I am looking to build my very first budget gaming computer and I was wondering, would the AMD FX 4100 Quad Core Processor be a good CPU for it? I have been told to stay away from it, but I was never given any reasons, I was just told to get the i5 2500k. What do you think are the pros and cons between these two CPUs?
AMD FX 4100 Quad Core Processor?
- Thread starter xBUNx
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Video Games
Given that you don't spend $300+ on a high-end gpu, a 4100 will serve you just fine.
A lot of gaming builds tend to have gpu bottlenecks when people pair a 2500k with a Gtx 560 Ti (for example).
My own budget gamer has an AMD be 965 and a radeon hd 6950 which is a more balanced combination in my opinion.
don't waste the money on a 2500k unless you are prepared to spend at least $300 on a graphics card.
A lot of gaming builds tend to have gpu bottlenecks when people pair a 2500k with a Gtx 560 Ti (for example).
My own budget gamer has an AMD be 965 and a radeon hd 6950 which is a more balanced combination in my opinion.
don't waste the money on a 2500k unless you are prepared to spend at least $300 on a graphics card.
fjay
Honorable
- Apr 22, 2012
- 14
- 0
- 10,520
I have the 4100 - works great! as a budget build, can barely be beat. I am using the ASUS M5A97-EVO MB - which is excellent for OC'ing without breaking the budget (The only thing over high end boards that it is lacking is C-Fire/SLI support). Both the Proc and the MB together can be had for less than the i5 2500K alone.
A good comparison of the 4100 vs the i7 3770K is here:
http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=779&page=11
Basically you get improvement from the i7, but with v-sync (or even without) there is no difference that your eyes can see, just super high framerates that are for bragging only.
The value of this processor OC'ed is extremely good.
A good comparison of the 4100 vs the i7 3770K is here:
http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=779&page=11
Basically you get improvement from the i7, but with v-sync (or even without) there is no difference that your eyes can see, just super high framerates that are for bragging only.
The value of this processor OC'ed is extremely good.
fjay
Honorable
- Apr 22, 2012
- 14
- 0
- 10,520
I have skyrim at MAX+ settings, and get much higher framerates than shown in that chart.
The only time I do not is looking from dragonmount at the town. (other than that I am at 60fps 98% of the time, even in combat) - I keep v-sync enabled (there is no point to disabling it).
My FX4100 is at 4.5Ghz tho...but it is an easily obtainable OC, ther 4170 is almost there to start with.
Thats odd though about that site...it is all in english for me.. and the site does show the Skyrim difference between performance, but it is one of the few games that is really sensitive to the CPU.
The only time I do not is looking from dragonmount at the town. (other than that I am at 60fps 98% of the time, even in combat) - I keep v-sync enabled (there is no point to disabling it).
My FX4100 is at 4.5Ghz tho...but it is an easily obtainable OC, ther 4170 is almost there to start with.
Thats odd though about that site...it is all in english for me.. and the site does show the Skyrim difference between performance, but it is one of the few games that is really sensitive to the CPU.
fjay
Honorable
- Apr 22, 2012
- 14
- 0
- 10,520
Yes, in some situations, at stock speeds - but the 4100/4170 can crank out the Ghz, even on air (I am using a 5 year old air cooler, from my first socket AM2 rig - getting a 4.5 Ghz rock stable PC)
However, I was dissapointed in the bulldozer bigtime (bought the AM3+ board prior to the launch), was hoping it would give intel a run for their money....but alas, no.
However, as a platform, it is a very good value build. IMO it is better than an Intel Build for the same $'s.
(with a MB with good power options, OC ability, etc..) This is in Canada, anyway ( not sure on the cost of things in the USA).
I am not an huge fan of AMD, prefer Intel actually, but on the low end (when looked at as a whole), I still think AMD has the best $ value IF you overclock.
Right now, I have a PC that can run anything I throw at it, that would cost ~$700 to build (no monitor).
Sure it is not the fastest thing by the numbers, but it feels fast, and is never sluggish.
However, I was dissapointed in the bulldozer bigtime (bought the AM3+ board prior to the launch), was hoping it would give intel a run for their money....but alas, no.
However, as a platform, it is a very good value build. IMO it is better than an Intel Build for the same $'s.
(with a MB with good power options, OC ability, etc..) This is in Canada, anyway ( not sure on the cost of things in the USA).
I am not an huge fan of AMD, prefer Intel actually, but on the low end (when looked at as a whole), I still think AMD has the best $ value IF you overclock.
Right now, I have a PC that can run anything I throw at it, that would cost ~$700 to build (no monitor).
Sure it is not the fastest thing by the numbers, but it feels fast, and is never sluggish.
fjay
Honorable
- Apr 22, 2012
- 14
- 0
- 10,520
I do agree with this ^
But if you like to tweak, the FX is fun to tweak! especially with a good ASUS board (getting an extra Ghz (almost) out of a 100 buck CPU).
I only went AMD because I am cheap, and if something low cost can do everything I need and then some, that is what I go with.
Intel is just a little too pricey for me, because I care about what I do with the PC, not what numbers I can boast with (although that can be entertaining, just not enough to justify the cost IMO). But Intel has the superior technology, that is for sure!!
But why buy a 1/2 ton, when a 1/4 ton will do?
I just hope the competition stays somewhat balanced, as I remember the days of pricey 486's and pentiums....no $100 procs there, mostly $1000 ones....and that was mainstream!
..and I digress
But if you like to tweak, the FX is fun to tweak! especially with a good ASUS board (getting an extra Ghz (almost) out of a 100 buck CPU).
I only went AMD because I am cheap, and if something low cost can do everything I need and then some, that is what I go with.
Intel is just a little too pricey for me, because I care about what I do with the PC, not what numbers I can boast with (although that can be entertaining, just not enough to justify the cost IMO). But Intel has the superior technology, that is for sure!!
But why buy a 1/2 ton, when a 1/4 ton will do?
I just hope the competition stays somewhat balanced, as I remember the days of pricey 486's and pentiums....no $100 procs there, mostly $1000 ones....and that was mainstream!
..and I digress
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Gigabyte B760 GAMING X DDR4 or MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
- Started by Samuel-212
- Replies: 2
-
-
Question What Cat6 Ethernet Cable Should I Get? I'm From The UK
- Started by legendairyjoe
- Replies: 7
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram