Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd phenom ii x4 965 or bulldozer fx-4100?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 18, 2013 11:56:30 AM

hi i am looking for some help as i am building a new low cost gaming pc i already have an ASUS m5a78l-m/usb3 motherboard ,hdd and 650watt psu allthough when checking for a cpu i was originally planning the fx-4100 but after reading a few reviews am now wondering if i should get the phenom? i can get them both around the same price so more just wanting to know which will perform better or be more versatile?
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 12:04:36 PM

get the phemon
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 1:17:43 PM

of the two the 965BE
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 2:48:25 PM

6300 lol
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 3:26:41 PM

phenom or 6300.
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 3:41:49 PM

Get the FX-6300 or FX-4300 the 6300 is only $10 more than the 4300 so my vote is FX-6300 they cost right around $140.
January 18, 2013 3:49:55 PM

jock1092 said:
hi i am looking for some help as i am building a new low cost gaming pc i already have an ASUS m5a78l-m/usb3 motherboard ,hdd and 650watt psu allthough when checking for a cpu i was originally planning the fx-4100 but after reading a few reviews am now wondering if i should get the phenom? i can get them both around the same price so more just wanting to know which will perform better or be more versatile?


get the 965, BUT if ur mobo supports it get a fx 4300 its way better then the 965 and 4100 same price to about
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 3:54:23 PM

diablo34life said:
get the 965, BUT if ur mobo supports it get a fx 4300 its way better then the 965 and 4100 same price to about


Yup i checked his mobo it is AM3+... Get at least the FX-4300, but keep in mind the FX-6300 is only $10 more.
a c 174 à CPUs
January 18, 2013 4:01:05 PM

that motherboard supports almost all fx series and phenoms as only one phenom reaches 140watts, and the board does 125, and the only 140 is one of the two 965 BE versions.

Recommend above 6300 or 965, $140 vs under $100, for two more cores a 95watt or 125 watt, and 4 physical core is 6 core with modules, either one is a good choice, the 6300 in games benchmarks usually better than the fx 8150
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 4:10:11 PM

Get fx 6300 instead of fx 4300.fx 6300 is good at gaming and multitasking.
a c 146 à CPUs
January 18, 2013 4:10:19 PM

There is no point in getting the 4100 Bulldozer was/is absolute crap. At best it is a sidegrade but I would say it is a downgrade from the Phenom II. If it between those two and that is it go with the PhenomII. I don't see why though you wouldn't just go with Piledriver.
January 18, 2013 4:15:30 PM

965BE any day. Bulldozer architecture is garbage, FX-4100 is a "quad core" but in reality is 4 cores with half has much floating point power (4 cores, 2 floating point units) 965BE is (4 cores, 4 floating point units) which is a true quad core.
a c 103 à CPUs
January 18, 2013 4:20:24 PM

965 all the way out of those two but the Pd triples if supported would be slightly better still
Moto
January 18, 2013 6:59:22 PM

right thanks think i'll go with the phenom was planning one of them last year just decided to delay it looks like thats where im back to now
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 7:06:33 PM

Get the Phenom 965, it's the same price as the FX 4100 in the UK (£75) and it'll be a darn sight faster too. If the FX4300 and FX6300 are in range get that.
January 18, 2013 10:48:19 PM

4100 is dual core
a c 174 à CPUs
January 18, 2013 10:51:40 PM

timil said:
4100 is dual core


Wrong, do some research, all fx cpus are what they say even with module, its basically similar but not much similar to hyper threading, where module performance just isnt as high as the physical cores are, as many say HT performance like modules not a 1 to 1 ratio for the logical cores, some where like 1.6ish to 2 maybe im off on my numbers still gets the point thru, but if it were between the 4100 and 965 BE, the physical 4 cores is best choice
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 10:59:23 PM

6300>4300>965>4100. Go for the 6300 its a nice fast cpu for the price. best bang for the cpu imo atm
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 11:00:32 PM

4300 0r 6300 would be best
January 18, 2013 11:03:42 PM

lazyboy947 said:
Wrong, do some research, all fx cpus are what they say even with module, its basically similar but not much similar to hyper threading, where module performance just isnt as high as the physical cores are, as many say HT performance like modules not a 1 to 1 ratio for the logical cores, some where like 1.6ish to 2 maybe im off on my numbers still gets the point thru, but if it were between the 4100 and 965 BE, the physical 4 cores is best choice


well ur somewhat right, the fx cpus do have all true phyical cores. the fx4100 does have 4 phyical cores, just each 2 core shares the same floating point and decoder. but the 4 cores are all there phyically
January 18, 2013 11:18:22 PM

stantheman123 said:
6300>4300>965>4100. Go for the 6300 its a nice fast cpu for the price. best bang for the cpu imo atm



WINNER!!!!
a c 174 à CPUs
January 18, 2013 11:21:33 PM

diablo34life said:
well ur somewhat right, the fx cpus do have all true phyical cores. the fx4100 does have 4 phyical cores, just each 2 core shares the same floating point and decoder. but the 4 cores are all there phyically


Was close for performance wise lol
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 7:07:36 AM

If you can get a FX6300 then do it.

if not then the 965BE of the two is way better.
January 20, 2013 2:09:12 PM

thanks everyone going for the phenom as trying for the lowest cost with best results with a good upgrade potential as usually a console gamer but wanting to take a shot with the pc so ive got more controll of how i improve quality instead of waiting for a new model
a c 103 à CPUs
January 20, 2013 5:09:12 PM

Make sure to grab a good cooler like the Hyper212 series so you can cool it properly when you get to overclocking it :) 
Moto
January 21, 2013 4:44:04 PM

will do any recomendations on graphics cards?
a c 146 à CPUs
January 21, 2013 4:55:50 PM

What games are you playing, at what resolution and at what graphic settings?
January 21, 2013 4:58:24 PM

Lately I have been recommended this card (CLICK ME)!

It's a NVIDIA GeForce 650Ti but the real deal is the 768 cuda cores for only $150 bucks! and a max power consumption of 110 Watts.

Enjoy ;) 
a c 146 à CPUs
January 21, 2013 5:06:28 PM

The GTX 650/650Ti (and it's competition the 7770) really isn't worth the money if you are gaming. It is a low end, entry level gaming card it's ok for something like WOW but for for mid level to serious gaming it will not do. If you are playing games like BF3, COD, Crysis and Skyrim you would have to turn down the graphics settings pretty low to get playable frame rates. I would go with no less than a 660/660TI or 7850/7870 if you are gaming.
January 21, 2013 5:47:16 PM

was thinking skyrim to start as it it horrible for crashing on the xbox and resolution/settings just something that will look good not really wanting top qualtiy just mid range really
January 21, 2013 5:53:52 PM

rds1220 said:
The GTX 650/650Ti (and it's competition the 7770) really isn't worth the money if you are gaming. It is a low end, entry level gaming card it's ok for something like WOW but for for mid level to serious gaming it will not do. If you are playing games like BF3, COD, Crysis and Skyrim you would have to turn down the graphics settings pretty low to get playable frame rates. I would go with no less than a 660/660TI or 7850/7870 if you are gaming.


You really should not make inaccurate statements like that. You do know most of those cards you recommended are overkill for most modern games, You do know that a 560Ti with 384 cuda cores can play BF3 on ultra, On top of that a 650Ti with 768 cuda cores can play BF3 on ultra with ease. A 650 standard version can play BF3 on Ultra. Not everybody needs to spend over $180-200 dollars to get great gaming performance these days. I recommend these cards because I put them in my friend's and family's computers so I know how they run, I myself am running a 7970 which is complete overkill but I wanted it.

I'm just saying you should really not say random things like a 650Ti is entry level when in fact if you can do a little bit of research such as reading a review on the 650Ti that is actually on the Tom's Hardware site. (HERE) With a conclusion stating "What is clear, however, is that Nvidia's GeForce GTX 650 Ti is fast enough and affordable enough to serve as a compelling option for mainstream gamers".
a c 146 à CPUs
January 21, 2013 6:13:14 PM

Sure you can play BF3 at ultra settings if you play at ulra low resolution but raise the settings and resolution and neither the 550TI or 650Ti will cut it. Not to mention its a waste of money to get a 550Ti or 650Ti if you are playing at those settings since most of the stress is on the CPU not the video card. You can brag all you want that you can play BF3 at ultra high settings but it isn't much of a win and it doesn't meant much when you are getting those results by playing at low resolutions. That's like bragging that you beat a cripples person in a 100 yard dash. I would like for you to try and play BF3 at 1920X1080 or higher on ulra settings and get playable framerates.The 7850 and 7870 is not overkill it is where I would start for serious gaming. If you want to play games at high resolution and high settings you need a more powerful video cardl. As I said and I think most here will agree the GTX 650/650Ti is not that great especially for serious gaming. The 650/650TI is entry level at best I wouldn't touch one for gaming.

Ok performance with no effects on



Turn on AA and other effects and performance drops from 30-50 FPS that in unacceptable and unplayable



BF3 a normal settings with no AA 40 FPS thats horrible



Turn on AA and forget it it isn't even near playable



Crysis again proves it is unacceptable for gaming at 1920 with no features you get horrible FPS.



Dirt 3 isn't much better



So as you can see you are very wrong. The 650TI is not good enough. It below that threshold. If you want good enough performance you need to at the very least jump up to the 660 and for better performance 660TI or higher.
January 21, 2013 6:29:14 PM

rds1220 said:
I suggest you go look up some benchmarks. Sure you can play BF3 at ultra settings if you play at ulra low resolution but raise the settings and resolution and neither the 550TI or 650Ti will cut it. Not to mention its a waste of money to get a 550Ti or 650Ti if you are playing at those settings since most of the stress is on the CPU not the video card. You can brag all you want that you can play BF3 at ultra high settings but it isn't much of a win and it doesn't meant much when you are getting those results by playing at low resolutions. That's like bragging that you beat a cripples person in a 100 yard dash. I would like for you to try and play BF3 at 1920X1080 or higher on ulra settings and get playable framerates.The 7850 and 7870 is not overkill it is where I would start for serious gaming. If you want to play games at high resolution and high settings you need a more powerful video cardl. As I said and I think most here will agree the GTX 650/650Ti is not that great especially for serious gaming. The 650/650TI is entry level at best I wouldn't touch one for gaming.

Ok performance with no effects on

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/V/355639/original/Batman.png

Turn on AA and other effects and performance drops from 30-50 FPS that in unacceptable and unplayable

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/U/355638/original/Batman%20high.png

BF3 a normal settings with no AA 40 FPS thats horrible

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/Z/355643/original/BF3.png

Turn on AA and forget it it isn't even near playable

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/Y/355642/original/BF3%20high.png

Crysis again proves it is unacceptable for gaming at 1920 with no features you get horrible FPS.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/3/355647/original/Crysis2.png

Dirt 3 isn't much better

http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/7/355651/original/DiRT.png

So as you can see you are very wrong. The 650TI is not good enough. It below that threshold. If you want good enough performance you need to at the very least jump up to the 660 and for better performance 660TI or higher.


I'm not talking about 1920x1080 or AA @ 16x, I'm talking about a nice 1680x1050 with high or ultra settings with moderate AA, which the 650Ti is very much capable of with modern games. The OP stated he wants something midrange and that is exactly what I was bringing into this topic, If you won't touch the card because you have higher standards with gaming that's one thing, I also have those same standards, but not everyone including the OP was looking for something like that. Hence the conclusion on the review of that card with the statement that it's a good card for mainstream gamers, not extreme gamers.
a c 146 à CPUs
January 21, 2013 6:38:58 PM

No one uses low resolutions anymore as a standard for benchmarking. The standard now is 1920X1080. We all know the running gag "can it play Crysis back when that was the most demanding game and people used that as a benchmarking standard. Now people when poeople look at video card benchmarks they ask "can it play at 1920X1080." 1920X1080 is the starting mark since most gamers are at the very least using 1920X1080.
January 21, 2013 8:49:36 PM

to be honest i'll be starting with an old 15" monitor so low res will be fine for starting off till ive got the whole system up to spec then prob stick it to the tv thanks for the recomendations tho they look like they'll be great for my plans been a long time since ive built my own machine still getting shocked by prices but was expecting that
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2013 9:45:43 PM

ZeroWhite said:
You do know that a 560Ti with 384 cuda cores can play BF3 on ultra.


560 TI owner, here. This man is correct. Good framerates at all ultra settings, HD and 2x AA.
a c 146 à CPUs
January 21, 2013 10:00:44 PM

The 560Ti is more powerful than the 550Ti it is a step up from the 550Ti. We are talking about the 650Ti not it's counterpart the 660Ti. Again the 660Ti (like the 560Ti) is alot more powerful and I said that the 660Ti is where I would start for gaming. I would not get a 650Ti for gaming.
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 1:11:33 AM

I have to agree with rds. Gpu is pretty much the most important part of a gaming system and i wouldnt skimp on it. For me personally i wouldnt go under a 7850/gtx 660 for gaming. if that means you have to get a i3/6300. just make sure you get a nice gpu. since pretty much all games are gpu intensive now
January 22, 2013 2:36:44 AM

rds1220 said:
The GTX 650/650Ti (and it's competition the 7770) really isn't worth the money if you are gaming. It is a low end, entry level gaming card it's ok for something like WOW but for for mid level to serious gaming it will not do. If you are playing games like BF3, COD, Crysis and Skyrim you would have to turn down the graphics settings pretty low to get playable frame rates. I would go with no less than a 660/660TI or 7850/7870 if you are gaming.


gosh all of this seems so crazy, for future gaming, i can see getting an expensive card, but it seems unneeded in some instances, for example, i have an older 5770 vapor-x edition. according to your post its a piece of crap that shouldn't even be used for gaming, im sorry sir, but when my 5770 overclocked to 950MHZ core clock, and 1350 memory clock, can literally max out every game i play (even new ones) at 1920x1080, i think these thoughts to be a little outlandish. it seems that people just kind of underestimate these cards. i would be proud as a new 7770 owner.

btw included games i play maxed everything 1920x1080: test drive unlimited 2, need for speed shift, and the squeal, need for speed shift 2, dirt 2, borderlands/borderlands 2, unreal tournament 3, black-light retribution.

those are my new(er) games. i have many many more older games, but my point is that my card can run new games even. however i do completely see your point, IF your going to be playing battlefield 3 and the newest crysis, and you want to play them on ultra (my 5770 will push out medium/high settings on those) then yes, a 660, or 660ti/7850 or 7870 would be the way to go. it just kinda makes me sad when people say cards like my are "entry level" when it plays a lot of new titles on higher settings than you would think, but heck, maybe my tight budget has prevented me from caring about battlefield 3, and has kept me content with my own games.
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 2:54:41 AM

Augman11 said:
gosh all of this seems so crazy, for future gaming, i can see getting an expensive card, but it seems unneeded in some instances, for example, i have an older 5770 vapor-x edition. according to your post its a piece of crap that shouldn't even be used for gaming, im sorry sir, but when my 5770 overclocked to 950MHZ core clock, and 1350 memory clock, can literally max out every game i play (even new ones) at 1920x1080, i think these thoughts to be a little outlandish. it seems that people just kind of underestimate these cards. i would be proud as a new 7770 owner.

btw included games i play maxed everything 1920x1080: test drive unlimited 2, need for speed shift, and the squeal, need for speed shift 2, dirt 2, borderlands/borderlands 2, unreal tournament 3, black-light retribution.

those are my new(er) games. i have many many more older games, but my point is that my card can run new games even. however i do completely see your point, IF your going to be playing battlefield 3 and the newest crysis, and you want to play them on ultra (my 5770 will push out medium/high settings on those) then yes, a 660, or 660ti/7850 or 7870 would be the way to go. it just kinda makes me sad when people say cards like my are "entry level" when it plays a lot of new titles on higher settings than you would think, but heck, maybe my tight budget has prevented me from caring about battlefield 3, and has kept me content with my own games.


Everyone one is different i like playing my games Completey maxed out while having 60fps+ I doubt a 5770 can ultra 1920x1080 full msaa full aa 60fps+. Now im not saying a 5770 cant play games no. Im sure you run games at the SETTINGS your happy with. but me personally i prefer maxing out everything and holding 60fps+
January 22, 2013 3:19:54 AM

stantheman123 said:
Everyone one is different i like playing my games Completey maxed out while having 60fps+ I doubt a 5770 can ultra 1920x1080 full msaa full aa 60fps+. Now im not saying a 5770 cant play games no. Im sure you run games at the SETTINGS your happy with. but me personally i prefer maxing out everything and holding 60fps+


Your right, my games are maxed out around 35fps, but I'm fine with anything above 30, the only downfall being if something intense happens, it has the chance to drop below 30, but not typically. So I understand why having a 60fps+ safeguard would be nice, at that point your garunteed to stay above 30fps. Dont get me wrong, if my budget allowed for it, I would have a new 7870 at my doorstep within the week. :sol: 
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 3:54:40 AM

Augman11 said:
Your right, my games are maxed out around 35fps, but I'm fine with anything above 30, the only downfall being if something intense happens, it has the chance to drop below 30, but not typically. So I understand why having a 60fps+ safeguard would be nice, at that point your garunteed to stay above 30fps. Dont get me wrong, if my budget allowed for it, I would have a new 7870 at my doorstep within the week. :sol: 


I see you have a amd 6300. how come you didnt get a new gpu instead?
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 3:56:36 AM

Get the FX 4100 and overclock it to 4.2GHz which you can do on stock. At that clock rate it will beat a Phenom II 965 BE. I would still go for an i3 3220 though.
a c 146 à CPUs
January 22, 2013 2:27:00 PM

Augman11 said:
gosh all of this seems so crazy, for future gaming, i can see getting an expensive card, but it seems unneeded in some instances, for example, i have an older 5770 vapor-x edition. according to your post its a piece of crap that shouldn't even be used for gaming, im sorry sir, but when my 5770 overclocked to 950MHZ core clock, and 1350 memory clock, can literally max out every game i play (even new ones) at 1920x1080, i think these thoughts to be a little outlandish. it seems that people just kind of underestimate these cards. i would be proud as a new 7770 owner.

btw included games i play maxed everything 1920x1080: test drive unlimited 2, need for speed shift, and the squeal, need for speed shift 2, dirt 2, borderlands/borderlands 2, unreal tournament 3, black-light retribution.

those are my new(er) games. i have many many more older games, but my point is that my card can run new games even. however i do completely see your point, IF your going to be playing battlefield 3 and the newest crysis, and you want to play them on ultra (my 5770 will push out medium/high settings on those) then yes, a 660, or 660ti/7850 or 7870 would be the way to go. it just kinda makes me sad when people say cards like my are "entry level" when it plays a lot of new titles on higher settings than you would think, but heck, maybe my tight budget has prevented me from caring about battlefield 3, and has kept me content with my own games.


:pfff:  I had a 5770 and I can tell you for a fact it is not a good video card. It was not a good video card back then when it was new and it is horrible now that is is two almost three generations old. Also 35 FPS is not an acceptable frame rate for gaming. 60 is as low as I would go and that is it. As Stan said games are more GPU intensive now than CPU intensive. The video card is one of the most important parts for gaming. There is no point in doing a gaming build if you are going to skimp out on the video card.
January 22, 2013 8:29:19 PM

stantheman123 said:
I see you have a amd 6300. how come you didnt get a new gpu instead?


i dont have the money to upgrade both mobo/cpu combo, AND a gpu in the same year, so i swap, and at the time i had an old intel core 2 duo E7200 overclocked to 3.1GHZ... and when my 5770 can carry all the games i need maxed settings at 1920X1080, i deemed the CPU in more need than a new gpu that would just bottleneck from my core 2 duo... its not like i was upgrading my cpu from a phenom 965, it was a core 2 duo! lol. besides, my new mobo i got with it is sweeeet!
January 22, 2013 8:39:39 PM

rds1220 said:
:pfff:  I had a 5770 and I can tell you for a fact it is not a good video card. It was not a good video card back then when it was new and it is horrible now that is is two almost three generations old. Also 35 FPS is not an acceptable frame rate for gaming. 60 is as low as I would go and that is it. As Stan said games are more GPU intensive now than CPU intensive. The video card is one of the most important parts for gaming. There is no point in doing a gaming build if you are going to skimp out on the video card.


your starting to sound closed minded. in 2010, the 5770 (when it came out) could play every game out at the time, maxed settings, at 1920X1080 EASILY. your fact of it being a bad card back then is completely wrong. NOW it is slightly worse, i give you that, but 35FPS is decent fluid motion. when my games run at 40-45FPS i do notice a slight improvement, but anything above 45 is not noticeable. besides, when you say "at least" 60FPS, that doesn't really matter, most monitors are around 60hz anyways. so anything over 60FPS is the same thing as 60FPS. take it for what it is, sir. don't spout out that you HAVE to have a 660ti or more for serious gaming, just because you decided to invest hundreds of dollars in a GPU, while im sitting pretty with my $150 (at the time) 5770 vapor-x. what, did you decide to buy an xfx 5770 or something? lol, you have a lot of hate man. not everyone has an unlimited budget for dream machine 2012 :pt1cable:  <- i can use emotes tooo

P.S. if 35FPS is sooo bad, are you able to watch 26FPS (normal) movies without cringing?
a c 103 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 3:33:50 PM

Two Sapphire 5770 rigs in my house with no complaints,
my main rig has two 6950's but the backup is fine with the older card, theres no need to have the uber kit, just kit that works
Moto
January 23, 2013 7:28:24 PM

Motopsychojdn said:
Two Sapphire 5770 rigs in my house with no complaints,
my main rig has two 6950's but the backup is fine with the older card, theres no need to have the uber kit, just kit that works
Moto


thank you, i agree. i am envious of your main rig though! :kaola: 
!