanna spend. GL in your upgrade/Build :) 
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 9:45:51 PM

what graphic card are you using is much more important than what cpu.
a c 480 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 13, 2012 10:01:05 PM

loneninja said:
It's capable of gaming, but I wouldn't call it a good gaming CPU.


"Good" is relative.

For example, a "good" steak usually costs me at least $50 at a highly rated steakhouse or a $20 raw steak which I personally cook for myself.
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 10:07:54 PM

bZaR_Fury said:
Is FX 4100 a good CPU for gaming?


No.

it is absolutely atrocious for skyrim and especially bf3 on 64 player maps
March 13, 2012 10:10:48 PM

Soda-88 said:
No.

it is absolutely atrocious for skyrim and especially bf3 on 64 player maps



What issues have you had with skyrim?
a c 83 à CPUs
March 13, 2012 10:10:50 PM

jaguarskx said:
"Good" is relative.

For example, a "good" steak usually costs me at least $50 at a highly rated steakhouse or a $20 raw steak which I personally cook for myself.


You have a valid point, but he asked if it's a good gaming CPU and in my opinion it isn't.
a c 480 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 13, 2012 11:22:59 PM

For the price you pay the FX-4100 performance is "good", "good enough", "okay" or whatever term you like to use.

If you can, I would postpone your purchase so that you can buy a better more capable CPU. The obvious recommendation is to buy the i5-2500k, but it probably cost $110 - $120 more than the FX-4100. A Z68 chipset motherboard so that you can overclock the i5-2500K may cost you $50 - $75 (just a guess) more than whatever motherboard you selected for the FX-4100. In a nutshell, going with an i5-2500k will probably push your total up by $160 - $195.

Acceptable gaming performance is all relative. A hardcore gamer may want to upgrade at least once every year. A more casual gamer, not as much. Generally speaking, I would say the FX-4100 is good enough for most people to last you for 2 years before you feel the need to upgrade. Going with an i5-2500k, maybe as long as 5 years.
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 11:26:01 PM

billybobser said:


Not to mention, all 4 'cores' of the FX are not fully utilised due to problems addressing them in windows 7 (apparently fixed in windows 8).

.


Actually, thats not a problem on the 2 module units. Load scheduling is only an issue when there are unused modules. That doesn't happen often with the 4000 series. Happens a lot with the 8000 and some with the 6000, but not the 4000.
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 11:30:15 PM

loneninja said:
You have a valid point, but he asked if it's a good gaming CPU and in my opinion it isn't.


Toms gave it an honorable mention behind the i3 2100. And with good reason. Its actually a pretty good chip at that price.

I have been saying from the moment bulldozer was released that the 4100 is the best value in the group. It OC's the most with the least power usage, it doesn't lose speed from the scheduling issue that plagues the 8000 series, and it's a good price for the performance. I would buy it.
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 11:30:37 PM

casual gamers usually never upgrade the cpu and a computer they buy lasts them like 5 years doesn't even matter whats inside. Many people still try to game on pentium 4s.

The FX 4100 is more than enough for any game for now and the next 5 years if you don't care about top of the line performance. c2ds still work fine for games today and they been out for 6 years. With a decent GPU a c2d 6600 can still game today at 720p with more than 30 fps. Thats playable if you are not a hardcore pc gamer.
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2012 11:35:48 PM

computernewb said:
If you are going with AMD, the best gaming cpus are fx 4170, phenom ii x4 980 and 975
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...


Your correct, BUT what do you think the 4170 is? Its just a 4100 with a higher stock multipliler. Buy the 4100 and bump it to 4.3 GHZ. Save $30.
a c 480 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 13, 2012 11:40:35 PM

esrever said:
casual gamers usually never upgrade the cpu and a computer they buy lasts them like 5 years doesn't even matter whats inside. Many people still try to game on pentium 4s.



I said "most people" which generally include more than just causal gamers. Perhaps, the "average gamer" would have been a better term to use.

However, the meaning of all these terms are relative depending on how one interprets them without having me to laboriously define each and every category of gamers and the sub-category relative to each category.
March 14, 2012 9:29:42 PM

So overall, Save on cpu, spend the extra you save on good gpu, and enjoy gaming! :)  4100 is good value for its price. imo
a b à CPUs
March 15, 2012 8:13:46 AM

The 4100 is not good value for money gaming not at the moment when Phenom II's are still around and available for only a small amount more and perform better.

I own a 4100 and a 960T both are sat on boards alongside 550ti's. The Phenom II runs rings around the 4100. It makes the 4100 feel sluggish and clumsy. At its stock the PII still "felt" better and snappier. When both are OC'd this feeling continues. My PII rig i now do everything on from gaming through to z-brush and maya. The FX snoozedozer rig has been relegated to HTPC and the wifes toy.

In my opinion the 4100 (and therefore the higher clocked 4170) really are trawling the bottom end of budget especially when you consider its predesessor is still available to buy and simply better.
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2012 12:06:56 AM

wr6133 said:
The 4100 is not good value for money gaming not at the moment when Phenom II's are still around and available for only a small amount more and perform better.

I own a 4100 and a 960T both are sat on boards alongside 550ti's. The Phenom II runs rings around the 4100. It makes the 4100 feel sluggish and clumsy. At its stock the PII still "felt" better and snappier. When both are OC'd this feeling continues. My PII rig i now do everything on from gaming through to z-brush and maya. The FX snoozedozer rig has been relegated to HTPC and the wifes toy.

In my opinion the 4100 (and therefore the higher clocked 4170) really are trawling the bottom end of budget especially when you consider its predesessor is still available to buy and simply better.


Something is wrong with your 4100 setup. Any speed difference between them would require a benchmark to notice. There is not that much of a difference.
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2012 11:59:34 AM

They even sit on the same mobo other than the amount of RAM the 2 systems are near carbon copies. You run BF3 on an unlocked OC'd 960T, then run it on a OC'd 4100 there really is a difference that you can feel. Ok its not enormously sluggish but its enough of a difference to cheese you off. Outside of gaming the difference becomes more tangible.

Maybe when PII stocks are gone 4100/4170 may be the budget CPU to get but owning both I can really say the Phenom II is better. The only person I know with an FX system that felt better than my PII had the 8 core and at that point you are nearly in Sandybridge £££ so why bother really.
!