Is clock speed more important than cache size?

The FX-8100 is the fastest of the bunch, but under some games it (and the 6100) are treated as triple cores, instead of hexa cores. All of them are slower than an i5-2400 or 1100T.

Thank you for your response. How would a phenom II X4 955 compare to those listed? I would like to stay under $150 for the CPU. If anyone has any reccommendations for a good CPU under that $150 price point, please do share.

955 is slower than the 4100. Of the one's you listed, the FX-8100 is the fastest, and nothing under $150 is going to touch it. The FX-6100 is the fastest one of the one's I can find under $150.

Did somebody say megahertz myth? You need to learn the concept of IPC. Clock speed x Instructions Per Clock (IPC) is going to get your performance. The AMD FX processors have a notoriously low IPC even when compared to AMD's last generation Phenom II parts. Compared to Sandy/Ivy Bridge, there is simply no competition. IPC is why a Core i5 2500 4-core part beats an FX-8150 8-core part in most benchmarks. For gaming, the Phenom II X4 is going to be your best option, especially with overclocking. IPC really comes into play with less threaded applications like games, web browsing, music, etc. The Phenom II X4 will outperform all of your listed processors in those tasks, but the FX-8100 will give the X4 a run for its money in rendering tasks that are more thread heavy.

Cores and Clock speed is what you need to think of with FX...

A Phenom II based on Deneb or Thuban will do you better in your price bracket than the FX Snoozedozer lineup

I'm well aware of what IPC is and does. I would hesitate to go with AMD for that reason, but under $150 limits your options. The Passmark score the for 955 is lower than any of the other chips on the list, but IPC does come into play. Also have to consider parts availability, since they no longer make the Phenom.

965BE's are still readily available if you look around. I'd take it over FX

Sorry, I was directing my statement to the OP.

 

 

Wouldn't bother. Intel's 2100/2100 is under $150 and faster gaming wise then anything AMD has. You can also grab the 2400 and mop the floor with anything AMD has. Not sure if the 2400 is under $150, probably not.

I'd take the older 955 over the FX chips. FX just isn't worth it right now.

Alright so in light of this new info, i'll probably just tough it up and spend a little extra for the i5. In your honest opinion is the extra $100 bucks to upgrade to an i7 worth it? Also, does anyone think the price of all Sandy Bridge will go down since today's release of Ivy Bridge? Which i5,i7 models will give you best CAD, Gaming, and multitasking performance. I really appreciate all your help as I am new to the world of computers and want to build my first.

For CAD and multitasking, the Core i7 is best. For sheer gaming alone, Core i5.

And just to clarify on the definition of multitasking, would you consider Playing minecraft,BF3,streaming online radio, and watching videos an i7 or i5 job. Would playing BF3 and streaming radio alone be more of i5 or i7 as well. Thanks for all the help guys.

i7 because you can set core affinity and make use of hyper-threading, at least, that's what I do.

Ok, I think originally wanted to go i7,but the guys at work told me a AMD would be fine, i don't really want to buy an AMD from what i have heard now. Do you think that the price of the sandy bridge CPUs will go down at all?

I doubt SB prices will change much at all.

It's not that AMD won't work. Its just that Intel's 2100/2120 works better. Why spend the $$$ to get the FX4100 if you can spend the same $$$ and get more?