AMD FX 4100 vs Phenom II x4 965?

[xspectrum]

I've come across 2 AMD processors that I'm considering using in my computer: the "AMD FX 4100" and the "Phenom II x4 965". The FX 4100 is about 20 bucks cheaper than the Phenom, which struck me as odd because the FX 4100 runs at 3.6 Ghz with quad core, while the Phenom has 3.4 Ghz with quad core. So, is there any real drawback to the FX 4100. I'm going to be using the computer for editing videos (mainly in After Effects), photos, as well as using it for everyday tasks (ie surfing the web, doing homework, etc).

Which processor will serve me better for my needs (please note that I'm not a very intense video/photo editor, I only do that a few hours a week)?

 

[Dasmit]

I've come across 2 AMD processors that I'm considering using in my computer: the "AMD FX 4100" and the "Phenom II x4 965". The FX 4100 is about 20 bucks cheaper than the Phenom, which struck me as odd because the FX 4100 runs at 3.6 Ghz with quad core, while the Phenom has 3.4 Ghz with quad core. So, is there any real drawback to the FX 4100. I'm going to be using the computer for editing videos (mainly in After Effects), photos, as well as using it for everyday tasks (ie surfing the web, doing homework, etc).

Which processor will serve me better for my needs (please note that I'm not a very intense video/photo editor, I only do that a few hours a week)?

I have been using phenom ii x4 965 for a while and replaced it with an amd fx 4100 I ONLY changed the CPU and the fx kinda was way better, I was able to play today's games in ultra settings and it was amazing for video editing with an ati hd 6770. I would choose fx 4100 but when it comes to media, video editing, watching movies etc I prefer intel core i5/i7 but when it comes to cheap, go for the fx. And one tip for homeworks and writing, buy Office and for web browsing I prefer fx I can open my browser in one second but intel should be very good too.

 

[cbrunnem]

was your phenom overclocked?

 

[de5_Roy]

I have been using phenom ii x4 965 for a while and replaced it with an amd fx 4100 I ONLY changed the CPU and the fx kinda was way better, I was able to play today's games in ultra settings and it was amazing for video editing with an ati hd 6770. I would choose fx 4100 but when it comes to media, video editing, watching movies etc I prefer intel core i5/i7 but when it comes to cheap, go for the fx. And one tip for homeworks and writing, buy Office and for web browsing I prefer fx I can open my browser in one second but intel should be very good too.

i didnt know the 6770 could play games at ultra settings...
anyway, for every day tasks, even a sandy bridge celeron dual core would do let alone fx 4100.
@OP: for light video editing and everyday tasks, the fx might suffice, but it will consume a lot of power on load e.g. video editing. so it might benefit from undervolting.
among quad cores, even a core i5 2300 will outperform the fx in terms of power-performance efficiency.
since the OP hasn't answered in a looong time, i don't see any point discussing....

 

[cbrunnem]

lets not get any ideas that a true dual core can play modern games well with a high end graphics card. BF3 would be unplayable for instance.

 

[Guest]

My new FX-4100 just arrived, i´ll give it a proper try in a week, i will let you know guys.. 😉

 

[gtx_560tiuser]

ok

 

[xspectrum]

My new FX-4100 just arrived, i´ll give it a proper try in a week, i will let you know guys.. 😉

Have you used it?

 

[gtx_560tiuser]

yeah is it good?

 

[wreck6969]

It would be nice if he let's us know how good it is..................

 

[cbrunnem]

its not good. i thought everyone knew that.

 

[Outlander_04]

its not good. i thought everyone knew that.

since you "know" that you'll have some kind of proof .
Lets see it
What other $110 processor is better ?

 

[mourice12]

the i3-2120 at 120 is better

 

[Roundaround]

The question isn't comparing AMD to Intel. Everybody knows that Intel still has the slight edge. However, AMD has the value card to play, and they play it well.

On topic: The FX series of processors is a new wave of CPUs that blows everything out of the market. They do what they are designed to do better than anything else, and often times for a fair -- if not good -- price. They have been designed to multitask, and that's what they do best. They are of a more expensive series than the Phenoms, and it is difficult to tell if that is partially attributable to the fact that they are newer, or it actually is completely because of their superior processing power.

Looking at AMD's website, it is easy to see that the FX series has the edge over the Phenoms:

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-model-number-comparison.aspx
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/phenom-ii/Pages/phenom-ii-model-number-comparison.aspx

However, the question now becomes "Which one is the better value, especially for those on a budget who don't require a top-of-the-line system?" And the answer to that is a no brainer - the FX. At $40 cheaper on Newegg.com for comparable (and actually better) specs to it's Phenom counterpart, the FX-4100 3.6 GHz quad core is hands down the better of the two.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103996

P.S. - The FX series also runs for less power (95W in FX processors compares to the 125W in Phenom processors), and they run cooler by at least 10 degrees Celsius. That alone is a dead giveaway.

P.P.S. - To those who pull out numbers about which one actually runs faster with single vs. multi-threading, there are too many variables to consider. The CPU doesn't work alone, and it's going to be better at certain things than it is at others. The fact of the matter is, every test will provide different results, and there's no way of telling which is better outside the manufacturer's listings, price, and potential usage. that's what it comes down to, and that's the truth.

 

[cbrunnem]

The question isn't comparing AMD to Intel. Everybody knows that Intel still has the slight edge. However, AMD has the value card to play, and they play it well.

On topic: The FX series of processors is a new wave of CPUs that blows everything out of the market. They do what they are designed to do better than anything else, and often times for a fair -- if not good -- price. They have been designed to multitask, and that's what they do best. They are of a more expensive series than the Phenoms, and it is difficult to tell if that is partially attributable to the fact that they are newer, or it actually is completely because of their superior processing power.

Looking at AMD's website, it is easy to see that the FX series has the edge over the Phenoms:

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-model-number-comparison.aspx
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/phenom-ii/Pages/phenom-ii-model-number-comparison.aspx

However, the question now becomes "Which one is the better value, especially for those on a budget who don't require a top-of-the-line system?" And the answer to that is a no brainer - the FX. At $40 cheaper on Newegg.com for comparable (and actually better) specs to it's Phenom counterpart, the FX-4100 3.6 GHz quad core is hands down the better of the two.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103996

P.S. - The FX series also runs for less power (95W in FX processors compares to the 125W in Phenom processors), and they run cooler by at least 10 degrees Celsius. That alone is a dead giveaway.

P.P.S. - To those who pull out numbers about which one actually runs faster with single vs. multi-threading, there are too many variables to consider. The CPU doesn't work alone, and it's going to be better at certain things than it is at others. The fact of the matter is, every test will provide different results, and there's no way of telling which is better outside the manufacturer's listings, price, and potential usage. that's what it comes down to, and that's the truth.

im pretty sure it is safe to say that everything you said in reality is the exact opposite or just wrong.

1: intel has a large lead not slight
2: the fx cpu's dont blow anything out of water but themselves, they are a huge disappointment and on par with the phenom family
3: if they can multitask well how come an i5 2500k is just as good in rendering as the 8150? http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288
4: a phenom x4 is still the best bang for your buck not fx cpu is a better buy for gaming.
5: the fx series is a power hog.(586w at 4.8 ghz!!!!!!!!!!!)http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/10
6: the i7 2600k is better then the 8150 is basically everything and they both have the same amount of threads.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287 (i7 wins in everything but 2 test)


the fx cpu's are a dude face it.

 

[de5_Roy]

^^ shoulda noticed that he posted amd's own benchmarks. his text seems to be taken right out of amd's fx promotion. possible troll.
@OP: here's a link that might help decide why 965 b.e. is better than the fx 4100.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html
there's a link to a multitasking bench at the end of that article, check that out too.

 

[mourice12]

In AMD's Defense. it is a new architecture that isnt optimized for windows 7. Due to some recent patches for Windows 7 performance has increased, it will also increase with windows 8. To how much we dont know, this new architecture could turn out to be something that puts AMD back on the map, no one knows but as the technology progresses it may hold some good results. As for amd vs intel. AMD is cheaper and it does what it is suppose to. Intel is faster in synthetic benchmarks and it also holds the premium price

Before anyone calls me an AMD fanboy, I use intel (i5-2500k) and i love it.

 

[cbrunnem]

In AMD's Defense. it is a new architecture that isnt optimized for windows 7. Due to some recent patches for Windows 7 performance has increased, it will also increase with windows 8. To how much we dont know, this new architecture could turn out to be something that puts AMD back on the map, no one knows but as the technology progresses it may hold some good results. As for amd vs intel. AMD is cheaper and it does what it is suppose to. Intel is faster in synthetic benchmarks and it also holds the premium price

Before anyone calls me an AMD fanboy, I use intel (i5-2500k) and i love it.

the latest windows 7 patch was supposed to help its performance but didnt. the optimization thing is a crutch for a broken architecture.

 

[mourice12]

Well i seen here on the internets that it did increase the performance by alittle

 

[cbrunnem]

Well i seen here on the internets that it did increase the performance by alittle

i mean the gain was less then 3 fps

edit: phone murdered that response

 

[Guest]

Have you used it?

Sorry for not to replying, but been quite busy recently. I´ve had to finish all the newest games I couldn´t play on my old pc, so I´ll tell you how fx-4100 performs. With my old nvidia 9600 gt I finished BF3 (low settings because of my old GC but cpu usage 50% only), Crysis 2 (1920x1080 full details no lagging), Hard Reset full, FEAR3 full., COF MW3 full., cpu runs cool even at max load and at about 35 W lower consuption than phenom X4 965 that I wanted to buy instead of this one. Other thing is insanely fast compression with winrar and cutting of movies, amazing how fast it can be. Maybe it doesn´t reach phenom x4 performance in benchmarks (sorely can at 35W lower wattage), but it performs very well and for the price it is very nice piece of hardware. All I can say is, I am satified.

 

[Guest]

This is very good CPU comparison of 50 cpu´s for game Battlefield 3 that also helped me to decide between fx-4100 and phenom II x4 965. FX-4100 outperformed 965 in all tests.

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7986&pageid=8147

 

[re-play-]

This is very good CPU comparison of 50 cpu´s for game Battlefield 3 that also helped me to decide between fx-4100 and phenom II x4 965. FX-4100 outperformed 965 in all tests.

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7986&pageid=8147

thanks for the link very interesting, i want to go from my x3 455 to that CPU 😀

 

[beyond help]

I was doing research on the fx-4100 when my dad finally decided he was ready for his 1st pc, Im thinking about upgrading to the fx from my x4 965 BE but due to the mixed reviews I'm reconsidering it. Fortunately I can I play with my dads budget and since he's not doing any gaming I ordered the fx-4100 for his build. I also bought a asus saber tooth under his budget just in case I decide to stick with the 965. I will go out of my way(I have a very tight schedule due to 65+ hours of work a week.) to do a few tests. Benchmarks, RIFT maxed, burn movies ect.

I will be using all the same components expect switching the CPU to perform the various tests. I will also OC my GPU and both CPUs for a 2nd set of tests. Got my 965 to 4.5 stable hopefully I can do it again. I will have the parts tomorrow. Hopefully will post my results within 3 days.

Current build,
Amd Ph x4 965 BE
Asus m4n98td evo(tests will b done on saber tooth)
Asus gtx 460
2x 4gb Vengeance 1600 ram
2x 500gb 3gbs WD HDD in raid.
H80 cooler

 

[re-play-]

I was doing research on the fx-4100 when my dad finally decided he was ready for his 1st pc, Im thinking about upgrading to the fx from my x4 965 BE but due to the mixed reviews I'm reconsidering it. Fortunately I can I play with my dads budget and since he's not doing any gaming I ordered the fx-4100 for his build. I also bought a asus saber tooth under his budget just in case I decide to stick with the 965. I will go out of my way(I have a very tight schedule due to 65+ hours of work a week.) to do a few tests. Benchmarks, RIFT maxed, burn movies ect.

I will be using all the same components expect switching the CPU to perform the various tests. I will also OC my GPU and both CPUs for a 2nd set of tests. Got my 965 to 4.5 stable hopefully I can do it again. I will have the parts tomorrow. Hopefully will post my results within 3 days.

Current build,
Amd Ph x4 965 BE
Asus m4n98td evo(tests will b done on saber tooth)
Asus gtx 460
2x 4gb Vengeance 1600 ram
2x 500gb 3gbs WD HDD in raid.
H80 cooler

Good to know but actually, im waiting for the new revision of FX CPUs... i think im gonna stick for a while with this... but post your benchs anyway 😛

 

[JuanB]

I own the FX-4100 and so far i am impressed with it, it can play MW3 on full 1080p at 45 fps with the XFX Radeon 6770.