Everything fits very nicely in Rosewill's Challenger-U3, and we’re impressed with the enclosure’s build quality, airflow, and case management features. We were concerned that the colossal Xigmatek Gaia CPU cooler would interfere with the side of the case, but this isn’t a problem.
Even the large, dual-Radeon HD 6950 setup encounters no fitment issues, although we would have preferred more space between the 16x PCIe slots on the Biostar motherboard to facilitate better airflow.

The only problem we encountered was a product of our own negligence, as the dual-channel memory needs to be inserted in specific slots. The memory operates in any of the slots when you use an Phenom II processor, but the FX-6100 is much more picky about DIMM slot installation for dual-channel operation.
Overclocking
Despite the disappointments encountered on AMD’s FX family, we can at least say that the FX-6100 overclocks reasonably well. I was able to POST at 5.0 GHz using a perhaps-uncomfortable 1.50 V and boot to windows at 4.8 GHz.
Thermals are within a reasonable range, and if this was a regular test sample, I might have poured more voltage just to see what happened. But we send our System Builder Marathon configurations to contest winners when we’re through, and I didn’t have the heart to run experiments on hardware destined for a lucky reader. Because of this, our final overclock is 4.45 GHz with a 21.5x multiplier and a 207 MHz reference clock, using 1.476 V to drive the CPU. This isn't a poor result by any stretch. Memory topped out at 690 MHz (1380 MT/s) with 7-8-8-8-24-31 1T timings.

The factory-overclocked graphics cards aren’t willing to accept a meaningful increase, but we bump the memory and core clocks by 10 MHz just to say we did. The final graphics clocks are 880 MHz on the core and 1260 MHz for the GDDR5 memory.
- AMD's FX-6100 Gets Its Big Chance
- CPU, Motherboard, And Cooler
- Video Cards, Power Supply, And Case
- Memory, Hard Drive, And Optical Drive
- Assembly And Overclocking
- Test System And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Synthetics
- Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Crysis And Just Cause 2
- Benchmark Results: F1 2010 And Metro 2033
- Power And Temperature Benchmarks
- FX-6100: A Surprising Processor Bottleneck
It's quantified the exceeding suck of bulldozer far better than the official bulldozer review.
Maybe win8 will change everything, but I think it dubious.
Bring on $600! FX-4100?
Bring on $600! FX-4100?
fx 6100, i was surprised that it was such a deep bottlencek.
biostar ta 990fx?, you can get asrock extreme 4 with sli and xfire support for 110$
overall, indeed you have taken a chance.
i was in a mood to buy fx but wow, this changed my ming, i will now surely go with i5.
It's quantified the exceeding suck of bulldozer far better than the official bulldozer review.
Maybe win8 will change everything, but I think it dubious.
Also on the article, why try something out on a system builder marathon, the FX should of been tested in an other article, such as a review. It does not really matter that yes in fact the GPUs are much better but the CPU is holding them way back... Why cheap out on a motherboard? that Biostar TA990FXE from what I've read is not great, not good even.
*Thought this was for people who didn't really know what to build, or how to build a computer? I wouldn't recommend this build.
I still want to see how it handles multi-tasking compared to Intel.
Based on what? It was a fantastic overclocker and stable as hell.
What is your beef with the board?
The vast majority of people who criticize BD does not have a system that is anywhere near as fast a this or as fast as an i5-2500k. They are mainly running slower and ancient dual cores from years ago, with 8600GT video card, yet they judge any new product that comes out.
Personally, I don't care who has the fastest processor, becuase I don't have the money to purchase every new cpu or video card that come out, but when I do upgrade, I just want it to be significantly faster than my previous build. 80% of the benchmarks posted are not programs that most of us even use in everyday life.
Let me edit part out, for some reason I thought it was another board that I have had many issues with, my bad. Just did a quick read up on that board and yeah you're correct, it seems to be alright.
AMD-logo'd baseball cap!
C'mon guys, can't you see the man bleeds green? And on top of that, he's Canadian! You know, land of the ATI and home of the AMD takeover? If you can't see how broken up he is about all of this please, just try to imagine it and be gentle!
Are you sure about that? That's a big thing to say.
Sure BD was a flop but the patch looks promising, 10-15% improvement isn't a small increase.
Although BD isn't exactly a competitor when it comes to single threaded applications, multi-core performance is on-par or slightly ahead/behind when comparing to a 2500k.
AMD has something, that's better then nothing.
Although.. Nobody's buying it really. lol.
Nothing.
Nadda.
A day wasted during the holiday season, a day behind on my other articles.
Haha funny Crash, funny.
Its all explained in the intro. I can't imagine doing something new with the 2500K, we've seen it all before and I've used the CPU in most of my SBM builds for a year. Sometimes it's nice to mix it up.
I was never under any illusions that it'd challenge the Core i5, but I did want to see if it could compete in the graphics arena with a pair of 6950's.
And boy oh boy, it couldn't. Not too much of a surprise except I expected it to do a little better.
Sad to see that the new FXs are such poor performers with current software. I wonder how long it will be before the multi-threaded software AMD claims its new line is built for actually becomes somewhat mainstream and of everyday use to the average PC user?
What I am really interested in finding out is whether or not any of these new AMD FX CPUs can be successfully run in the original AMD 890 series motherboards, because Asus, Gigabyte, MSI and most of the others claimed that they would, and also posted updated BIOSes to prove it. Yet Tom's has never tested this out for us and neither has any other website that I'm aware of.
Come on Tom's! Check this out for us! You guys are one of the top authorities in the PC world, so show your fans some love and get down to it!
Actually, I'll be using the same board for a sub-$200 CPU gaming comparo coming up