FX4100 series, are they THAT bad?

ohiou_grad_06

Distinguished
Hey guys, so I've got a question. A friend of mine is getting rid of his old case, CM Storm Scout. 45 bucks for a 80-90 dollar case is fair, considering he is a computer geek who takes good care of his stuff. So I'm thinking of possibly upgrading in the next few months to get myself a small upgrade and give my old setup to my wife who could use a faster desktop.

Here's my current system.

Athlon II x4 640 at 3.0ghz stock
Gigabyte m570-sli am2 motherboard
4 gb ddr2 667
1tb hard drive
Galaxy GTS 450
Ultra LSP 650 watt power supply(38 amps on single 12v+ rail)

I'm thinking about a budget upgrade to the following.

FX4100
8gb DDR3 1333 or 1600mhz ram
Gigabyte or ASUS 760G AM3+ motherboard(trying to keep price low, I've built with a few of the Gigabyte boards and they seem solid, plus I've never used the sli capability of my motherboard)

I am also considering the CM Hyper 212, since I would have to get a power supply at least eventually to power the old build for my wife, then I might upgrade that later.

I know a lot of guys are saying how bad the FX4100 series are. But are they that bad? I mean personally, I run my Athlon II quad at the stock 3.0 ghz, and it does EVERYTHING so far that I want. I've had my current system 5-6 years, so definitely have gotten it's usage, it's an old gamer rig, started life with an Athlon x2 way back, and a 7300LE. So it's served me well and has been rock solid, the Gigabyte board has been great, no complaints.

Here is what it boils down to. I'm seeing the FX4100 series and it's tempting due to price. I could reuse my old processor, but I've got a microcenter nearby, so by the time I buy the FX4100, and toss the board on with it, the board becomes nearly free, which makes it nice, as I've built and used a couple of systems with the 760g AM3+ board from Gigabyte, and had no complaints.

With that board, what is overclocking like? Good? Bad? So So?

FX4100-much faster than what I've got? I know the FX 4100 may be more of a sidegrade compared to my current processor, but seeing reports saying 4.6 ghz should be an easy overclock with the unlocked multiplier? Would that make a huge difference?

Thoughts and opinions?
 

rage33

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2010
466
1
18,860
the FX-41xx can't really perform quite to Intel's level when considering comparable CPUs. However that doesn't mean your performance will be bad or terrible for that matter. I would imagine that you would be satisfied with the FX-41xx or even a FX-61xx. I find it extremely hard to believe that an athlon II would be faster than an FX-41xx, I'm pretty sure that is not possible.......
 

Kamen_BG

Distinguished
The FX 4100 is going to be a bit faster than your Athlon at scock and a lot faster when overclocked.

I would suggest you get a Phenom 960T or if youre on a tight budget even the Athlon ii 631.

You can overclock the Phenom to around 4ghz while the athlon stops at around 4.4ghz.
 

shanky887614

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2010
1,258
0
19,360
synthetic ?

are you questioning the validity of Futuremark Corporation ? .. again

dont listen to the fanboy

he is biased


on average an i3 is faster at stock speed


an i5 2500k is faster. and when overclocked its defiantly faster.


most people dont want to overclock though as it voids the warranty on the parts.


here is a comparason that tomshardware did between i3 2100 and fx 4100 last month.

it shows tests using popular games


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


here is an extract

the end of January, we published our analysis of the sub-$200 gaming processor market called Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium?. We were surprised to find that Intel’s budget-oriented LGA 1155 offerings are surprisingly capable when it comes to handling modern titles. In fact, the $125 Core i3-2100 beat out AMD's entire line-up including top-tier Phenom IIs, Athlon IIs, APUs, and even the new FX models. Although they're easier to overclock, AMD’s best efforts could only achieve parity with the Core i3-2100, and Intel's Core i5 was so far ahead of the sub-$200 pack that it sat in a league of its own.
 

viktorbkk

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2011
89
2
18,635
Just stick with your Athlon II. The FX4100 isn't really an upgrade from what you got. The performance gains would be minimal if any. If you want a new system and it MUST be AMD and nothing else, then at least get a Phenom II.
 

wr6133

Guest
Feb 10, 2012
2,091
0
19,960
Your upgrade on AMD is Phenom II while they are still around a 960T will do you well and last a good while without breaking the bank a good featured mobo to match it is reasonably priced too.

Intel will do you better if you can afford i5. I have always used AMD but even I accept this fact. FX really is bad, the 4100 is just cr@p to be good it would need to lose 33% of its price. The high end FX chips are in i5 money bracket so again can't really be recommended
 
While the FX-4100 may not beat the i3's (or i5's), it is enough for gaming at stock speeds so long as you don't have a high end GPU setup. Though i would only recommend them if you are on a tight budget (cannot afford the +20$ for an i3) or you already have a compatible board (which you don't)
 

vitornob

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2008
988
1
19,060
FX-4100 is not that bad. i3 is just more refined and better architectured.

And regarding Jimmy Bean, he's putting much efforts to say the FX-4100 it's a beast CPU that crush basically everything, better than i3, and even comparing to the expensive i5-2500k.

Three options:
- He might have AMD stocks
- He bought a FX-4100 and must stick with his affirmation to not feel bad from buying this CPU
- He's actually right.

We could set some tests to see the feasibility of his affirmations. But sincerely? I think it's hard to argue with basically all websites, reviews and everything.

Hard to believe JimmyBean would be right, and all websites: Anandtech, Xtremesystems, Tomshardware, Madshrimps, Guru3d, etc etc etc, are wrong.
 
dunno about the motherboard.
4100 would be faster...
well, it's got -
l3 cache,
larger instruction support e.g. aes, avx etc
higher base clockrate and turbo.....compared to the athlon.
you said 'everything' what does that actually cover? e.g. gaming, web surfing, 3d rendering. the 4100 should be able to do everything the athlon does. the 4100 will get the job done unless you're pushing the cpu, then you'd be better off with a sandy bridge core i5/i3. imo it's a bad gaming cpu - for a similar price (i3 2100) or a little higher price (i3 2120, i5 2400), or cheaper (pentium g860) a better gaming cpu can be had. the oc makes difference only in every day app performance, not much in gaming. it'll match with the gts 450 well. if you want to put something like a radeon 6850/7770/6870 in that pc you'd benefit more from a core i3, at least. power consumption would be a high for the overclocked cpu, if that's a concern. as long as you play gpu bound games, the cpu won't be a major issue. here are two articles that explored fx 4100 (among others) gaming performance:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html
 

christop

Distinguished
tomshardware has purchasing influencers

basically sales men

go on get conned into buying the lesser product



toms review is biased

Man do you work for AMD or something? You are raving about the 4100 as if it is the beast chip in the whole history of chips. You should back up your chatter with more than one benchmark software and other real world apps. O and when you use 3dmark make sure the gpus are running at the same speed. I have seen your other post about your 4100 and they are total bs as your gpu speed are different. If you think Toms is so biased go to another site and troll people. :lol:
 

christop

Distinguished
Dude I saw your benchmarks and they are bs. Your gpu speeds were different with the 4100 and the I5. You overclocked your gpu with the 4100 or under clocked the gpu with the I5. Then you say the 4100 stomps everything. No one is trying to take wins away from AMD. Where is your proof?
 
its better than every i3 and can keep up and beat i5 2500k

how can the proof be argued with ??

how long can intel fans keep their fingers in their ears for ?
Where is the proof? Please point us to any professional/semi-professional review that shows the FX quad beating an i5-2500K in ANYTHING.

If we're all living in Plato's cave watching a shadow-puppet show performed by Intel, then show us the light! All you've given us so far is a 3DMark bench you did yourself.

I've said this before, but I dislike Intel greatly. I would much prefer to buy AMD, but I'm too budget-conscious to put my money toward an inferior CPU with no upgrade path.
 
dude, you're hijacking this thread... i'll reply only this once (hopefully i'll get it right):
your config is different from the other two. you have higher size and speed system memory (16 gb vs 8 gb and 4 gb respectively). your gfx card is overclocked. these two raised 3dmark scores. if you go into details, the differences become clearer. your overclocked gfx card got majority of the higher score, not your cpu. if you check the physics test, you'll see that the i5 and i7's 6870s score much higher - that's because the fx 4100 holds back your gpu even if it's overclocked. when only the gpu is used, the fps scores go up and raise the final score.
edit: i suspect that the deciding factor on higher score is not the cpu. besides, the comparison is quite unbalanced. a slightly higher synthetic benchmark number is easily negligible. hehe
 

ohiou_grad_06

Distinguished
Jimmy, cmon man, you expect people to believe that? It looks like you cherry picked the results. Your own links for i5 and i7 show that those computers may have problems. Pick one with a healthy score and compare again. And we are not talking about GPU here, so put that part aside. We are ONLY speaking of CPU.

I'm an AMD guy myself, but get real fx4100 beating an i5? Kind of stretching it.

To the rest of you, i5 might be tempting depending on cost. How good is i3? I gotta be honest I know the specs and reviews of i3 are good, but considering I've got a quad core processor now, going back to a dual core, even one with hyperthreading, feels like it would be a downgrade. Just don't know that I'm thrilled about budget options out there.
 
My advice would be to get a Phenom II quad core, or even Six core. instead of the FX 4100. None of the FX "Bull Dozer" chips turned out to perform like anyone really expected. I am not satisfied with my FX 6100 Six core. and when i build my next build. It will be Intel
 


!00% Affirmative!