• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FX 4100 @4.2GHz Gaming Performance

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sm625 said:
Wow I wonder how much microsoft paid em to do that.
Click to expand...

Zero.

You save development cost by not making a DX9 path as well. And if they deemed that BF requires hardware where you are more than likely to use Vista/Win7. I dont see the fuss.

Holding on to XP is just silly.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Zero.

You save development cost by not making a DX9 path as well. And if they deemed that BF requires hardware where you are more than likely to use Vista/Win7. I dont see the fuss.

Holding on to XP is just silly.
Click to expand...

Most people are silly as well. Same with Win8 - it runs all modern games better than 7, but people freak out as if its sole purpose would be to kill the start menu, which as it suddenly turns out is unimaginably close to so many people’s hearts...

To the point - BF3 isn't as CPU intensive as many people think it is. It just needs at least 4 cores, that's it. What it really comes down to is video cards, lots of powerful ones, ideally.
 
tulx said:
Most people are silly as well. Same with Win8 - it runs all modern games better than 7, but people freak out as if its sole purpose would be to kill the start menu, which as it suddenly turns out is unimaginably close to so many people’s hearts...

To the point - BF3 isn't as CPU intensive as many people think it is. It just needs at least 4 cores, that's it. What it really comes down to is video cards, lots of powerful ones, ideally.
Click to expand...

First I've heard of this.

I do not like Windows 8. Either way, AMD actually states in there Win8 drivers performance is currently a little slower than Win 7 performance.

Are you speaking about Nvidia?
 
adam_the_giant said:
First I've heard of this.

I do not like Windows 8. Either way, AMD actually states in there Win8 drivers performance is currently a little slower than Win 7 performance.

Are you speaking about Nvidia?
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, I was refering to Nvidia. AMD released their Win8 drivers quite a lot later than Nvidia, which probably explains the difference.
Nvidia now has the same drivers for Win7 and 8 if I'm not mistaking.

I myself use AMD, just to point it out.
 
Arkaign said:
I think the 8GB memory kit can be had for peanuts, less than $40 for sure. A real video card upgrade (maybe look at the upcoming 660/660ti or 7850 or better) will cost a pretty solid chunk of change. So I'd do the ram just for a nice cheap boost, and save up for a solid card.
Click to expand...

saving for an HD 7850 ... no nvidia ?
 
Mines doing 4.2GHz at default settings no problem! Now 4.3. I have two 6870's in crossfire so showing around 60% gpu load and a lot better frame rate than the 2.6GHz athlon II. If I could get 4.5GHz I'd be happy as a clam
 
Last edited:
Christobevii3 said:
Mines doing 4.2GHz at default settings no problem! Now 4.3. I have two 6870's in crossfire so showing around 60% gpu load and a lot better frame rate than the 2.6GHz athlon II. If I could get 4.5GHz I'd be happy as a clam
Click to expand...

i could get 4.4GHz everything stock no problem but didn't leave it there ? just get an aftermarket cooler and oc it to like 4.6GHz ? Also thats great 😀 ?
 
I have a coolermaster tx3. Pretty cheap but it is easy to install/remove without taking the mobo out and performs a smidge better than my thermalright 128se. I have it at 4.4Ghz now, seems 4.5Ghz it gets a little flakey and takes a little more voltage than i like. Doesn't really get all that hot from what reviews say for me though.
 
to put it short anything over 4.4Ghz will require a voltage increase and under 4.4 you can keep it default also the cooler master hyper 212+ is going for $19.99 on newegg now great cooling performance and very easy to install ?
 
Yeah I had to up my voltage to 1.47v to get 4.4GHz stable. The tx3 coolermaster shows my temps good. I don't really want to push it much more and risk killing it right away. I should get an 8120 for free though in a few months when my buddy gets a piledriver.
 
Christobevii3 said:
Yeah I had to up my voltage to 1.47v to get 4.4GHz stable. The tx3 coolermaster shows my temps good. I don't really want to push it much more and risk killing it right away. I should get an 8120 for free though in a few months when my buddy gets a piledriver.
Click to expand...

thats still good i might get an FX 8120 or FX 8320 ? dk yet still pushing my cpu ?
 
Christobevii3 said:
Thanks! I ordered a fx4100 just now because of this post. I have an athlon II 620 that needs replacing and this looks exactly what I need.
Click to expand...

I would think the Athlon II 620 would be better than the FX4100 unless the very high clock speed actually makes up for it's shortcomings.
 
Hatisherrif said:
All the fud and fuss about the Bulldozer being bad makes people believe Pentium III is a superior architecture.
Click to expand...

yea it might wasn't all that it was hyped up to be but its not terrible because it can't compete with ivry bridge but its still good for a budget ?
 
Last edited:
Durvelle27 said:
yea it night wasn't all that it was hyper up to be but its not terrible because it can't compete with ivry bridge but its still good for a budget ?
Click to expand...

I think the fact that it also cannot compete with Sandy Bridge, Nehalem, Penryn, Conroe, and K10, but that is just me. I am not an AMD fanboy, so I expect my processors to actual be competitive.
 
There are many games that do better with L3 so Phenom II or FX over Athlon II in terms of bang for gaming buck. But if you already have the Athlon II, OCing it can be a very cheap way to extend it's usefulness. No complaints about the 3.5GHz OCed Athlon II x4 + Radeon 6850 I gave to a friend.
 
Vesku said:
There are many games that do better with L3 so Phenom II or FX over Athlon II in terms of bang for gaming buck. But if you already have the Athlon II, OCing it can be a very cheap way to extend it's usefulness. No complaints about the 3.5GHz OCed Athlon II x4 + Radeon 6850 I gave to a friend.
Click to expand...

yea i love my FX for BF3 ?
 
Hatisherrif said:
All the fud and fuss about the Bulldozer being bad makes people believe Pentium III is a superior architecture.
Click to expand...

No, my conclusion comes based on the idea that the Athlon II x4, with it's 4x 3-issue cores would probably match an FX-41xx with it's 2x 4-issue modules.

IIRC, the Athlon II has 128 bit FPUs per core, so on a per clock basis, I would think the Athlon II would match the FX-41xx and it's 2x split 256 bit FPUs. Of course the FX has an L3 cache and an enormous clock advantage.

As far as I can see, the FX-41xx would be a side grade, unless you have some kind of software that requires 256 bit FPU processing or just in general needs quite a bit of it. Games certainly can stress this, but general CPU performance is still completely necessary. I used to have a computer a while back with an Athlon II x4, and it surprisingly kept up pretty well with my Phenom II x4 system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top