Any reviews for the FX-4170 yet???

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.
Sort by date Sort by votes



Battlefield 3 MULTIPLAYER ultra 1920X1080

FX-4100 @ 4.5Ghz = 40-50 FPS

Phenom 960T @ 4.2Ghz = 55-60 FPS

That's real world enough for me. The difference is also quite evident in many other intensive scenarios.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Umm... But don't the performance drop when you tried to increase the quality settings? At better details probably Intel SB=40 AMD Bulldozer=30

There is the real difference...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

I don't have a Bulldozer chip, so I couldn't tell you, but every game I've ever played, 30FPS vs 40FPS is not a substantial difference no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yBsgtA8WSE&feature=related

People keep saying this crap about benchmarks, and after awhile it starts to stretch the limits of logic.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


In terms of practicality, considering anything 30FPS is completely playable as the video demonstrated, there is no game that I'm aware of that an i3 can play that an fx-4100 can't. If the Fx-4100 is incapable of pulling 30FPS in a given game, I doubt the i3 is either.

Heres some numbers to back it up, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-8.html yes the i3 does better, but neither one of them can handle it. And when you're talking go or no go, failing better than your competitor doesn't really matter much does it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Meh, it's not like I won't see a noticeable performance boost(if the FX thinks it isn't getting OC'd outta the box, then it's thinking wrong), plus rendering will be much faster. I'm mashing that POS to 4.5Ghz.

EDIT : Here's an old screen of the setting I used to use at idle, couldn't find the load ones
438202Temps.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



How does it make it a better CPU for gaming if the difference is not noticeable by the human eye? Your premise is absurd. You're entitled to your opinion, they're like assholes, everyone has em. BTW, I've said more than once that I am not a not a fan of the Bulldozer. So, try reading a little more before you opine. Pay attention to relevant facts, and less attention to numbers on a chart.

And you're wrong about needing a decent heatsink to overclock. FX-4100 are capable of heavy overclocks on the stock heatsink. As far as the motherboard, nobody should buy anything but a quality motherboard in a build to begin with, budget PC or not. Any quality motherboard will give you the overclocking support you need.

Even if you needed an aftermarket heatsink, 30 dollars will buy you a sufficient one. Research your facts. I may be no fan of Bulldozer either, but at least I look stuff up before speaking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



LOL!!!! Yea, the i3 is totally blowing it away!!! *sarcasm*

And just to reiterate, 4.5GHZ on an FX-4100 can be achieved on the stock heatsink without issue.

EDIT:


Lets add to this the conclusion page of this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-9.html

Despite the fact that Intel’s Core i3-2100 achieves 18% higher minimum frame rates (on average) and 11% higher average frame rates than AMD's FX-4100 when it's matched up to a very fast single-GPU graphics card, it was much rarer to observe an advantage in the same tests when we set a specific performance target. With a goal of achieving 30 FPS minimum frame rates, only one out of six tested games definitively favored Intel's budget-oriented chip.
Click to expand...

This is a price vs performance conclusion I can come up with.

i3-2100 priced 124.99 @ Newegg
FX-4100 priced 109.99 @ Newegg

If Tomshare says 18 percent higher average framerate, whats this price difference work out to? FX-4100 is 12 percent cheaper but 18 percent lower frame rates in quality? That in my opinion, puts them on level playing fields. I don't believe the FX-4100 should have ever been a 150 dollar chip like it originally was, today it is priced exactly where it should be. And the article from tomshare about pricepoint comparison is outdated, so people need to stop using it to justify their arguments.

You can call me an AMD fanboy all you like, or try to throw in some religious buzzwords like "apologist", lets stick to real facts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



I've seen reports that an FX-4100 could hit 4.6ghz on the stock cooler, 5.0 on stock if you disable it down to 2 cores. I don't know how much better the TX3 is, you might be able to hit 5. But I'm taking a stab in the dark, just crank it up slowly and keep an eye on your temps and run your stability tests.

The power draw in terms of your electric bill is what matters. I've covered the math in detail in another thread because someone insisted on making issue of wattage differences without proper appreciation of what that means in your electric bill. The difference is insignificant, by insignificant I mean 5 dollars a month.

Your profile says you're 15. What do you care about what the electric costs? LOL, my electric is covered in my lease, so I don't particularly care how much juice my computer pulls either.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Well, I personally would recommend a bare minimum of 500 watts for a modern gaming system with one video card, regardless of it being Intel or AMD, however your config says you have a 450 watt.. It *should* be enough, but honestly, I would invest in a nice 650 watt corsair TX series, that way theres no guess work to it. You can be sure its adequate.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



And you *should* be able to replace the antifreeze overflow bottle on your Acura Integra with a 20oz mountain dew bottle (yes I know someone who did that), that doesn't mean its a good idea. Thats my opinion, the reason for this is PSU's degrade over time. Buying a more powerful one than you actually need is a good idea. But by all means, if it works for you, then it works.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Understood. Even so, My professor who is tenured and holds a Master's Degree in addition to running a PC repair shop for almost 20 years, the person with a Doctorate degree who wrote my PC-Repair textbook and Radeon all say that a 500 watt minimum power supply is recommended. I'll go by what those people say regardless of what kill-a-watt measurements say.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In my opinion the fx4100 at the current price is pretty decent. Its not amazing but it offers the same gaming as the i3 when you have medium to lower end gpus.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html

the price difference between the 2 cpus are enough to go from a 6850 to a 6870 or from a 6770 to a 6850. If you pair the FX 4100 with the more powerful gpu its actually going to out perform the i3 for the same price.

BF3%206770.png


BF3%206850.png

keep not that the setting are higher for the 6850 test and the FX4100 w/ 6850 still out performs the i3 with the 6770.

The everyday difference are hardly noticeable. The FX is better for handling more threads while the i3 is better for less threads. There would be little difference in general performance.

You might go cheaper with an pentium G cpu but those will choke up a bit too much on games using more than 2 active threads.

I see no problem with the FX 4100 as a recommendable cpu at its current price compared to the i3.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom