Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I need some HONEST opinions on a Fx-4100 and AMD Radeon hd 7770

Last response: in Systems
Share
November 15, 2012 1:34:54 PM

I have been browsing for a gaming computer for some time. I found a deal with Ibuypower, where i can get a decent budget gaming cpu with an amd 7770 and fx-4100. The price is pretty fair, and I get a wireless mouse and keyboard with a monitor.

Id like HONEST opinions on how these parts will preform on game like League of Legends, Skyrim, BF3 and most modern games that are out or are coming out today. Ive heard MANY MANY mixed opinions on the processor and the gpu. My objective is to play these games on relatively high settings. I know that benchmarks spell out how certain parts work, but not with certain setups such as my specific build. If you have experience with these parts and could give some insight or instructions for when the cpu arrives on how to improve its performance if it needs it id be appreciative.

If it needs some preference changing to improve the performance:

Im not too comfortable with overclocking yet, so if there are some simple steps to improve its performance that you would tell me that would be nice. I know specs help with this stuff so ill list them below:

Case
(NZXT Source 210 Chassis, Black)
Motherboard & Processor
(AMD FX-4100 Processor with Motherboard)
Operating System
(Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-Bit Edition)
Memory
(4 x 2GB = 8GB DDR3-1333 Gaming Grade Memory Module)
Hard Drive
(500GB 7200RPM Hard Disk Drive)
Graphics Card
(AMD Radeon HD 7770 1GB GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 Graphics Card)
Optical Drive
(24X DVD+/-RW DL Optical Drive)
Monitors
(HKC 19" LED Widescreen Monitor (N1812) with 1366 x 768 resolution)
Keyboard Mouse
(Microsoft Wireless Desktop 800 Keyboard and Mouse 2LF-00001)

Thanks in advance :) 
November 15, 2012 2:45:53 PM

I could build that pc for $300 or around there.

Buying a pre-built is a ripoff. Just build your own.

That pc won't run bf3 on ultra without lagging like crazy. Your monitor screen res is pretty low, so medium graphics would be okay. The FX series of processors aren't very good, especially the first generation, which is what that pc has. FX-4100 is not reliable.

Guessing, that build is around $500 on that website. Build this pc yourself and you'll smash that other one.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nPaD
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nPaD/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nPaD/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($82.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: MSI 760GM-P21 (FX) Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($49.99 @ Mwave)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Low Voltage Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($34.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: XFX Radeon HD 7850 1GB Video Card ($149.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master CM 690 II (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Rosewill Capstone 450W 80 PLUS Gold Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-04 DVD/CD Writer ($17.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $495.92
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-11-15 11:46 EST-0500)

This recks the other build, and it's just short of $500 too.
November 15, 2012 3:20:49 PM

I like what lchrisk put together. If you want help putting it together just let us know. It's really simply and will probably take you 5 hours your first time.
Related resources
November 15, 2012 3:39:59 PM

wanderer11 said:
I like what lchrisk put together. If you want help putting it together just let us know. It's really simply and will probably take you 5 hours your first time.

For the OP to compare, the OS, keyboard, mouse and monitor should be added to the list. That will significantly increase the price.
November 15, 2012 3:58:12 PM

lchrisk said:
I could build that pc for $300 or around there.

Buying a pre-built is a ripoff. Just build your own.

That pc won't run bf3 on ultra without lagging like crazy. Your monitor screen res is pretty low, so medium graphics would be okay. The FX series of processors aren't very good, especially the first generation, which is what that pc has. FX-4100 is not reliable.



You could build a complete computer that has a $100 processor and $125 graphics card for $300? :sarcastic: 


Radeon 7770 is a step above the 5770 I had which ran BF3 on high at 1440x900 @ 55fps. At 1366x768 you could easily run high and probably ultimate (sans MSAA) on a 7770.

FX4100 is a good mid-range processor that will do fine. I don't think your exaggerations are helping the OP.


November 15, 2012 5:34:58 PM

twelve25 said:
You could build a complete computer that has a $100 processor and $125 graphics card for $300? :sarcastic: 


Radeon 7770 is a step above the 5770 I had which ran BF3 on high at 1440x900 @ 55fps. At 1366x768 you could easily run high and probably ultimate (sans MSAA) on a 7770.

FX4100 is a good mid-range processor that will do fine. I don't think your exaggerations are helping the OP.


I have heard so many mixed opinions on the processor, I just don't know what to think anymore. I mean I know it isn't the best out there, but the total price for the rig and its components is within budget and I thought it was good. :( 

I dont believe that he could build the cpu in the OP for 300, but the way everyone smack talk the 4100 makes it seem like im buying something that will bottleneck the gpu or ruin the rig....
November 15, 2012 5:56:06 PM

Do you have a link to the system you are considering?

FX-4100 is a fine processor worthy of it's pricetag. It compares well with Sandy Bridge i3's. The biggest complaints are that it uses a lot more power than the i3 to get the same performance and this it isn't really an upgrade from older Phenom and Athlon X4 processors. It performs fine.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/12/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-210...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-210...
November 15, 2012 6:29:58 PM

twelve25 said:
Do you have a link to the system you are considering?

FX-4100 is a fine processor worthy of it's pricetag. It compares well with Sandy Bridge i3's. The biggest complaints are that it uses a lot more power than the i3 to get the same performance and this it isn't really an upgrade from older Phenom and Athlon X4 processors. It performs fine.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/12/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-210...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-210...


http://www.walmart.com/ip/iBuyPower-Build-Your-Own-Gami...

That is the link to customization page, it wont save my exact settings. Basically just put what the OP says for the settings, and you have the cpu im looking at. Its through IBuyPower
November 15, 2012 6:30:56 PM

Maybe upgrade your GPU as it is quite a weak card, but then again you resolution is pretty low.

I have the FX and at 1080p it has no problem running BF3 Ultra, and you can OC it to get better performance too. But really there's no point in buying the FX4100 now when you could buy the Vishera FX4300+ which is much better and the OC performance is also better.
November 15, 2012 6:46:06 PM

Well I just wanted to let you guys know that with a Phenom II X4 955 Black edition and an HD 7770 I max out almost all games at the resolution of 1600x900. I have played skyrim (Ultra settings) out of the games you have listed and it never ever lags for me.
Anonymous
November 15, 2012 6:50:53 PM

forget the FX4100 and the 4300 for that matter. spend a few more bucks and get the FX-6300

AMD Vishera FX-6300 & FX-4300 Review
November 15, 2012 6:51:20 PM

You know $670+Tax for that build including monitor, keyboard mouse and OS isn't bad. I normally wouldn't think walmart for computers, but I don't think I could beat that building it myself.



November 15, 2012 6:57:04 PM

It's just a few bucks more when you are building it yourself, but looking at prebuilt deals, it's probably more like $100 to get a fx-6300 over what the OP is looking at.

And what does showing a bottleneck at 1920p ultra prove when the OP is looking at a 1366p monitor! The lowly A8 is still giving a playable 40fps even at resolutions that have twice the pixels the OP is planning to run.
November 15, 2012 7:16:47 PM

Yeah im not looking to play on a tv or anything. Im used to a even smaller display that the one above and it suits me perfectly.

Also how is the 7770 a weak card? Its pretty high in its series besides the 7850 and 7950 that are wayyyy out of the price range.
November 15, 2012 7:23:21 PM

It's a matter of perspective. If you are trying to run high or ultra quality at 1920x1080, then you are used to shopping for $200-300 cards. So a $125 card seems crappy in comparison. If you are used to gaming on onboard graphics, xbox or $40 graphics card, a 7770 is an absolute beast.
Anonymous
November 15, 2012 7:33:41 PM

twelve25 said:
It's just a few bucks more when you are building it yourself, but looking at prebuilt deals, it's probably more like $100 to get a fx-6300 over what the OP is looking at.

And what does showing a bottleneck at 1920p ultra prove when the OP is looking at a 1366p monitor! The lowly A8 is still giving a playable 40fps even at resolutions that have twice the pixels the OP is planning to run.

now who said that getting a 6300 cpu would cost $100 in the prebuilt to begin with?

but if i need to explain it then ok.

a 4100(4300) are horrible CPUs. a bottleneck doesn't happen nearly as bad @ 1080 as a lower resolution, where there are higher fps. so if you think it bottlenecks at 1080 then it will be much worse @ a lower resolution. and really a difference in performance in cpus do not mean there is a bottleneck :pfff: 

if the OP can't get a better CPU where they are shopping at without paying through the nose then they need to consider either shopping some place else or getting a bigger budget.
November 15, 2012 7:34:51 PM

twelve25 said:
It's a matter of perspective. If you are trying to run high or ultra quality at 1920x1080, then you are used to shopping for $200-300 cards. So a $125 card seems crappy in comparison. If you are used to gaming on onboard graphics, xbox or $40 graphics card, a 7770 is an absolute beast.


My cpu now is absolute ***, 6 years old. it has a ati radeon x300 in it. Also what if i considered getting a 22" monitor with 1920x1080 would that be bad?
November 15, 2012 7:41:05 PM

Double post but whatever. I have a choice of a 4100, 6100, or 8120, all with pretty big price jumps. They are the choices in the semi-prebuilt thing i linked above.
November 15, 2012 7:41:32 PM

creeperizspy said:
My cpu now is absolute ***, 6 years old. it has a ati radeon x300 in it. Also what if i considered getting a 22" monitor with 1920x1080 would that be bad?


If you get a 1920x1080 monitor, you would want to step up to a 7850 or similar to be able to run high settings. The 7770 could still do it, but you'd be running on low or medium in some games. If you get a 7770, I wouldn't pair it with a monitor higher than 1600x900, or you will have to scale down and/or run lower quality.



November 15, 2012 8:37:53 PM

twelve25 said:
If you get a 1920x1080 monitor, you would want to step up to a 7850 or similar to be able to run high settings. The 7770 could still do it, but you'd be running on low or medium in some games. If you get a 7770, I wouldn't pair it with a monitor higher than 1600x900, or you will have to scale down and/or run lower quality.


Alright thanks for all the help. One last thing, are you sure I won't be disappinted with the 4100? And could you sum up all the recommendations you have?
November 15, 2012 10:24:03 PM

Also just another question, would a Intel Core i5-3570K (4 x 3.40GHz) Processor be a upgrade from the 4100, and if so how much?

Also how good is the amd 7770
November 16, 2012 12:21:07 AM

I think we've been through how good the 7770 is.

The i5-3570 is about twice as powerful as the fx-4100 and normally sells for about $120 more on it's own. But that's only going to help in games if you are cpu bound. I would google benchmarks for the games/apps you plan to run and see if it is going to make a difference.

I think that deal you are looking at is only a good deal if you get it with the fx-4100. All the other processor upgrades were a poor value. If you decide to start getting picky with components, I'd either buy the parts yourself and put it together, or configure something at cyperpowerpc.com

November 16, 2012 3:18:43 AM

i think the original build that OP showed us is a pretty good deal considering hes getting monitor and OS included too.
as for a 7770 it is a beast at 1366*768.
i can bet my ass that theres no game out there that it cant play at highest settings and not get above 30 fps avg.
overall its a good pc for the price i.suggest you go for it
November 16, 2012 9:54:59 AM

My main worry right now is that I have people tell me that the 4100 is old and really bad, then somepeople say its fine. My other other worry is the monitor. My friend told me tht 1366x780 is bad because a lot of game don't know what to do with it. Is this true?
November 16, 2012 9:58:40 AM

Also for the i5 addition, is $168 added to the bundle a high price?
November 16, 2012 3:08:11 PM

Hello?
November 16, 2012 3:23:49 PM

Well most people are unable to get back right now because they are away, we all have different time zones...
Anyways I would not say the FX-4100 is old, I believe it came out a year ago. The reason why some people say its bad is because its outperformed by older AMD CPUs that cost less:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjvKgj3Kb3o

That link is a comparison of the FX-4170, FX-4100 and the Phenom 955. Most tests are won by the Phenom which is cheaper. Also what i5 are we talking about and what is it bundled to?
November 16, 2012 3:58:58 PM

The Link above is the bundle, from Walmart. It's bundled with a bunch of stuff from the op and more that you can see in the link.

Relating to the benchmark is the 4100 bad? I see people do good with a 4100 and 7770 on battlefield 3 and crysis. Another question is if the 1366 res is any good?
November 16, 2012 4:20:08 PM

When it comes to serious gaming compared to other CPUs the FX-4100 sure does lag behind BUT at your resolution you should not have any problems with it. 1366x768 is just a resolution, it does not place significant load on the CPU so you should be fine with gaming. Also are you sure you do not want to build your own computer rather than getting pre-built? You will save more money and can afford to choose your own parts from a variety of sources.
November 16, 2012 4:46:10 PM

socialfox said:
When it comes to serious gaming compared to other CPUs the FX-4100 sure does lag behind BUT at your resolution you should not have any problems with it. 1366x768 is just a resolution, it does not place significant load on the CPU so you should be fine with gaming. Also are you sure you do not want to build your own computer rather than getting pre-built? You will save more money and can afford to choose your own parts from a variety of sources.

This isn't prebuilt. It's based on a model but you get to choose your parts through IBuyPower, although your choices are kind of limited in certain aspects. I have a choice of the Intel i5 3570k, but its $168 added to the price. Somone said before that it isnt worth it for that much money and to stick with the 4100.

I was just wondering about the res because my friend has a tv with that res and he said it is crappy and alot of game dont have options for it. If this true? If so, should i get the 1920x1080 res screen even though im using the 7770?
November 16, 2012 4:54:57 PM

This topic has been moved from the section CPU & Components to section Systems by Mousemonkey
November 16, 2012 6:55:05 PM

The FX4100 kinda sucks, even overclocked it gets beat by the older Phenom ll X4. A new FX6300 would be a much better processor and also only $30 more. That is, considering you're building your own system.

The 7770 is a great card for the money, one of the better deals out there in price/performance. I run BF3 at 1920 x 1080 on ultra with just AA turned down and average 50+ FPS on most maps.

As for the screen resolution, 1366 x 768 sucks. Most last generation smart phones have a higher resolution screen. For the money, a 1080P monitor is typically only a few dollars more than a monitor of 768P resolution.

The list that lchrisk put together is a great system for the money. Add in another $200 - $250 for keyboard/mouse/monitor/speakers or headphones and you will be set for the next few years.
November 16, 2012 7:16:06 PM

ish416 said:
The FX4100 kinda sucks, even overclocked it gets beat by the older Phenom ll X4. A new FX6300 would be a much better processor and also only $30 more. That is, considering you're building your own system.

The 7770 is a great card for the money, one of the better deals out there in price/performance. I run BF3 at 1920 x 1080 on ultra with just AA turned down and average 50+ FPS on most maps.

As for the screen resolution, 1366 x 768 sucks. Most last generation smart phones have a higher resolution screen. For the money, a 1080P monitor is typically only a few dollars more than a monitor of 768P resolution.

The list that lchrisk put together is a great system for the money. Add in another $200 - $250 for keyboard/mouse/monitor/speakers or headphones and you will be set for the next few years.


Would you agree that an i5-3570k would be better for a cpu?
November 16, 2012 7:29:29 PM

Yes, the 3570k is a much better cpu. If you can swing the cost, I say go that route.
November 16, 2012 7:45:30 PM

The 3570K is a much better CPU overall than any of the AMD offerings with the possible exception of the new FX83xx.
November 16, 2012 9:22:57 PM

How about a fx-6100 or 8120 vs the i5-2570k?
November 16, 2012 10:24:28 PM

The I5 would be the best overall choice between them. Then the 8120 would be the next best.

The FX6100's are better than the 4100s but the Bulldozer CPU's typically weren't competitive with the competing I3/5/7 series Intels.
November 16, 2012 10:49:07 PM

Ok hopefully i can get the i5. Thanks for all your guy's help. I can't wait to get the computer :D 
November 17, 2012 1:30:12 PM

I have come up with another question about the monitor. Im leaning toward getting the 1920x1080 but i have a couple questions:

-Do i need a HDMI for the full hd res?
-Can I use a lower res, without it looking stretched or distorted?

HKC 22" LED Widescreen Monitor with 1920 x 1080 resolution(If you didn't know already)
November 17, 2012 4:10:25 PM

Im going to be getting the computer soon so if anyone can answer me i would greatly appreciate it!!
November 17, 2012 6:38:32 PM

As long as you run the same aspect ratio, lower resolutions will not look stretched/distorted. In your case, 16:9 resolutions. 1920 x 1080 (1080p), 1600 x 900, 1366 × 768 or 1280 x 720 (720p). Remember that LCD displays always look their best at their native resolution and look worse the farther you drop the resolution from their native resolution.

HDMI is not needed for full 1080p, neither is DVI. VGA can get the signal across doesn't look as good as HDMI or DVI in my opinion.
November 18, 2012 2:35:21 PM

ish416 said:
As long as you run the same aspect ratio, lower resolutions will not look stretched/distorted. In your case, 16:9 resolutions. 1920 x 1080 (1080p), 1600 x 900, 1366 × 768 or 1280 x 720 (720p). Remember that LCD displays always look their best at their native resolution and look worse the farther you drop the resolution from their native resolution.

HDMI is not needed for full 1080p, neither is DVI. VGA can get the signal across doesn't look as good as HDMI or DVI in my opinion.


Alright, thanks alot this helped.
December 29, 2012 5:45:42 PM

If you have the money, get an i7. It will rip a fx4100 apart. If you get the fx, get a nice cooler and oc it.
March 16, 2013 5:33:46 AM

I can tell you this much people are to much of a nike/adidas fan what i mean is people are bias on products amd while not being able to contend in a single core performance like intel it is regardless a good processor! I have in one of my builds a amd 4100 oc to 4.1 nothing major there with gtx 560 and i play bf3 on high settings with out any lag....0 lag so when someone tells you that a amd fx4100 will not be enough think again. but if you want a great gaming comp that will last a few years grab up the amd 8350 with a 7950 vid card and bam a power house, that will not get lagged down.
March 16, 2013 7:20:21 AM

LukeP123 said:
If you have the money, get an i7. It will rip a fx4100 apart. If you get the fx, get a nice cooler and oc it.
The HT, as of now, (at least in the quad core varieties) doesn't offer enough of a performance upgrade over the i5 for a strictly gaming rig.

March 19, 2013 6:31:12 AM

I haven't really read what else people have said. But I've had the 4100 since it came out and no it's not great, but it's not bad either. I don't really have any problems unless I want to max out high end games. And even then it can still handle it pretty well. The 4100 and 6950 is what I have and I can run almost any game on at least high settings. Especially with the new AMD drivers, you shouldn't really have any complaints if you O.C this a bit (it's very easy). For the price it is amazing, as are most AMD cpu's, but if you can I would move towards any of the piledriver cpu's, so the 4300, 6300, 8350, etc. They are still cheap but perform a fair amount better than the bulldozers. I will probably be upgrading from the 4100 to 6300 today so I will let you know how much better it is.
April 30, 2013 11:45:47 AM

Currently i have following rig: Amd fx 4100 at stock Corsair 2x 4gb ddr3 @1600mhz Coolermaster thunder 600w Coolermaster elite 311 case Asus monitor 1336x768 but i might play games on 1280x720

Can u tell me which card is best for me that wont bottlebeck at under 429 dollars
October 18, 2013 3:08:31 PM

I posted but realized this post is old why did it show me an old post ? lol
!