First budget gaming build Amd fx 4100,will it run all games on high?

[amd guy101]

Hey guys, i just wanted to know if this build I'm about to do in 2 weeks will be good enough for gaming. My budget is $ 770 and i want to play games on my 48 inch HDTV.I'm getting a AMD FX 4100 with a Radeon HD 6850, NO overclocking will be done on this build or two GPUs.I'm getting the FX 4100 because it's cheap and fast and later this year i want to upgrade to the new fixed versions of the AMD Bulldozer CPU's AMD will release later this year.

So, will this build I'm about to get be good enough to get 30 to 60 fps on games(Crysis 2 Battlefield 3 Arma 2 ect.) with high/ultra settings for at least a year until AMD releases the fixed Dozers ?

Here are the components:

AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor FD4100WMGUSBX

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


GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128519

SAPPHIRE 100315L Radeon HD 6850 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card with Eyefinity


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102908


CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145345


CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX650 V2 650W ATX12V v2.31/ EPS12V v2.92 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC High Performance Power Supply


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139020


Seagate Barracuda ST500DM002 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148767


SAMSUNG 22X DVD Burner 22X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 8X DVD+R DL 22X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 24X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM SATA Model SH-222BB/BEBE - OEM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151244


Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 64-bit - OEM


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116986

 

[azeem40]

And yet a bulldozer "module" is analagous to an intel "core", except it has an integer execution unit doubled up .
For the first couple of years when AMD were describing the BD they called the modules "cores" . Later the marketing guys decided an 8 core processor sounded sexier .

But all that is moot . Performance per dollar and performance per watt are the issues that should concern a buyer . The technical spec's dont matter much when you get right down to it .

The FX 8150' performs well enough to be competitive with the i5's

The FX 4100 performs well enough to be competitive with the i3's

You just can't face the fact that the i5-2500k is the best gaming cpu.

 

[RussK1]

yup
8150is BEAST. it runs like an overclocked ferrarri with 1000 HP!!!!!!!!!!!!
intel is just hype.
coleco vision was the ***.
new coke was great.
in n out sucks.
mcdonalds is better
mac over PC
laptops pwn desktops.
fx is as fast as intel

:lol: I see

i5-2500k is the best gaming cpu

even better than my 2600K? I've been had! [:russwood1488:5]

 

[Outlander_04]

Your original text was left intact but comments were added and the points being commented on were in bold, how is that dishonest manipulation?

Because anyone reading that , without reading my original txt first would not know it was not what I had written in the first place .

A quote is a quote , and should have been left as such .

Any comment should have been made AFTER , not in a misleading alteration to the quote .


You have any doubts about this I suggest you try altering a few other peoples documents and seeing how quickly people find that offensive

 

[Outlander_04]

You just can't face the fact that the i5-2500k is the best gaming cpu.

You are incorrect . If I was building a top end gaming system today I would choose a 2500k , or 2600k

That has no bearing whatsoever on whether an FX 4100 is appropriate for the OP's purposes

And even less on the likelihood that I'd choose an FX 8120 for a server , and an FX 8150 if I was converting a lot of video .

Its not me thats the fanboy . I have two computers . Both have intel cpu's .

 

[Mousemonkey]

Because anyone reading that , without reading my original txt first would not know it was not what I had written in the first place .

A quote is a quote , and should have been left as such .

Any comment should have been made AFTER , not in a misleading alteration to the quote .


You have any doubts about this I suggest you try altering a few other peoples documents and seeing how quickly people find that offensive

Anyone reading through this thread would see your post first, so unless you alter it yourself the additional comments will be self evident.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

One of the many issues with getting the 4100.... What could you possibly upgrade to? Where is the upgrade path for gaming? Pii? Older tech? We sure as hell cant depend on the next stepping until there is concrete proof of performance
At least.with a 21xx OP couldupgrade to an i5 later on

 

[Outlander_04]

Anyone reading through this thread would see your post first, so unless you alter it yourself the additional comments will be self evident that Im a turkey .

Your assumption that people read entire threads is faulty , and you have opened the door to a world of abuse on what has previously been a very well moderated forum

I suggest you consult an adult

PS. Im sure you wont find my editing offensive since its in bold and you are fine with that

 

[FlintIronStagg]

Ima grab a bowl of popcorn and watch this one...

 

[amd guy101]

Some really good points being made,really helpful indeed.Seems most people are for going Intel i3.While i want to go with AMD FX of course there's the risk that the new chips they release later on this year will be more "faildozers & faildrivers".And if windows 8 is released and we see no better performance boost with the dozers i would be really disappointed.But if windows 8 does bring better performance for the FX series & the Piledriver CPUs end up being awesome,i would be stuck with an old duel core intel icore 3 with a more expensive upgrade path, that would suck hard.


I could go with an old amd phenom but like i said if windows 8 brings better performance to the FX 4100 i would be pissed. Tough decision......If i had an extra $ 200 trust me guys, i would go with a Intel i5 and not have to deal with any of this lol ! Being on a budget sucks.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

Phenom II X4 965BE = price/performance over the FX-4100
and with an AM3+ motherboard, Piledriver is in your path.
my opinion.

enjoy your rig regardless of the direction you go.

Agreed

 

[Andrewoi1]

I3 is the same price as the Fx-4100 $15 dollars off atm. Some thing to consider. Deal ends today.

 

[Andrewoi1]

Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz LGA 1155 65W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 2000 BX80623I32100
Average Rating 5 out of 5 eggs(233 reviews)
$15 off w/ promo code EMCNGHC43, ends 4/2
Acually ends in two days. I'm in the same spot and I'm leaning towards the I3 due to the price drop. I really want to go with the fx-4100 like you though. I think the I3 is a much safer choice. Paired with a 6850 you will be gaming fine with either the fx or intel. People get caught up in debates here but for your budget and needs either work there's not going to be a "Winner" on this forum because it boils down to Intel vs Amd. So in the end it's up to you man. Both will work great. Enjoy your new rig.

 

[akamrcrack]

re-arrange your budget.
if staying with AMD then 990FX motherboard and a Phenom II x 965BE - 980BE processor, don't go FX-4100.
instead of the FX-4100 you should go Intel.

and even clocked to 5.0GHz the performance of the FX-Bulldozer is crap.

This all day.

If you can't drive to a www.microcenter.com to pick up a 2500K + z68 mobo ($179.99 for cpu and $50 off on mobo deal) then you're best bet would be to pick up a 965BE and overclock it to ~4.0ghz.

I have a friend that downgraded from a 2500K to a 4100 and he really hates himself lol. He can't even run a 720p video without going over 20% cpu usage. Where as I can do 1080p at less than 8% cpu usage with my 2500K.

All in all FX is a bad processor that requires too much power for too little performance and even ocing doesn't help much. Maybe in the future the piledriver will be more power efficient but for now the whole line is a bust imo when there are many better options.

 

[Tavo_Nova]

LOL you guys really like comparing numbers, just compare real world experience with it.

imo most people who post here doesn't even have any of them but just leeches of review and benchmark by other people (which everyone is i guess including me i do read out benchmarks and read reviews)

but well if you guys really want to say this and that is better than this and that, it's better to test it your self not base on numbers but base on real world performance if that would affect your (gaming wise) frags at bf3

oh and no I'm no AMD fanboy, I'm an Intel/Nvidia (I love MSi Brand too) Fan. but I look at more the real world feeling performance you get.

if someone is happy with his bulldozer and so be it.

but so far we can't deny 1 fact and that is intel wiped AMD's ass so bad on the CPU market but that doesn't mean amd cpu's are bad.

however on the gpu side amd is also very decent.

actually I'm hoping that amd pull out some miracle out of their butt to make PD worth the money,


but hey for amd you get what you pay for,
example.

80$ on a 4 core bulldozer and a 130$ on a 2 core sandybridge, of course performance wise you can already see in the price tag.

 

[sunnk]

hello all i m back to toms harware forums

first of all according to op's question will a fx 4100 perform well in gaming

yes it will the fx 4100 is not that good but not even that bad its just a good chip for price i just bought it for my freind with a hd 5770 and do you guys know what was the benchmark results;

i have tested only 2 games 1)farcry 2)crysis 2

settings
1)farcry 2 res 1366x768 aa x8 all settings ultra high dx 10 enabled

result:- 60fps

i was shocked performance was just awesome every one are just saying its an bad chip for gaming so those who are telling that pls first test it then give rubbish advice

crysis 2 setting was with same res hardcore overall graphics

result:- 55 fps

so op you should go forward and buy that chip its a very good chip for its price you will be happy with it

 

[ctomster]

literally 7 months later? hahahhaha

 

[FlintIronStagg]

yeah sunnk way after the fact... also the resolution is what is keeping that setup performing that well. The fx4100 is a low budget entry level chip, not to be confused with the higher end pIIx4 line. Running with a 5770 you wont see any bottlenecks, as the rig is balanced on the budget end. please in the future try not to dig up threads that are so old, as the OP is most likely long gone now, and this wont really help anyone with old news about a chip that is almost a year old and proven to be budget.

 

[sunnk]

sorry i found this thread in google idk at which time this thread was opened thats why and i was just giving my opinion and the fx 4100 is working well with gtx 560 ti too..........

 

[FlintIronStagg]

sorry i found this thread in google idk at which time this thread was opened thats why and i was just giving my opinion and the fx 4100 is working well with gtx 560 ti too..........

Look at the last post date and it will tell you how old it is.
I'm sure it works with a 560ti.... it would " work" with a gtx 680, its just how much of a bottleneck is the question

 

[dcointin]

"With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

 

[sunnk]

hehe lol amd fx is a very good chip for it price it can be overclocked till 4.6ghz with stock cooler by raising the multiplier high and without any voltage increase the fx 4100 with a overclok of 1ghz can reach the phenom ii x4 975-980be level the fx 4100 can beat the i3 2100 and i3 2120 in multitasking + video encoding and many more thing which makes it a good chip for its price the fx 4100 is not much behind in gaming against the i3 2120 its very close and the i3 2120 is of 135$ where the fx 4100 is of only 100$ the i3 cannot overclock cant do that good multitasking where we are getting 4 cores with overcloking ability full on multitasking support and many more with fx 4100 in only $100 for me its a very nice deal my freind is using it he is very happy with it and many users too and pls dcointin dnt tell anything i3 2100 cant beat the 980be even a 965be can give i3 head to head performance in gaming and far better performance in other things.....huh

 

[jakethomas97]

Get this over the FX-4100 - I wouldn't recommend the FX right now because of all the installation issues and Windows issues, things of that nature : http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1724262&CatId=4432

Read this - it goes into a lot of details about the inner workings of FX and all the problems it's been having: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119.html

I read that post this post is more for those who don't understand computers as much as people who have had both systems, than it is for you. I don't question your intelligence.

and yes there might be a few problems with the first fx, but to help you out, the new fx vishera series has fixes, even though it seems about the same speed, more or less. Microsoft has worked out the bulldozer hot fixes for windows 7, a series of driver updates or whatever, that change how your cpu parks its cores. It basically keeps the processor from slowing your computer down in windows 7, and it keeps it from working harder than the given work-load needs. and amd fx vishera still is a cheap alternative for a gaming instrument than going the intel route. The new fx series will not really bottleneck any graphics cards other than super super high-end kind, the line being drawn around a 7850 stock to a 7870. I can vouch for AMD, as I have an fx 6300 hex, and it can run any non cpu demanding game without bottlenecking even a really high end cards. The problem comes with the older games that needs a little push which is what overclocking is useful for and more cores WOULD be useful for, had older games been able to use multiple cores. Like someone said, amd will be walking away from desktops in the near future, unless they come out with some miracle machine cpu that harnesses the energy from the user or something. Buying an fx 6300 and a LC system, OC to 4.2 Ghz, and read my other system specs, I kept my cyberpower pc gaming rig priced at 840 which was 750 before shipping and tax. It basically is a great computer which needs a new graphics card I plan on getting the radeon 7850 oc which is probably in my description because I get it at the end of the week If I went the intel route, with onboard graphics, and all the same specs, I would have BARELY broke a thousand bucks, which is too much for me. My dream machine is $1500 to show how I met the world half-way and walked away satisfied.

to stop those against amd, intel is faster yes, even when 2 processors are both 3.5 Ghz, because intel's cores act as 2 cores when they hyper-thread. This isn't required to be supported by the application, it is just like amd uses 1 arm, while intel willingly uses 2 to (i don't know, how about) move rocks. The rock is moved either way but with hyper-threading the workload is split into 2 smaller ones, so obviously more demanding applications will see a difference. Fortunately for us, gaming is barely effected by cores today. Look up benchmarks and see how each cpu effects modern games, and the latest of the latest. You will see less and less oif a difference. But especially converting and video encoding (which nowadays can be gpu-accelerated) will go twice as fast with intel. Try converting an album in itunes to aac with both PCs. Oh you don't have both, so just look it up. Intel is much faster with a lot of applications, and tomshardware is very clear. But AMD is cheaper and if you need to video encode, like for a job, I am sure you won't need your own computer but intel would be for you. People like me aren't trying to convince people amd is better. Or say we are just as good. WE ARE SIMPLY SAYING AMD IS a good price vs performance or bang for buck when it comes to the new fx vishera series. Heck older games run great with APU on lower resolutions.

FPS: frames per second.
MANY people freak out over how much fps games get. They always ask can this play bf3 60fps? bf3 is a difficult engine to run for graphics cards. It is known to run on 3 cpu cores but I dont know about 4. The multicore is seen in use in a modern game.
24 fps=movie/cinematic, not the same as gaming engines, as the movies are connected with a blurr, rather than just the frames. That is why motion blurr on newer games smooths out 25 fps gameplay and usually makes it playable. 25 fps= choppy, unappreciative. 30fps= xbox, ps3 standard, playable, enjoyable. 40 fps= enjoyable, exceptional, the difference is noticable. 60fps = perfect. I PREFER 40 FPS OVER 60 FOR MOST GAMES, ESPECIALLY FOR REALISM, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE HUMAN EYE'S SITE TO ME, 60 fps is the perfect framerate where everything is super smooth and the max framerate for my monitor but maybe not yours. 120=overboard. more is not noticable by the STANDARD FPS FANATIC and 120 is like the max for any monitor that isn't advanced. NOT THE ONES WITH SUPER EYE-SITE.

fps sum up: the human eye detects around 24 fps in real life. This is why things are blurry. TRY WAVING YOUR HAND AND IT LOOKS BLURRY. now play a game 60 fps and watch a car race by. It is harder on the eyes because your eyes are actually detecting more frames per second. People say the human eye cannot see better than 24 fps, but this is not true. Only is real life do they see about 24 fps. your eyes never move like that anyways as they focus ob objects jumping back and forth. I can detect up to 70fps on my friends 120 Hz monitor. 40 to 60 is great, no worries.

to sum it up, and make you feel more comfortable with amd, the fx series is the best series out there... for someone who is making a gaming computer with a dedicated graphics card. Anything more than the 7850 OC or maybe a 7870Ghz god forbid a 7970, anything higher than that is overkill for games today on a 1080 resolution for any processor, as anything more than 120 fps is not noticable by the human eye, nor is it found in monitors; most monitors are 60fps which is achievable in any game with either the intel SB, IB, or FX,FX vishera and a rocking graphics card. Only a small performance difference will be noticable, but not when the game is constant at 60fps you wont see a difference in performance because the vertical sync doesn't go higher than 60 fps on most monitors. which is perfectly fine for everybody.

the intel might be better than amd, but not everyone is willing to spend more money on intel. If I were to have to get an intel processor, a 2500k or a 3570k would be good (the k being for unlocked for overclocking), otherwise anything more is just not needed in my lifestyle, the most I do is encode here and there, for youtube, or maybe I want to run a lot of stuff at once. I dont even have enough ram for that. Right now the fx is perfect for gaming. Get a liquid cooling system and OC your system to the limit.

by the way anyone against OC ing a cpu hasn't seen AMD overdrive, an amd app that is simple enough to where you only turn one thing off, change 2 values and click apply, which is noticably simple considering you never want to pass 4.3 ish GHz without knowing exactly what your system can do, and the voltage for turbo core never passes 1.4 volts, so going 4.3 or 4.5 Ghz at 1.42 volts is obviously safe and the color shows it out of the danger or even caution red zone

I hope this helps anyone who wants to get a computer and they know exactly what they are looking for in a home desktop computer. Thank you everyone

 

[palladin9479]

Honestly for "low end budget" type boxes I found that the A10-5800K with 8GB of DDR3-2133 (cheap now) does very well. Get a decent Asrock board and your set. In a year or three if someone wants to toss in a midrange dGPU then it's possible. Replace the kit after four years.