AMD FX 4100 good cpu?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mynameiskobe

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2011
83
0
18,630
For my first build I'm really considering the AMD FX 4100. I like the 3.60 quad core for only 119.99 (tigerdirect)
My main use is going to be gaming.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
looks like this thread is going a bit off topic...
@harna: stay on topic please.
@thread: according to amd, the windows 7 patch improves around 1-2% performance with fx, negligible - in case of fx 4100 (might be a tiny bit bigger deal with overclocked 8150). it's still a work in progress, it's really hard to tweak something like a scheduler. windows 8 launch is months away. by that time, trinity will be out and piledriver launch might happen as well.
if fx 4170 is the revised version, then that one should be worth getting over fx 4100. real world testing will tell.
overclocking adds to already-high power consumption. undervolting might improve responsiveness, but it doesn't quite bring up performance up to top tier gaming cpu level.
lastly, if fx 4100 was a good gaming cpu, it'd have earned a top tier place (like core i3 2xxx or ph ii x4 980) in the gaming cpu hierarchy chart already:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html
if an fx 6100 bottlenecks crossfired gfx cards, fx4100 might too (one less module). that takes away a good amount of value from fx4100.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Might isnt in the question it will.
My single 570 suffered a bottleneck from the 4100@ 4.4g
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ITT: Logic, reason and hard facts vs. " I'm going to defend an inferior product as better than it actually is no matter that all evidence points to the contrary." e.g. "Fanboyism"

It's not even a subjective fanboyism like between Mac and PC.

This thread just needs to die.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


No one asked you to wade in and no one stated the FX is a superior product. And suggesting that the FX is a viable upgrade is entirely in context with this thread. What needs to die is the misleading anti-BD hysteria propagated by the likes of you.,
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"Might isnt in the question it will.
My single 570 suffered a bottleneck from the 4100@ 4.4g"

So here's a question or two for you.

Justify why you bought the 4100?

What platform did you come from?

What did you hope to achieve?

What game where you not able to play?

This will definitively answer the OP's question.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Problem is Herna you seem to say that the 4100 is a good CPU. Its as good a CPU as the P4 that I was talking about. If you are a basic user then either a P4 or 4100 is fine for you. If however you are a gamer or "power user", then even the old PhII's offer more performance. I do my best to not rip on BD too much, but even compared to the older x4 and x6 CPUs it really pales in comparison. I'm sorry, but I really question why anyone would defend such a chip.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
i've noticed that a lot of people using old phenom ii x4/x6 cpus defend these cpus (fx) as if other people are attacking the cpus (their performances). seems like they are trying to justify the cpu performance for their future upgrade path.
people who already own the fx cpus are aware of their capabilities. some people stand by their cpu's performance. unbiased users will describe their experience with the cpus regardless of brand.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OP's question has been answered already.
you seem to have the problem understanding...
and yes, your AMD fanboism is shining through in full fashion.
maybe look in the mirror.?

you seem to hold out hope for future changes in the way EVERYONE else looks at the FX-4100
when to be honest, it's crap.
as stated, I have an AMD unit that is quite solid and I love it.
but I'm a realist.

so what you chose AMD because you didn't have the money for Intel and now your just supporting your decision..?
if it makes you feel better but blinded by the truth then.....
that's all you.
Click to expand...

+1 on everything you said. You're right on all points.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Is should be great for gaming but people say the i5 is better (it is) but this will do great for the price and should play bf3 and skyrim.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


There's a bit more that goes into choosing a platform than just sheer speed. I like the connectivity, USB 3.0, then there's the AMD CPU/GPU tweaking utilities, the 64 No CD Far Cry Port was also a beauty. Easy upgrade and variety of cost effective configs like Eyefinity.

I've come from using Cyrix CPU's back in the socket 7 days and before that even, so I know about over-coming low IPC. High IPC is no guarantee of compatibility, hence why your Intel system and all other performance Intel systems are hybrids today. It's been some time now that GPU's have had the lions share of the say where games are concerned. Even back then the Cyrix RISC instruction sets were able to put expensive Intel CPU's in their place. If you have to spend the extra on a high IPC chip, and that's all you get, and neglect the rest then fine I have no issue with that....your problem, but to label the competing BD product as crap is completely misleading.

What about the Intel line up past and present, things like no virtual hardware support on cheaper lines of CPU's, and non-industry standard GPU's, these have done damage to the software industry. Where was Intel's aero support for Vista? Suddenly the OS was crap because Intel's hardware fell over. Techies/retailers all round the world scrambling for cover because they didn't see it coming and then couldn't fix it. We got Win 7.0 out of that and things got back to normal, but BD has no issue at all with Win 7.0, and can improve if the new code can better cater for a brand new arch, and you guys go into melt down.

You are blowing wind in the wrong sails my friend, it's not BD that is in dire need of fixing, but those crappy unreliable, and unstable GPU's from Intel you can live with. To me this is such a double standard as to be totally laughable. One plays a tad slower and the other BSOD's on you, all I can do is shake my head in amazement.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You are blowing wind in the wrong sails my friend, it's not BD that is in dire need of fixing, but those crappy unreliable, and unstable GPU's from Intel you can live with.
Click to expand...

Huh? Even if there is a GPU on my 2500(k), who says I'm using it? I would bet most of us here on toms have a real GPU plugged into a PCIe 16x slot. Who cares if Intel's GPU drivers are bad if we don't use it?

I do care if the BD CPU that I bought to do CPU things is not only slower then Intel's CPUs, but AMDs old CPUs as well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

the underlined parts made me LOL. i've seen few (there aren't that many of them) amd fanboys saying the exact oppposite.
intel's igpu and driver support sucks - common knowledge. why is it relevant for gaming? fx 4100 doesn't even have igpu.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Llano is part of the BD range as well and does have video. Those graphics can be X-Fired. Like I said there's choices.

If Thurban and Deneb users can bypass the early BD range of CPU's that not a bad thing, those CPU's are not that old and are still viable for modern performance desktops.

Not enough for you. easy sol'n, get an i5/i7 and a monster GPU, but it won't do more than increase frame rate a bit and maybe an extra setting or two. If you want to pay for that, i'm easy, it's entirely your choice. If you end up GPU bound, because the budget didn't quite stretch, stiff cheese you've done your dough.

BD handles Win 7 easily, there is no issue with that. If it's a bit slower here then it's a bit faster there. Most of this info is coming largely from desperate attempts to compare its IPC, which is it's perceived weak point. There's only so much info you can glean from hammering it's week point, how about having a decent look at it's potential?

Just as a point of interest. I went to the Gigabyte website last night and they are listing a new BD on their mobo support list, a 6200 @ 3.8GHz, so stay tuned there looks like there is more to come.

I have a Thurban, (the 4100 is not my goal). I am more than pleased with its performance, and the 965 for that matter. I'll be after the octo-core. I would prefer it to be 4.0 Stock. I'll wait for that and do the graphics first, most likely at this stage X-Fire my 6850. Once the BD, (might even be PD), is in I'll hit it with Win 8 as well to max my chances of seeing gains over the 1090T for the processor upgrade.

call me an AMD fanboi if you like. I won't run and hide from it, although I'll say it's not true. You have no idea of my history, it's quite a long one and I have built many, many systems around different configs. I am where I am for solid reasons and am confident about it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Llano is part of the BD range as well and does have video. Those graphics can be X-Fired. Like I said there's choices.
Click to expand...
this is very misleading. llano is not a part of bd range. they only share the manufacturing process (32 nm). nothing else. the cpu cores are athlon/phenom class, gpu cores are radeon 6000 class, no l3 cache. what choices? anything to do with fx4100?
If Thurban and Deneb users can bypass the early BD range of CPU's that not a bad thing, those CPU's are not that old and are still viable for modern performance desktops.
Click to expand...
passing over cpu isn't anything new. people skip over new cpu lineups to buy hardware that offers tangible improvements. nothing wrong with that.
Not enough for you. easy sol'n, get an i5/i7 and a monster GPU, but it won't do more than increase frame rate a bit and maybe an extra setting or two. If you want to pay for that, i'm easy, it's entirely your choice. If you end up GPU bound, because the budget didn't quite stretch, stiff cheese you've done your dough.
Click to expand...
i don't quite understand what this paragraph means. please clarify further. i guess people with high end cpu and gpus (or any cpu, gpu) can squeeze out extra performance by overclocking and/or turning down settings a few notches.
BD handles Win 7 easily, there is no issue with that. If it's a bit slower here then it's a bit faster there. Most of this info is coming largely from desperate attempts to compare its IPC, which is it's perceived weak point. There's only so much info you can glean from hammering it's week point, how about having a decent look at it's potential?
Click to expand...
no one is questioning bd's potential. this is not a all-encompassing-bulldozer-analysis thread.
Just as a point of interest. I went to the Gigabyte website last night and they are listing a new BD on their mobo support list, a 6200 @ 3.8GHz, so stay tuned there looks like there is more to come.
Click to expand...
i've known about phenom ii x8 (possible lower binned 81xx cpus), fx 8100, 6200 for weeks. when they come out, hopefully they'll be tested.
I have a Thurban, (the 4100 is not my goal). I am more than pleased with its performance, and the 965 for that matter. I'll be after the octo-core. I would prefer it to be 4.0 Stock. I'll wait for that and do the graphics first, most likely at this stage X-Fire my 6850. Once the BD, (might even be PD), is in I'll hit it with Win 8 as well to max my chances of seeing gains over the 1090T for the processor upgrade.

call me an AMD fanboi if you like. I won't run and hide from it, although I'll say it's not true. You have no idea of my history, it's quite a long one and I have built many, many systems around different configs. I am where I am for solid reasons and am confident about it.
Click to expand...
your history is definitely long...
this thread isn't about you (thread hijacking is bad). only replied because your posts usually contain wrong information.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Our local tech review pitted 4 intel vs 4 AMD chips; summary

Intel i3 2100 78 (cons, dual core and no Oc)
Intel i5 2500k 91 (cons No HT multi-threading limitations, aging)
Intel i7 2700K 86 (cons sandbagged chip too good for AMD and the apex desktop chip though largely irrelevent)
Intel i7 3630K 83 (cons, overpriced, locked cores, fast but pointless)


AMD:

FX 4100 72(cons, slow per core performance, disaster area, schooled by a 2100 in everything bar multi threading and oc ability.)
FX 6100 77(cons, schooled by the P2 X6's across the board, psuedo 6core, avoid at all costs)
FX 8150 78(cons, AMD big 8core 2 million transistor failure, destroyed by intels high end chips, marginal to a 2500k but a complete disastor)
1100T 88(cons, aging but way better than any FX range Chip.)


In short avoid the FX if you can.....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wow did this thread go way OT!

Why is everyone discussing $150-250 CPUs when the OP started at $119 ($109 on the egg)? The question should be about the i3-2100($124) vs. the FX-4100($109) with the Pentium G860($99), i3-540($119) and PhII 960T($124) thrown in for comparison.

Also if you are gaming what is your target resolution and what is your GPU? If you are going to buy a 5770 and are shooting for 1080p I don't know that any of these CPUs will limit you much. I am guessing that if you have $120 for your CPU you won't be spending $250+ on you GPU.

I am sorry cyansnow but you should realize that pushing $500 worth of graphics with a $100 CPU is going to cause some problems no matter how well you OC.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Ill agree to the point of price; Theres a reason the 4100 is 109 bucks, and pushing high end graphics with it is a waste.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You have no idea what you're talking about. Most people here don't even use integrated graphics because it doesn't matter if it's AMD or Intel IG's aren't that great for anything other then an office workstation computer. Who cares if Intel's GPU drivers are bad most people don't use it anyway. It is the Bulldozer that needs dire fixing because it is a disaster. The IPC is messed up causing the whole thing to be slower then the older CPU's. Piledriver must be good or it may be strike three for AMD. If I was going to get a new AMD processor I would not be happy with the 10% improvement. That improvement puts it equal to the first generation Sandy Bridges but still behind Intel especially when Ivy Bridges comes out. Not to mention they already pretty much said they can't compete with Intel and thats why they are concentrating on APU's and video cards.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom