Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Phenom ii x4 965 vs fx 6100 s fx 4170

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Processors
  • Phenom
Last response: in CPUs
October 16, 2012 9:58:02 PM

Which of these processors at stock speeds will be best for recording games with fraps? I intend to play (and record) Battlefield 3 multiplayer and Metro 2033 (and the new one whenever it comes out) as well as some mmos. Probably Guild Wars 2 and Elder Scrolls Online whenever that comes out.

More about : phenom 965 6100 4170

a c 291 à CPUs
October 16, 2012 11:04:02 PM

The 965 and 4170 are the best of the three. It would go 965 > 4170 > 6100.

None of them would be wonderful for recording BF3 or Metro 2033, though. That would really require an i5 to do well (at 60 FPS, anyway).

Recording GW2 and Elder Scrolls Online should be doable with any of those, though.
m
0
l
October 17, 2012 12:57:08 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
The 965 and 4170 are the best of the three. It would go 965 > 4170 > 6100.

None of them would be wonderful for recording BF3 or Metro 2033, though. That would really require an i5 to do well (at 60 FPS, anyway).

Recording GW2 and Elder Scrolls Online should be doable with any of those, though.


Okay thanks....although I should mention I've seen videos on youtube of people playing BF3 multiplayer on ultra settings 1080p and maintaining a solid 50-60 fps using the fx 6100 and 560ti....With that in mind, is the fx 6100 really still the worst? I know it gets a lot of flak, but 99% of customer reviews seem to be incredibly satisfied and happy with its performance. Same with the 965, although I was questioning its multitasking capabilities in comparison with 6100 just because its a quad core in comparison to six cores (or pardon, 3 cores and 3 bulldozer modules)
Also, I'm not very knowledgeable about the modules. Could someone explain how exactly they work?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 291 à CPUs
October 17, 2012 1:06:25 AM

TheScarecrow97 said:
Could someone explain how exactly they work?


I don't know every single detail about how the modules work, but it all boils down to the fact that there are two integer cores in each module that share resources with the single execution unit and cache in each module making it less efficient than a normal CPU.

As far as the 6100 goes, it's not all bad, but I just think the 6xxx CPU's are an abortion that never should have existed. They don't really have much of a place in the market. The 4xxx and 81xx are the only ones that make any sense to buy, IMO.

To add to that, you don't really need the extra two "cores" for "multitasking". A faster true quad core is better than a slower "6 core" for recording games.

Also, at this point, there's not much point in buying any Bulldozer CPU, really. Piledriver will be here next week, so buying a Bulldozer CPU right now just doesn't make any sense.
m
0
l
October 17, 2012 1:27:23 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
I don't know every single detail about how the modules work, but it all boils down to the fact that there are two integer cores in each module that share resources with the single execution unit and cache in each module making it less efficient than a normal CPU.

As far as the 6100 goes, it's not all bad, but I just think the 6xxx CPU's are an abortion that never should have existed. They don't really have much of a place in the market. The 4xxx and 81xx are the only ones that make any sense to buy, IMO.

To add to that, you don't really need the extra two "cores" for "multitasking". A faster true quad core is better than a slower "6 core" for recording games.

Also, at this point, there's not much point in buying any Bulldozer CPU, really. Piledriver will be here next week, so buying a Bulldozer CPU right now just doesn't make any sense.


Alright, thanks for the advice! I think I'll wait a couple weeks to see how Piledriver does, and if the 4350 (not entirely sure thats what its called) is substantially better than the 965, (good enough to justify an extra 40 dollars) then I'll get that instead.
m
0
l
a c 291 à CPUs
October 17, 2012 1:32:13 AM

You're welcome. :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2012 1:37:29 AM

DJDeCiBeL, I think your wrong about about 4xxx series is better than the 6xxx series. The two FX processors in question cost the same and you just can disable two cores and just overclock the 6100 to the 4170 level...... and I wouldn't be surprised if it preformed better. 6100 would be faster at rendering videos and whatever program that can use all it's cores.

Get the 6100 if your going to get one of the FX processors. I would just wait for Piledriver if I was you because it SHOULD (big question) be better than Bulldozer and it would drive down Bulldozer's price when it does arrive. Win-win for you.
m
0
l
a c 291 à CPUs
October 17, 2012 1:41:36 AM

m32 said:
DJDeCiBeL, I think your wrong about about 4xxx series is better than the 6xxx series.


I never actually said they were outright better (they're not), what I said was that it doesn't make any sense to get a 6xxx CPU (that's true).

This is just purely my own opinion, but the only 3 Bulldozer CPU's worth actually paying money for are the 4170 and 8120/8150. No solid case can be made for any of the others...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2012 1:50:38 AM

The 6100 is the same price of the 4170, you could just deactivate two cores if you wanted + you just can overclock the darn thing to the same (or greater) than the 4170. To me, the 4170 just isn't worth it. Get the 4100 and overclock it to the 4170's level. I can't recommend the 4170 to anyone.

The 6100 (overclock it if you have to) would be better than the 4170 in encoding..... : )
m
0
l
a c 291 à CPUs
October 17, 2012 1:54:17 AM

m32 said:
The 6100 is the same price of the 4170, you could just deactivate two cores if you wanted + you just can overclock the darn thing to the same (or greater) than the 4170. To me, the 4170 just isn't worth it. Get the 4100 and overclock it to the 4170's level. I can't recommend the 4170 to anyone.


You have your opinion, I have mine, lol.

I'm just saying that if you want to encode, get a 8120/8150. Sure the 6xxx may do that particular task better than a 4170, but not as well as a 8120/8150 either.

Plus, you can basically turn the 8120/8150 in to a true quad core for gaming. The best of both worlds.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2012 2:10:09 AM

I was just commenting on the two products that cost the same. I just think the 6100 is a much better value than the 4170. Disable one core on two modules and overclock. You still have and six core if you need it and something that I would consider better than the 4170.

I'm not saying your wrong, I just think the 6100 is an better value. I guess it all comes down to personal preference.
m
0
l
a c 291 à CPUs
October 17, 2012 2:19:07 AM

You would need to deactivate 3 cores for the 6100 to really perform well in games (making it a true tri core). Deactivating only two doesn't really make sense (in theory, it does, but in practice, it doesn't. You're not really turning it into a quad core when you do that. It's just a true dual core with another separate Bulldozer module in that scenario).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2012 5:46:47 PM

Late response but I think you swayed me....
m
0
l