It's a sad day for AMD when...

[AtenRa]

Your review used an overclocked 4100@4.08Ghz

I have used the FX4100 both at default and OC in my review.

But dont blame me, blame Intel for not letting us OC the i3

 

[Rvenger]

I have used the FX4100 both at default and OC in my review.

But dont blame me, blame Intel for not letting us OC the i3

If you could OC the i3 that would be a real game changer!!

 

[Yuriman]

I have used the FX4100 both at default and OC in my review.

But dont blame me, blame Intel for not letting us OC the i3

This alone makes the FX able to compete. The FX loses at stock, but overclocked (with a lot more power draw and heat/noise) it can match or even slightly beat an i3 at a given pricepoint.

I'm really looking forward to the 55w and 35w TDPs of the next-gen i3's, that's nearing the point where you could passively cool it.

 

[Stuka87]

Forget the i3 even the Pentium G630 pwns all of AMD's line up. The G630 beat the FX-4100, -6100, and -8120 at stock clocks. Im running on a Pentium G850 that Pwns my old phenom X4. Those sandy bridge cores are sweet. At this point no reason to even buy AMD even at the lowest end. The only way I would by an AMD set up would be like what Micro center is doing with the 4100 and that is $99 dollars and a free 970 motherboard now that would be the only situation where it would be worth it.

So lets see some proof that your little Pentium defeats an 6100 or 8120 in a game that matters (such as BF3, which will use up to 6 threads). That little pentium will sit there at nearly 100% CPU utilization delivering sub-par performance. Where as an 8120 will sit down at around 30-40% CPU and cruise along with no issues (unless you are running a hefty multi-GPU setup).

Much less compare them in real work situations like video editing. Sure a 2500K or 2600K will pull ahead. But a dual core with no hyper threading? Give me a break.

 

[grimpr]

For basic tasks i would take the Intel SB dualcore, anytime. Celeron G530s with SSDs and Core i3 2120s with 6850s are such powerful setups at the price points that until Trinity and Piledriver arrives, AMD is in serious trouble for now. Only recommendation from me for BD based FX chips is serious multitasking and virtual machines and nothing else, waiting ofcourse to be pleasantly surprised with the new AMD cores, Piledriver/Trinity.

 

[Markfw]

So lets see some proof that your little Pentium defeats an 6100 or 8120 in a game that matters (such as BF3, which will use up to 6 threads). That little pentium will sit there at nearly 100% CPU utilization delivering sub-par performance. Where as an 8120 will sit down at around 30-40% CPU and cruise along with no issues (unless you are running a hefty multi-GPU setup).

Much less compare them in real work situations like video editing. Sure a 2500K or 2600K will pull ahead. But a dual core with no hyper threading? Give me a break.

I agree.

 

[TekDemon]

Are you sure ?? check the link in my sig bellow

Please tell me you're kidding...almost all your benchmarks are GPU limited so of course the performance is almost identical for everything.

 

[TekDemon]

This alone makes the FX able to compete. The FX loses at stock, but overclocked (with a lot more power draw and heat/noise) it can match or even slightly beat an i3 at a given pricepoint.

I'm really looking forward to the 55w and 35w TDPs of the next-gen i3's, that's nearing the point where you could passively cool it.

The problem is that the extra money you'd have to spend on a PSU to power an overclocked FX kills this solution entirely since you'd be able to simply buy a better intel CPU than an i3 if you're gonna put the money into a high power PSU to feed an FX overclock.

 

[pauldun170]

At its stock clock rate, AMD's FX-4100 isn't a particularly compelling gaming product compared to lower-priced options from Intel. However, enthusiasts are sure to appreciate its unlocked ratio multiplier and plenty of headroom to overclock. When it's pushed, this processor helps enable similar frame rates as some of our favorite CORE CPUs, though it uses significantly more power in the process. Nevertheless, with Phenom IIs quickly disappearing from retail, the FX-4100 remains AMD's best value in the gaming CPU space, earning an honorable mention.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-3.html

 

[BD231]

Reliable overclocks can be a pain and over time damage your CPU. I don't see why people are saying reducing your CPU's life expectancy just to match stock performance of a competitor is a logical alternative

 

[bononos]

I have used the FX4100 both at default and OC in my review.

But dont blame me, blame Intel for not letting us OC the i3

Its not just the oc, how much did the 1600mhz ram you used for the 4100 (vs 1333 for i3) affect your benchmarks?

On another note even if a 4100 is ok for a budget gaming build, I wouldn't recommend the same for a more mainstream 6100/8120 gaming build because the clockspeeds are lower compared the 4100 and games in general don't take advantage of more cores as much as faster cores.

 

[Maximilian]

So lets see some proof that your little Pentium defeats an 6100 or 8120 in a game that matters (such as BF3, which will use up to 6 threads). That little pentium will sit there at nearly 100% CPU utilization delivering sub-par performance. Where as an 8120 will sit down at around 30-40% CPU and cruise along with no issues (unless you are running a hefty multi-GPU setup).

Much less compare them in real work situations like video editing. Sure a 2500K or 2600K will pull ahead. But a dual core with no hyper threading? Give me a break.

This is one of the main problems of the FX chips and gaming and its not even the chips fault, the only game that has good multithreading right now is BF3 using 8 threads on DX11 and CPU power for BF3 only matters in multiplayer which gets ignored as most BF3 benchmarks are meaningless single player benches.

All the other "multi threaded" games that came before are DX9 bollocks that don't do multithreading properly such as supreme commander or dual thread console ports such as skyrim.

 

[AtenRa]

Please tell me you're kidding...almost all your benchmarks are GPU limited so of course the performance is almost identical for everything.

Did you read the review or did you just see the graphs ??? Of course almost all of my games are GPU bound, this review is from a gamer’s perspective. I don’t suppose you game at 800x600 on low quality settings, do you??

The purpose of the review is to show that in real life gaming, we need more GPU performance than CPU in current DX-11 Games. And to show that FX4100 or i3 2100 are not the limiting factor in today’s games but the GPU (except some games like BF3 in multiplayer mode).

The problem is that the extra money you'd have to spend on a PSU to power an overclocked FX kills this solution entirely since you'd be able to simply buy a better intel CPU than an i3 if you're gonna put the money into a high power PSU to feed an FX overclock.

Again you are wrong,
All FX CPUs will OC to 4-4.2GHz with default voltage and heat-sink. You don’t need to spend more for a PSU to OC any FX CPU. Reread my review and you’ll see that I have overclocked the FX4100 at 4.08GHz with 220MHz FSB with default voltage and heat-sink.

At that frequency the FX4100 has the same or better performance than Core i3 2100 without spending any extra.

Its not just the oc, how much did the 1600mhz ram you used for the 4100 (vs 1333 for i3) affect your benchmarks?

Not even 1%. We are talking about gaming here when most of the time we are GPU limited.
And both memory’s cost the same.

On another note even if a 4100 is ok for a budget gaming build, I wouldn't recommend the same for a more mainstream 6100/8120 gaming build because the clockspeeds are lower compared the 4100 and games in general don't take advantage of more cores as much as faster cores.

You can OC the FX6100 and the 8120 much like I have done with the FX4100 in my review, all the FX series CPUs are multiplier unlocked.

Actually, the FX6100 when OCed is currently($139,99) the best performance/price CPU both for gaming and other tasks.

 

[eternalone]

So lets see some proof that your little Pentium defeats an 6100 or 8120 in a game that matters (such as BF3, which will use up to 6 threads). That little pentium will sit there at nearly 100% CPU utilization delivering sub-par performance. Where as an 8120 will sit down at around 30-40% CPU and cruise along with no issues (unless you are running a hefty multi-GPU setup).

Much less compare them in real work situations like video editing. Sure a 2500K or 2600K will pull ahead. But a dual core with no hyper threading? Give me a break.

Read the article from Toms Hardware:

It turns out that the budget-oriented Sandy Bridge-based Pentium family performs very well in games. Specifically, Intel's $80 Pentium G630 beat the FX-4100, -6100, and -8120 in our recent sub-$200 CPU gaming comparison. In fact, it finished right on par with the Phenom II X4 955.

As a result, Intel displaces AMD at the bottom rung of our recommendation list yet again this month. That's something we haven't seen for a very long while. There's not much else to add, except that if you consider the Phenom II to be a capable gaming CPU, Intel's Pentium G630 is just as viable.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-2.html

Have a nice day.

 

[hans030390]

Are you sure ?? check the link in my sig bellow

Do you have any DX9 results? I'd be particularly interested in Skyrim benchmarks (with at least some ultra benchmarks thrown in).

 

[hans030390]

All FX CPUs will OC to 4-4.2GHz with default voltage and heat-sink. You don’t need to spend more for a PSU to OC any FX CPU. Reread my review and you’ll see that I have overclocked the FX4100 at 4.08GHz with 220MHz FSB with default voltage and heat-sink.

Oh, also, my FX6100 will not do 4GHz at stock voltages. Takes 1.45V to be completely stable at 4.3GHz. So, "all" might not be the best word to use here...

 

[AtenRa]

Do you have any DX9 results? I'd be particularly interested in Skyrim benchmarks (with at least some ultra benchmarks thrown in).

Currently I don’t have Skyrim but even if I had it I believe that Core i3 would be faster in that game.
I will try including it (with more games) to my reviews in the near future

Oh, also, my FX6100 will not do 4GHz at stock voltages. Takes 1.45V to be completely stable at 4.3GHz. So, "all" might not be the best word to use here...

Have you disable Turbo when OC to 4GHz+ at default voltage??
Which motherboard do you have and what is the default voltage with that motherboard. I haven't seen any FX that it cannot OC to 4GHz at default voltage (turbo off).

 

[Stayfr0sty]

Its a sad day when Toms is brought up.

They have always been intel biased and now they are worst then ever. It goes beyond not trusting their reviews. More like they have n00bs doing the reviews.

 

[frozentundra123456]

So lets see some proof that your little Pentium defeats an 6100 or 8120 in a game that matters (such as BF3, which will use up to 6 threads). That little pentium will sit there at nearly 100% CPU utilization delivering sub-par performance. Where as an 8120 will sit down at around 30-40% CPU and cruise along with no issues (unless you are running a hefty multi-GPU setup).

Much less compare them in real work situations like video editing. Sure a 2500K or 2600K will pull ahead. But a dual core with no hyper threading? Give me a break.

I like the way you define a "game that matters." What exactly is your definition, a game that favors quad cores, so Bulldozer looks a bit less pathetic? Basically you are saying only one game "matters"?

I agree with you, in that for future proofing, I would only choose a quad core for a new computer, but it seems like you are making a very biased definition of a game that really matters. I think it is also unfair to compare a very low end intel dual to a nearly top of the line Bulldozer. A more fair comparison would be the i3 2120 which would be much more competitive.

 

[pauldun170]

Read the article from Toms Hardware:



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-2.html

Have a nice day.

 

[Chiropteran]

Please tell me you're kidding...almost all your benchmarks are GPU limited so of course the performance is almost identical for everything.

Welcome to the real world, where as long as you have a good video card any CPU is fine, even dirt cheap $99 AMD bundle deal CPUs. Paying hundreds more for identical performance is kinda silly, isn't it?

 

[pauldun170]

Reliable overclocks can be a pain and over time damage your CPU. I don't see why people are saying reducing your CPU's life expectancy just to match stock performance of a competitor is a logical alternative

Another note:

Street price of the FX-4100 is about the same as the i3-2100.
At stock, i3-2100 beats the FX-4100.

Overclockers claim that after overclocking the FX-4100 the FX-4100 will match or exceed the i3-2100.

Lets say we stick with stock cooling on the 65w i3-2100 and 95w FX-4100.

An i3-2100 paired with a sub $50 bare bones H61 board can beat an FX-4100.

If we were to introduce current Microcenter pricing,
$99 i3-2100
+
$55 biostar board
- $40 MC bundle discount on intel boards

$114

What is kinda of motherboard could be paired with an FX-4100 allowing for reliable overclock that can beat an i3-2100+H61 combo?

 

[ultimatebob]

Its a sad day when Toms is brought up.

They have always been intel biased and now they are worst then ever. It goes beyond not trusting their reviews. More like they have n00bs doing the reviews.

Really? I always thought that Tom's was biased Pro AMD back in the Athlon XP era. Odd that they've gone full circle.

 

[blckgrffn]

Really? I always thought that Tom's was biased Pro AMD back in the Athlon XP era. Odd that they've gone full circle.

I think that its more that they just don't do their reviews in a professional manner that is repeatable by others, or leave out important caveats about their testing setup.

Tom's data might be interesting but isn't as informative, perhaps, as testing done elsewhere is.

 

[PG]

Another note:

Street price of the FX-4100 is about the same as the i3-2100.
At stock, i3-2100 beats the FX-4100.

Overclockers claim that after overclocking the FX-4100 the FX-4100 will match or exceed the i3-2100.

Lets say we stick with stock cooling on the 65w i3-2100 and 95w FX-4100.

An i3-2100 paired with a sub $50 bare bones H61 board can beat an FX-4100.

If we were to introduce current Microcenter pricing,
$99 i3-2100
+
$55 biostar board
- $40 MC bundle discount on intel boards

$114

What is kinda of motherboard could be paired with an FX-4100 allowing for reliable overclock that can beat an i3-2100+H61 combo?

I have an answer for you, but first your numbers are wrong.
There is no sub $50 H61 board at Microcenter now.
There is also no $40 off bundle for an i3. You must be thinking of the $40 off bundle deal for AMD.
There is an i3 2100 + MSI H61 combo but it is $120 total. That is $99 for the i3 and $20 for the board.

Now to the FX-4100 side of things. The FX-4100 is $99 also, and you can get the ASUS
M5A78L-M LX PLUS for $10 in a combo, so the total is $110. You save $10 vs the i3.

The board supports 125W cpus, and even the FX-8150.
It can overclock a 95W FX-4100 easy. So there you go.

edit:

link for the board being $10 with an FX-4100 or FX-6100

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/bd4b92bc#/bd4b92bc/3

If that doesn't work, just look at page 3 of the new April ad.
top left corner