Fx 6100!!!!

[BudaBomb]

Alright, i don't mean to start any flame wars here, but im wondering how well the FX 6100 does in comparison to the Phenom 2 x6 1100t. I'm wondering how well the "six cores" of BD do compared to the six from phenom and would this chip have better performance because it doesn't have as many cores. I'm not an expert at micro architectures and whatnot but I'm wondering if it can scale up like a six core processor or if its just more of a wimpy three module chip. Plus it is only 95w compared to the 125 of the 8150. So I'm just wondering if anyone has seen any reviews or would know about this chip. And again not trying to dispute which chips are the best or any of the crap just wondering how they compare.

 

[-Slacker-]

It's slower on every level.

 

[Rvenger]

It's slower on every level.

+1

 

[lehtv]

The 3.6GHz "octocore" FX-8150 is toe-to-toe with the X6 1100T: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=203

Since FX-6100 is clocked at 3.3Ghz, you can bet it's slower in every area compared to 1100T at stock clocks.

 

[Maximilian]

It's slower on every level.

+2

 

[StinkyPinky]

Epic fail AMD. Epic epic fail. And we all are going to pay for it. Literally.

 

[sequoia464]

What do these graphs tell us??
Link .. http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page8.html

 

[Maximilian]

What do these graphs tell us??
Link .. http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page8.html

If all you do is fanny about in excel, unzip files all day long and cash is no object then bulldozer is for you :thumbsup: If you do more than that or money is important to you better look elsewhere.

 

[BudaBomb]

Thanks sequoia the graphs were helpful and it looks like it does decent compared to the x6 and it does have lower power consumption.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

At 4.4GHz or so it should be comparable to a Phenom II X6 at 4GHz. Basically, both at max avg. overclocks, no better.

 

[BudaBomb]

Ok, so for the same price would the 6100 be a better choice you say its comparable at top overclocks its newer and it uses less power right. so it seems like it would be a good option right.

 

[toyota]

Ok, so for the same price would the 6100 be a better choice you say its comparable at top overclocks its newer and it uses less power right. so it seems like it would be a good option right.

um at 4.4 it will use way more power. I would choose the Phenom 2 X6.

 

[3DVagabond]

If all you do is fanny about in excel, unzip files all day long and cash is no object then bulldozer is for you :thumbsup: If you do more than that or money is important to you better look elsewhere.

Sorry, but I don't know how you got that from those charts?

 

[exar333]

On paper, it looked great before the BD launch. Now, it seems that it is worse in every way vs. the 8xxx series. It could have been a great SKU.

 

[nanaki333]

think of the 6100 as a hyperthreaded x3. when you think of it like that and the 8100 as a hyperthreaded x4, the performance is pretty nice.

 

[Maximilian]

Sorry, but I don't know how you got that from those charts?

I have looked at many more reviews of bulldozer than just those charts that were linked, it excels in very few areas, pun not intended.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Ok, so for the same price would the 6100 be a better choice you say its comparable at top overclocks its newer and it uses less power right. so it seems like it would be a good option right.

No... I don't know where you inferred that. If overclocking both, an FX-6100 would consume more power and have comparable performance to a $150 Phenom II X6 1055T. So no, it's not better at all.

 

[3DVagabond]

I have looked at many more reviews of bulldozer than just those charts that were linked, it excels in very few areas, pun not intended.

But those charts aren't showing it being better in Excel or decompressing files. I don't understand your comment, still.

 

[busydude]

But those charts aren't showing it being better in Excel or decompressing files. I don't understand your comment, still.

When compared to X6 1100T.. a 6100 is better.

 

[busydude]

If overclocking both, an FX-6100 would consume more power and have comparable performance to a $150 Phenom II X6 1055T.

Do we have any charts to prove this? I am curious. Even an OC'ed 8150 Vs an X6 would do.

 

[3DVagabond]

When compared to X6 1100T.. a 6100 is better.

Duh! Here I'm looking at the Intel comparisons. Lost track of the Op.

It should be apparent to people that Bulldozer's strength is too narrowly focused to be useful to consumers and even most professional workstation users. As it is now it's just not a good chip. Not good for most people, and definitely not good for AMD.

 

[Idontcare]

Thanks sequoia the graphs were helpful and it looks like it does decent compared to the x6 and it does have lower power consumption.

If only Sandy Bridge didn't exist, bulldozer would look pretty good in most of these charts. Not bad, just falls short in comparison to the absolute best.

 

[BudaBomb]

Ok but the 6100 starts as 95w and the x6 is 125w so i get that overclocking it higher would put the voltage up higher but if doing that would make them comparable and they are the same price the newer architecture would be better right.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

When compared to X6 1100T.. a 6100 is better.

Do we have any charts to prove this? I am curious. Even an OC'ed 8150 Vs an X6 would do.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

]Ok but the 6100 starts as 95w[/B] and the x6 is 125w so i get that overclocking it higher would put the voltage up higher but if doing that would make them comparable and they are the same price the newer architecture would be better right.

Meaningless. Those TDP numbers are approximates that don't hold much of a candle in the real world.

And the 1055T overclocks the same as the 1100T and it costs $40 less. So no, the newer architecture would not be better.