• 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 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Durvelle27 said:
yea there power hungry mines is sucking 114w now @4.2GHz ?
Click to expand...


even if we pretend that is true (Which it isn't) , and even if we pretend that the core i3 2120 actually uses the full 65 watts of its TDP (which it doesn't), that would still put the core i3 2120's power usage at 58% of your processor's power usage.
 
Hypertag said:
even if we pretend that is true (Which it isn't) , and even if we pretend that the core i3 2120 actually uses the full 65 watts of its TDP (which it doesn't), that would still put the core i3 2120's power usage at 58% of your processor's power usage.
Click to expand...

my volt is 1.39
 
Hypertag said:
even if we pretend that is true (Which it isn't) , and even if we pretend that the core i3 2120 actually uses the full 65 watts of its TDP (which it doesn't), that would still put the core i3 2120's power usage at 58% of your processor's power usage.
Click to expand...

Core i7 3960X is using ~58% more power than Core i5 2500K BUT it is 85% faster. That makes it more power efficient.

Im not saying that FX4100 @ 4.2GHz is that faster than Core i3. What im trying to communicate here is that, taking only the power consumption without knowing the performance is irrelevant.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/...-bridge-e-review-keeping-the-high-end-alive/5
42353.png


42335.png
 
in BF# my 2500k @ 4.4ghz didnt make an ounce of difference over my 3.8ghz X6 1100T @ Ultra settings, despite some people posting that in MP my min FPS will change. it didnt do ANYTHING for BF3! it doesnt matter what cpu u have as long as its a quadcore 3ghz+. The upgrade helped me with RTS games, but really it wasnt a night and day diff.
 
poohbear said:
in BF# my 2500k @ 4.4ghz didnt make an ounce of difference over my 3.8ghz X6 1100T @ Ultra settings, despite some people posting that in MP my min FPS will change. it didnt do ANYTHING for BF3! it doesnt matter what cpu u have as long as its a quadcore 3ghz+. The upgrade helped me with RTS games, but really it wasnt a night and day diff.
Click to expand...

😎
 
blckgrffn said:
2/3rds? More like 1/3rd or a quarter of the power of an 8150 at those clock speeds. Holy crap does BD drink the power down when you dial up the hz. It's like dialing up a Westmere-EX, but slower. 😉

That said, I still think it is good to a 4100 holding its own (and it a i3 can, a 4100 should be able to as well given a solid 30-40% clock advantage and ~2x the power consumption.) I really hope PD can further help dial in those numbers to make it a more reasonable choice for more users.
Click to expand...

I was comparing an i3 to the FX-4100 since I was referring to the i3 matching it pretty easily in many cases, not one of those full blown 8xxxs which draws on it's own, upwards 140W full load IIRC?
 
Last edited:
NovaBench?


12286 MB System RAM (Score: 207)
- RAM Speed: 9488 MB/s

CPU Tests (Score: 493)
- Floating Point Operations/Second: 105539984
- Integer Operations/Second: 458105900
- MD5 Hashes Generated/Second: 1195974

Graphics Tests (Score: 742)
- 3D Frames Per Second: 1974


Cinebench?

3.49 here!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top