AMD FX 4100 good cpu?

Page 6 - 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

Deactivated because they didn't pass whatever tests they do for CPU binning, could be 100% faulty to a slight problem with clock speed/voltage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

normally they dont bin em straight away, they harvest them first for cache, these models get designated as lower end same series parts. then the 1s that dont pass are given a 1s over for working cores.. most buyers who get these recovered chips expect the cpu's to unlock. they get shirty when they dont, they completely forget that the chips have already been rejected twice on build quality yet they expect em to function like higher end parts...

personally i wouldnt touch em, not only have they been rejected 1 or twice b4 they may well have to be heavily over volted to get the speeds that would normally require a slight bump.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok, lets try to end this thread.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103996
FX-4100. Currently $110 shipped on newegg. Intel similar priced chip is

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115078
i3 2100. Also currently $110 shipped.

Looking at other chips around that price point and I found the Athlon x4 645 for $105, or the Phenom II x4 960T for $125. The Athlon x4 might be worth considering for this, but the 960T probably shouldn't unless we find the Intel equivalent for it as well. Now, how do these chips compare?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_6.html

Run through these pages and watch how badly the 4100 loses to the 2120. (which while not the 2100, should perform close enough. The worst is probably in metro where the 2120 is nearly twice as fast as the 4100. Doing quick math the 2120 is probably ~33% faster then 4100. Make up your own mind if the 4100 is worth it as a CPU. Because for the same money you can get a faster CPU.

Now I too ask this thread gets locked. There really isn't anything else to say.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@4745454b: i have some problems with this review. first, the core i3 has used ddr3 1600 ram. everyone knows core i3 doesn't support ddr3 1600. secondly, the motherboard. the ccrosshair formula screws up amd fx cpus performance. look up the launch review and you'll see how it made the 8150 underperform. third, when the review was published, the windows 7 patches were not released by microsoft. the scheduler patches could have improved performance by 10-15% just like it will, it windows 8. this review has clear intel bias as it champions a dual core core i3 against a 4 core fx 4100 and 6 core 6100. you can always overclock the fx cpus as they are all unlocked. the overclocked cpus will easily outperform the locked core i3. cpu-z used in the review is also defective. it reads fx cpus' tdps as 124w. fx4100's vcore reads as 1.404v. i refuse to accept them as correct readings. the software clearly lacks the massive list of instructions that fx cpus support. it should get a bigger text box. the fx cpus use more power because they have a bigger die area and have more transistors than core i3. that is why their tdps are also higher. lastly, using the amd radeon hd 6970 with the test pc was wrong. everyone knows that amd gfx cards perform better with intel cpus. the reviewers wanted to discredit the new fx cpus so they used an amd gfx card with the test bench instead of nvidia geforce gtx 580 like amd provided during launch.
attempted to write from a clueless-amd-loving-fanboy point of view. a.k.a summarization of the next tens of posts made by c.a.l.f.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'll give you most of that except for the patches. Anand just did their review of the patches for Win7 and found that you get at best 2%. I have no clue about some boards doing worse with X chips, but I've heard of things before. If you have a better review to link I'd be happy to see it.

I'd actually really like to see the link because I'm having issues finding other reviews with the 4100 and a SB based core CPU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
moderator - this thread has ran it's course..
I believe this will take care of it.
Click to expand...
mousemonkey is too busy digging up 2 month old threads to "select his own best answer" and lock.
not sure why thats happening, not like it needs to be dug up just to lock it other than to bury the page with locked threads.

actually one of them at least was over a year ago.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Not to go off topic but if more people would choose a best answer the mods wouldnt have to play catch up
i thin OP needs to pick a best answer in this thread and let it close
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
tbh, i was cautiously hopeful about fx 4100's overclocked performance, especially in gaming. i thought (read: hoped) it'd significantly outperform core i3 with 4+ ghz on all 4 cores. i stand corrected.
fx 4100 isn't without its merits. aes-ni support, amd-v support (virtualization with device i/o), all fx specific instruction set etc on an entry level quad core cpu... unfortunately, gaming is not its strong area.
critisizing fx cpus has become similar to beating a dead animal.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Strangely enough it manages to outplace the FX-8120 in most of the games. I assume it is because of the higher static clock rate they went with.

Everything that was wrong with BD is summed up almost perfectly by that article. The many light cores just do not impress the gamer/enthusiast market.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
such a drastic change in architecture was always gonna bring up issues. it has shown that in certain circumstances the fx can hold its own but only where the new design can be put to work effectively. the problem with BD is that programs aren't written to its very specific needs. if they were the it would perform, but programs aren't so it can't... to me its another branch of cpu evolution that has come to a swift end.
i think amd need to take a step back and develop phenom even more. just add to what works... give phenom more code paths and dye shrinks and it will hold its own in the budget market. while there doing that they can go back to the drawing board and figure out where they went wrong with bulldozer... and maybe next time, dont hype it as much...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Toms has a new review of sub $200 gaming CPUs out. I'll link starting with the scores.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-3.html

Comb through, how many times does the FX4100 beat the 2100? NONE. What is even worse, if you look at the OCing page the OC'd FX4100 doesn't top the STOCK 2100. I'm sorry to say but if you want a gaming machine, either the 2100 from Intel, or grab an old 955 or better. The FX4100 isn't a "good" CPU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



I almost could not believe how bad the Bulldozer chips did when I read that review this afternoon. I thought for sure with overclocking to 4.5Ghz and better they would at least be as good as a stock i3 2100. I knew they were bad but that is a pretty amazing level of fail.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That an OC'd FX4100 couldn't top a 2100 EVEN ONCE was pretty sad. Granted it was only 3 games and I'm sure there are games out there where its not the case, but it is a fail. I still love AMD and I hope they can right this ship. But if your CPU budget is ~$110 there is no point in buying the FX4100. (unless you only need a CPU upgrade and already have an FX capable board.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Arrrgh the overclocking arguement. Well I would imagine a OC'd 4100 to 4.5ghz(if it doesn't fizzle out by then) will beat a stock chip running at 3.1ghz. But then lets stop and think about this, to overclock you need a) solid PSU, b) aftermarket cooler and c) solid motherboard, sadly they all cost a fair bit extra. So with that in mind, a el cheapo H61 + i3 2100 mainline setup is better on performance and better on the financial side.


I really wish the OC nonsense will stop now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

I had my 4100@ 4.4ghz and it was about a small bit faster than my 925@3.3 ......the 980is faster at 3.7 than the fx as well. It just isnt as fast per clock regardless of how high
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom