Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX4100 series, are they THAT bad?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 20, 2012 5:08:10 AM

Hey guys, so I've got a question. A friend of mine is getting rid of his old case, CM Storm Scout. 45 bucks for a 80-90 dollar case is fair, considering he is a computer geek who takes good care of his stuff. So I'm thinking of possibly upgrading in the next few months to get myself a small upgrade and give my old setup to my wife who could use a faster desktop.

Here's my current system.

Athlon II x4 640 at 3.0ghz stock
Gigabyte m570-sli am2 motherboard
4 gb ddr2 667
1tb hard drive
Galaxy GTS 450
Ultra LSP 650 watt power supply(38 amps on single 12v+ rail)

I'm thinking about a budget upgrade to the following.

FX4100
8gb DDR3 1333 or 1600mhz ram
Gigabyte or ASUS 760G AM3+ motherboard(trying to keep price low, I've built with a few of the Gigabyte boards and they seem solid, plus I've never used the sli capability of my motherboard)

I am also considering the CM Hyper 212, since I would have to get a power supply at least eventually to power the old build for my wife, then I might upgrade that later.

I know a lot of guys are saying how bad the FX4100 series are. But are they that bad? I mean personally, I run my Athlon II quad at the stock 3.0 ghz, and it does EVERYTHING so far that I want. I've had my current system 5-6 years, so definitely have gotten it's usage, it's an old gamer rig, started life with an Athlon x2 way back, and a 7300LE. So it's served me well and has been rock solid, the Gigabyte board has been great, no complaints.

Here is what it boils down to. I'm seeing the FX4100 series and it's tempting due to price. I could reuse my old processor, but I've got a microcenter nearby, so by the time I buy the FX4100, and toss the board on with it, the board becomes nearly free, which makes it nice, as I've built and used a couple of systems with the 760g AM3+ board from Gigabyte, and had no complaints.

With that board, what is overclocking like? Good? Bad? So So?

FX4100-much faster than what I've got? I know the FX 4100 may be more of a sidegrade compared to my current processor, but seeing reports saying 4.6 ghz should be an easy overclock with the unlocked multiplier? Would that make a huge difference?

Thoughts and opinions?

More about : fx4100 series bad

a c 185 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 5:14:06 AM

Don't know, but there is no performance until you oc! I say it is a good buy for you.
m
0
l
March 20, 2012 5:14:49 AM

I wouldn't bother with any of the Bulldozer CPU's they just don't give great performance. In gaming and most programs the Athelon II will probably be faster.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 5:39:31 AM

the FX-41xx can't really perform quite to Intel's level when considering comparable CPUs. However that doesn't mean your performance will be bad or terrible for that matter. I would imagine that you would be satisfied with the FX-41xx or even a FX-61xx. I find it extremely hard to believe that an athlon II would be faster than an FX-41xx, I'm pretty sure that is not possible.......
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 5:45:24 AM

The FX 4100 is going to be a bit faster than your Athlon at scock and a lot faster when overclocked.

I would suggest you get a Phenom 960T or if youre on a tight budget even the Athlon ii 631.

You can overclock the Phenom to around 4ghz while the athlon stops at around 4.4ghz.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 9:52:36 AM

Quote:
synthetic ?

are you questioning the validity of Futuremark Corporation ? .. again


dont listen to the fanboy

he is biased


on average an i3 is faster at stock speed


an i5 2500k is faster. and when overclocked its defiantly faster.


most people dont want to overclock though as it voids the warranty on the parts.


here is a comparason that tomshardware did between i3 2100 and fx 4100 last month.

it shows tests using popular games


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-210...


here is an extract

the end of January, we published our analysis of the sub-$200 gaming processor market called Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium?. We were surprised to find that Intel’s budget-oriented LGA 1155 offerings are surprisingly capable when it comes to handling modern titles. In fact, the $125 Core i3-2100 beat out AMD's entire line-up including top-tier Phenom IIs, Athlon IIs, APUs, and even the new FX models. Although they're easier to overclock, AMD’s best efforts could only achieve parity with the Core i3-2100, and Intel's Core i5 was so far ahead of the sub-$200 pack that it sat in a league of its own.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 9:56:04 AM

Yes.

It won't beat the i3 in gaming. Even OC'd.
m
0
l
March 20, 2012 9:57:41 AM

Just stick with your Athlon II. The FX4100 isn't really an upgrade from what you got. The performance gains would be minimal if any. If you want a new system and it MUST be AMD and nothing else, then at least get a Phenom II.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 9:59:38 AM

Keep in mind he needs to get something as he is passing on the old system.

Just take a look at the Intel builds as well. Even a Sandy bridge based G8xx would game better then that FX4100
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 10:22:36 AM

By calling the very site you are posting on biased? So whatever you feel is right is good and anything that disagrees is biased? Interesting.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 11:10:40 AM

Do NOT feed the TROLLS! lol

For gaming the i3 beats any AMD CPU. It's the sad honest truth. Things might change in the future if new games decide to properly utilize quad-core CPUs, but as things stand right now, there's no reason to buy any FX over Sandy Bridge.
m
0
l
a c 471 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 11:18:45 AM

ohiou_grad_06,

The best advice I can provide is to ignore JimmyBean since his posts are more or less irrelevant due to the fact that he only relies on 3DMark11 benchmark results and in other threads where he posts links to 3DMark11 results, the graphics card are different.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 11:30:26 AM

Your upgrade on AMD is Phenom II while they are still around a 960T will do you well and last a good while without breaking the bank a good featured mobo to match it is reasonably priced too.

Intel will do you better if you can afford i5. I have always used AMD but even I accept this fact. FX really is bad, the 4100 is just cr@p to be good it would need to lose 33% of its price. The high end FX chips are in i5 money bracket so again can't really be recommended
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 11:33:25 AM

While the FX-4100 may not beat the i3's (or i5's), it is enough for gaming at stock speeds so long as you don't have a high end GPU setup. Though i would only recommend them if you are on a tight budget (cannot afford the +20$ for an i3) or you already have a compatible board (which you don't)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 12:04:38 PM

FX-4100 is not that bad. i3 is just more refined and better architectured.

And regarding Jimmy Bean, he's putting much efforts to say the FX-4100 it's a beast CPU that crush basically everything, better than i3, and even comparing to the expensive i5-2500k.

Three options:
- He might have AMD stocks
- He bought a FX-4100 and must stick with his affirmation to not feel bad from buying this CPU
- He's actually right.

We could set some tests to see the feasibility of his affirmations. But sincerely? I think it's hard to argue with basically all websites, reviews and everything.

Hard to believe JimmyBean would be right, and all websites: Anandtech, Xtremesystems, Tomshardware, Madshrimps, Guru3d, etc etc etc, are wrong.
m
0
l
a c 80 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 12:11:10 PM

dunno about the motherboard.
4100 would be faster...
well, it's got -
l3 cache,
larger instruction support e.g. aes, avx etc
higher base clockrate and turbo.....compared to the athlon.
you said 'everything' what does that actually cover? e.g. gaming, web surfing, 3d rendering. the 4100 should be able to do everything the athlon does. the 4100 will get the job done unless you're pushing the cpu, then you'd be better off with a sandy bridge core i5/i3. imo it's a bad gaming cpu - for a similar price (i3 2100) or a little higher price (i3 2120, i5 2400), or cheaper (pentium g860) a better gaming cpu can be had. the oc makes difference only in every day app performance, not much in gaming. it'll match with the gts 450 well. if you want to put something like a radeon 6850/7770/6870 in that pc you'd benefit more from a core i3, at least. power consumption would be a high for the overclocked cpu, if that's a concern. as long as you play gpu bound games, the cpu won't be a major issue. here are two articles that explored fx 4100 (among others) gaming performance:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-210...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 12:31:18 PM

Quote:
tomshardware has purchasing influencers

basically sales men

go on get conned into buying the lesser product



toms review is biased


Man do you work for AMD or something? You are raving about the 4100 as if it is the beast chip in the whole history of chips. You should back up your chatter with more than one benchmark software and other real world apps. O and when you use 3dmark make sure the gpus are running at the same speed. I have seen your other post about your 4100 and they are total bs as your gpu speed are different. If you think Toms is so biased go to another site and troll people. :lol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 12:42:01 PM

Dude I saw your benchmarks and they are bs. Your gpu speeds were different with the 4100 and the I5. You overclocked your gpu with the 4100 or under clocked the gpu with the I5. Then you say the 4100 stomps everything. No one is trying to take wins away from AMD. Where is your proof?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 12:49:28 PM

Quote:
its better than every i3 and can keep up and beat i5 2500k

how can the proof be argued with ??

how long can intel fans keep their fingers in their ears for ?

Where is the proof? Please point us to any professional/semi-professional review that shows the FX quad beating an i5-2500K in ANYTHING.

If we're all living in Plato's cave watching a shadow-puppet show performed by Intel, then show us the light! All you've given us so far is a 3DMark bench you did yourself.

I've said this before, but I dislike Intel greatly. I would much prefer to buy AMD, but I'm too budget-conscious to put my money toward an inferior CPU with no upgrade path.
m
0
l
a c 80 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 1:12:58 PM

dude, you're hijacking this thread... i'll reply only this once (hopefully i'll get it right):
your config is different from the other two. you have higher size and speed system memory (16 gb vs 8 gb and 4 gb respectively). your gfx card is overclocked. these two raised 3dmark scores. if you go into details, the differences become clearer. your overclocked gfx card got majority of the higher score, not your cpu. if you check the physics test, you'll see that the i5 and i7's 6870s score much higher - that's because the fx 4100 holds back your gpu even if it's overclocked. when only the gpu is used, the fps scores go up and raise the final score.
edit: i suspect that the deciding factor on higher score is not the cpu. besides, the comparison is quite unbalanced. a slightly higher synthetic benchmark number is easily negligible. hehe
m
0
l
March 20, 2012 1:30:19 PM

Jimmy, cmon man, you expect people to believe that? It looks like you cherry picked the results. Your own links for i5 and i7 show that those computers may have problems. Pick one with a healthy score and compare again. And we are not talking about GPU here, so put that part aside. We are ONLY speaking of CPU.

I'm an AMD guy myself, but get real fx4100 beating an i5? Kind of stretching it.

To the rest of you, i5 might be tempting depending on cost. How good is i3? I gotta be honest I know the specs and reviews of i3 are good, but considering I've got a quad core processor now, going back to a dual core, even one with hyperthreading, feels like it would be a downgrade. Just don't know that I'm thrilled about budget options out there.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 1:33:31 PM

If you can't stretch to i5, Phenom II is still an upgrade too you and barely costs more than 4100.... which it outperforms
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 1:47:02 PM

My advice would be to get a Phenom II quad core, or even Six core. instead of the FX 4100. None of the FX "Bull Dozer" chips turned out to perform like anyone really expected. I am not satisfied with my FX 6100 Six core. and when i build my next build. It will be Intel
m
0
l
a c 95 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 2:17:33 PM

de5_Roy said:
dude, you're hijacking this thread... i'll reply only this once (hopefully i'll get it right):
your config is different from the other two. you have higher size and speed system memory (16 gb vs 8 gb and 4 gb respectively). your gfx card is overclocked. these two raised 3dmark scores. if you go into details, the differences become clearer. your overclocked gfx card got majority of the higher score, not your cpu. if you check the physics test, you'll see that the i5 and i7's 6870s score much higher - that's because the fx 4100 holds back your gpu even if it's overclocked. when only the gpu is used, the fps scores go up and raise the final score.
edit: i suspect that the deciding factor on higher score is not the cpu. besides, the comparison is quite unbalanced. a slightly higher synthetic benchmark number is easily negligible. hehe


!00% Affirmative!

m
0
l
March 20, 2012 2:19:59 PM

Quote:
am i a magician now ?

the results are there

look at them twice.. have sly looks if you want

like i said , the i5 didn't overclock the gpu, only the cpu

how about people go buy the same as me and see for their selves ?

but seriously.. the fx4100 deserves props for how great it can perform and im giving it some


I felt I actually had to register just to add to the people calling out this misleading idiot.

Lets look at the 2 scores you posted

Your 'Super amazing unbeatable AMD system'
Processor Clock - 4.3Ghz
AMD HD 6870 Grapphics card
Core clock - 960 MHz
Memory clock - 1160 MHz
Total RAM - 16384 MB

Intel System
Processor Clock - 4.5Ghz
AMD HD 6870 Grapphics card
Core clock - 775 MHz (YOU HAVE REDUCED THIS BY 185 MHZ!)
Memory clock - 1050 MHz (YOU HAVE REDUCED THIS BY 110 MHZ!)
Total RAM - 8192 MB (THIS SYSTEM HAS HALF AS MUCH RAM AS YOUR AMD ONE!)

Even your holy futuremark corperation is telling you that the intel system score doesnt match what other people are getting, have you recieved a blow to the head, or are you just trying to decieve people to troll?



m
0
l
a c 95 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 2:57:09 PM

Quote:
TY.

FYI
good to see you but too bad it's over this my friend..


Update: Mr Bean, won't be back!
m
0
l
March 20, 2012 2:59:23 PM

4Ryan6 said:
!00% Affirmative!

@JimmyBean

You've claimed THG reviewers are biased and I for one know that is not true, they work very hard doing the reviews to make sure they are factual and not biased, the 3DM11 scores you're boasting about obviously you did not compare the hardware specs, to discover the differences of the GPU and memory clocks of the graphics cards, because those boasts are biased!

You've disrupted this thread and posted false claims of THG review bias, if you intend to remain a member of THGF you can ponder this on your 7 day vacation, when you come back if you start this attitude again, I ask all reading this to PM me immediately. Ryan



If you are looking at the same benchmarks he posted () that I saw, his system actually shows him running two 6870s in SLI, and the GTX560 was by itself. Unless, of course, the benchmark program is wrong.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 3:07:17 PM

4Ryan6 said:
!00% Affirmative!


Thankyou!!!!!! :sol: 
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 7:03:59 PM

Quote:
PassMark is crap.

You have learned! :na: 
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
March 20, 2012 7:05:09 PM

mad2 said:
I found this benchmark interesting...it shows the 4170 as the best value.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-4170+Qua...

passmark, it is the biggest fail I have ever seen. It is purely synthetic, and if it were value, the i3-2100 would have gotten the spot. Basically don't trust passmark, cpubenchmark, etc.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 7:08:28 PM

4Ryan6 said:
Update: Mr Bean, won't be back!

Nice one :-)

Man, you 1984'd him too!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 7:10:44 PM

The 4100 isn't going to be a big upgrade for you. Check out reviews of the 4100 for yourself, it's not going to be a big improvement over a 640/645

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...

Other reviews pretty much show the same story. If you overclocked the 4100 to 4.6Ghz that would be a nice 27% increase, but that's an a typical case. Increasing your CPU by giving it a 27% OC that would put it at about 3.8GHz which is possible with a C3 chip. You're better off overclocking your 640 and adding a second GTS 450 in SLI but that's just me.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2012 11:38:54 PM

I have an FX series chip, the FX6100, and I just ordered a Phenom II X4 980 because I'm not happy with my FX-6100. I was the victim of my own impulse buying and for whatever reason I like to buy things that are expensive then read reviews on them stating how something $40 less works better. I wish I read up on my CPU before hand, I would have saved myself $150. And now, I've spent $300 on CPUs and I could have just gotten an i7 with that money and blown both out of the water. The FX-6100 is not horrible, its just inefficient. I rather have 4 REAL cores as opposed to 3 cores with 2 threads each. Psuedo 6 core is not FTW. However, I upgraded from an Athlon 64 3700+ that I have used since 2005 so the FX6100 actually seems great.
m
0
l
March 21, 2012 2:35:57 AM

I'm running the following rigs:
Ath II x 3
955BE
I3 2100
I5 2500K

I can tell you from direct comparison that the I3 with a GTX460 1GB is a great rig. Runs every game well. It is silky smooth and did not cost an arm and leg. The 955BE is good at stock with the same GPU but you can tell that the I3 is a little better until you get off the games and try to be productive. Niether come close to the I5 with a 6970 though. I did try the 955 OC'd to 3.8 with the 6970 and it did not compare to the I5. So in my humble opinion the intels are the way to go. My nieghbor put together a FX4100 build and we did side by side comparisons of all the systems and the 4100 was on par with the Ath II x 3 until overclocked and then it bump up against the I3 but never over took it, sad but true. Man I wish AMD would put out something worthy but not gonna hold my breath.
m
0
l
a c 185 à CPUs
March 21, 2012 6:08:11 AM

Quote:
Whoo lookey like SLI GTX 480 for $500 is a viable option that is if one already has the liquid cooling, mobo and Gigawatt power generator for them LOL. Actually I remit my statement about the 480s SLIed 40fps to 130fps is a big gap and is just terrible scaling really.

Fried eggs anyone? :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
March 21, 2012 10:37:14 AM

Quote:
Gaming at the mid range does not really rely much at all on the CPU


True, but why spend the same amount or more for a slower CPU?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2012 11:14:27 AM

Quote:
When is Piledriver coming again.?

For real - let's see some competition! Give me a reason to pass over LGA 1155, AMD!
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
March 21, 2012 11:38:14 AM

I'm on 1156. Not moving.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2012 3:24:00 PM

ohiou_grad_06 said:
I could reuse my old processor, but I've got a microcenter nearby, so by the time I buy the FX4100, and toss the board on with it, the board becomes nearly free,

Thoughts and opinions?

If your still around, http://www.microcenter.com/specials/promotions/AMDbundl...

Get the motherboard for free instead of nearly free. The 960T is the best option, here is why.

The 960T could be a X6 cpu with the unlock feature on the motherboard.
The 960T is an unlocked multiplier CPU wich makes it easier to OC than the 1045T.
The 960T is a TRUE quad core cpu, the FX 4100 is a dual module "quad" core cpu. Its multi-threaded performance is 80% of a quad core cpu, so AMD calls it a quad instead of dual +CMT.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2012 4:51:14 PM

Quote:
I'll take a 965BE-980BE over the 960T and I am considering the price difference.
but if a quad core is not enough and you need more then just go for the 1090T - 1100T.
960T is priced well to sell but I'm a true Deneb guy.

Even if the price difference is $90?

Newegg 965BE $125
same 760G MB $65
Total $190

vs 960T +MB $99

Not sure why anyone would even consider paying double for nearly the same thing, would love to know however.
m
0
l
March 21, 2012 6:50:09 PM

Wow. Definitely a lot of response. Yeah a friend recommended the 960t also. while not a bad processor I'm sure, what is tempting is the 4.5 and 4.6 Tjs on overclocks people are getting from the 4100 series. Anyone know of benchmarks that show performance at that speed? A couple of years ago, 4.6 Tjs was nearly unheard of.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2012 8:52:46 PM

Quote:
Notice how 960T has been marketed to sell well after they EOLed the 955 little do they know the Deneb 955 was the better chip but because of all the marketing hype people think 960T is better LOL

find a 955 + motherboard for $99, has nothing to do with marketing, but sheer price at this point. Unless your only considering performance, there is no reason not to consider the 960T, and considering the topic of discussion is the FX 4100, price is a huge factor.

Quote:
Wow. Definitely a lot of response. Yeah a friend recommended the 960t also. while not a bad processor I'm sure, what is tempting is the 4.5 and 4.6 Tjs on overclocks people are getting from the 4100 series. Anyone know of benchmarks that show performance at that speed? A couple of years ago, 4.6 Tjs was nearly unheard of.


As I said earlier, the 4100 is 80% of a quad core, so essentially 4.6 ghz 4100 ~= 3.9ghz quad phenom when under full cpu usage across all 4 cores. If the 960T unlocks to an X6 and overclocks to ~3.6-3.9 ghz, the 4100 can't even compete no matter how fast you can get it.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2012 11:46:05 PM

Quote:
Where can you get an 960T and good mobo for $100 and most people DO NOT have access to MicroCenter LOL.

Doesn't matter since the op said he will most likely buy from microcenter. Trying to argue the price is a moot point unless your trying to hijack the thread for yourself to fit your arguement that isn't even relative to the topic. Go read the first post again.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
March 22, 2012 12:33:30 AM

I believe toms did an article about low end CPUs for gaming recently. Here are the results of where the 4100 was OC'd to 4.5GHz.

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

Notice it is now about equal (though still slower) then the Pentium G860. It is also slower then the i3 2100. And before conspiracy guy starts up again, rather then claim submit the proof.

The 4100 and 2100 tend to be the same price on newegg. Why buy the 4100 and the good aftermarket heatsink to get it up that high if the 2100 is still faster and consumes less power at stock?
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
March 22, 2012 12:40:30 AM

And is great if you can afford it, but won't be $100. Considering the OCing that needs to happen in gaming just to get the 4100 close to the Intels, just grab the Intel machine.
m
0
l
March 22, 2012 1:14:43 AM

Quote:
I'll take a 965BE-980BE over the 960T and I am considering the price difference.
but if a quad core is not enough and you need more then just go for the 1090T - 1100T.
960T is priced well to sell but I'm a true Deneb guy.

+1
m
0
l
!