AMD FX 4100 good cpu?

Page 8 - 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


:lol:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I noticed that as well. The FX4100 often was in the lead. I didn't check clock rates but I'd guess that the 4100 with its fewer cores turbos higher. In most games this will give it the edge. The only point in getting the FX8120/50 is if you do a lot of things OTHER then gaming.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The question is how much is enough. The hunt for the faster chip is becoming ridiculous. People are paying for right to say "my computer is faster then yours" even if they cant tell the difference without benchmarking software. I once watched a guy drive a lamborgini from light to light. Was fun to watch. Im an Intel fan but im also on a budged and I can get fx4100 with motherboard for $109 and fx6100 for 139. So the bottom line stop chasing clocks and look at what you need.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you accept the FX for what it is then it is more than adequate if it falls within the budget. The 6100 are put on avoid status, but the FX 4100 and FX 8120 are more adequately placed.

If Intel is a no no then the 4100 will do a decent enough job.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I dont speak for others just for myself. My reason is that Microcenter has FX chips on special with motherboard. They no longer bundle Phenoms. Btw FX4100 there only $100 even.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you pair it with a budget card it should do fine as long as you dont run into software compatibility issues like i did and have to go back to P II to realize the enormous difference in speed especially in gaming. For a home pc i could see getting the 4100 but definitely not for gaming
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
answering the main post .
i almost bought the fx 4100 today and i was really confused because ppl kept saying that its bad its junk...

anyway i figured that its not a real quad core i mean physically but its dual core but somehow it can be counted as quad.

so my idea is to buy a well known cpu such as intel 2600k,amd phenom 965(its nearly same price as fx 4100).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
well all i would add is , its there money, if they want to spend more and get less then thats up to them.
they will claim every 1 who says intel is better is bias and bitter... blah blah...
well thats there problem. they are the 1s that will be back time and time again asking why this is slow and why is that slow...

you cant tell sum 1 who's ignorant the truth, because they cant handle it.

so let em spout there crap and we can laugh at em knowing they are just WRONG!!!...

they cant even post a 20k 3dmark06. thats 20000 points on a 5 year old application... thats just laughable... my 3 year old i7 will do 22.5k and its not even at 4ghz.... laughable... it certainly is...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

more convincing besides " its faster"?
how about there are games that wont launch or run on one core because of compatibility issues with the new architecture?
the 4100 is a budget cpu. you wil only see budget cards not get bottlenecked on it. If thats what you want then go ahead. otherwise get a PII 965 at the least if you are set on amd. They are faster per core which will offer better performance at same clocks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The question is how much is enough. The hunt for the faster chip is becoming ridiculous. People are paying for right to say "my computer is faster then yours
Click to expand...

Paying how? I've already linked and shown that an Intel 2100 is the same price as the 4100. And the benchmarks show that the 2100 will give you more FPS in games then even an OC'd 4100. IF the chips are the same price, how are you paying more?

If you can find the 4100 for $100 then you at least have a possible choice on your hands. That puts it some ~$20ish cheaper then the 2100. But it would need to be more even cheaper then $20 less for me to take it over a 2100. NOT because I hate AMD, but because I want the best for $$$. (Before you brand me an AMD hater, I ran just about every type of chip they had between the original slot Athlon all the way up to my last AMD the 3500+.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Worse if you look at the OC'd results as well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html

The OC'd FX4100 is about equal to the Pentium G860. Lets see how much that CPU costs.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116405&Tpk=G860

$100. It's also really close to the G630. How much is that one?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116406&Tpk=G630

$80. The Fx4100 would need to get down to the $50-$75ish area before I would consider it for a budget gaming CPU. The extra frame and a half it gives isn't worth the extra cost and power usage. Not everyone will agree of course....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
who cares and so what.
Click to expand...
Its intersting. Some having a civilized discussion and some just bashing and clobbering anybody disagreeing. I talk about people on budget they talk whats faster. Btw 2100 is dual core hyperthreaded as well.

Core Sandy Bridge

Processor Core i3 2100

Operating Frequency 3.1GHz

Number of Cores 2

Number of Threads 4 Processing Threads

But at least FX i can play with and tweak
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



I'm not a fan of AMD, research, read reviews about this CPU they say its a failure. I think you should go for an Intel flatform. Intel i5 2500K quad core out performs AMD FX Bulldozer CPU's. I OC'd my i5 2500K to smoking 4.7 GHZ, but don't forget to buy an aftermarket CPU cooler(air/liquid) before you do overclocking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
get an i3 2120, same price (pretty much) and has much better performance
4 cores might be better in the future when software catches up but by that time there will be newer processors out, for the time being the Intel Sb chips are the winner
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
no, it doesn't..

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m529/malmental/Averages.png
Click to expand...

The above mentioned stats are listed from non-OC'd chips. With the i3 and dual core Sandybridge chips being locked the stats are meaningless. An OC'd FX-4100 will trounce the Intel offerings which are either next to impossible to overclock or pretty damm tough.
I don't know where you get your data but I think you keep overstating that Intels price competitive offerings are better that comparable AMD's seem skewed. For the price and coupled with a good GPU the AMD systems will play games very well. I speak from experience as I own and game with FX-4100. I have not had a single game give me problems while using this rig.
My System:
AMD FX-4100 @ 4.8GHz Turbo core still enabled
AMD 6970 GPU
8 gigabytes DDR3
60 gig SSD Crucial
SeaSonic 750 watt 80 plus Bronze power
Rosewill Full tower case
H60 Corsair sealed loop cpu cooling
Western Digital 650 gig sata 3 storage drive

With all that said I can't compare apples to apples because I don't own an Intel rig. I can only go by synthetic benchmarks and my own results.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom