Phenom ii x4 965 or fx 6100

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

CrypticBox

Honorable
Sep 17, 2012
130
0
10,690
I'm building a gaming pc on a pretty tight budget, and I can't decide between these cpus. I will be starting a youtube channel so multitasking capability with fraps, games, and skype will be a necessity. My question is this. At stock speeds, which cpu would give me better fps while recording? In case you need to know, I'll be pairing it with 8gb ddr3 1600 memory and a 7850 1gb.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I would like to side with Onus on this one. I currently have a FX8150 and i am not very happy with it in terms of frames and overall preformance. It would be more worthwhile for you to get an intel CPU imo because games don't take advantage of all the cores the AMD CPU's have to offer and when it come down to it an i3 or i5 will beat an AMD core for core (Almost always).

intel is more expensive, but in the long run i think you will be more happy with the decision
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


If I went with an i3, could that record games with fraps with other things running in the background like internet browser tabs or skype?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Not enough cores (2) on the i3 and it can't be overclocked.

Your better off with a Phenom II x4 (4 cores) and overclock it

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@Onus What? He is not building a new system.

@Cryptic Nay. The i3's drawback of having two cores shows when having multiple intensive programs open. The phenom II x4 965, with it's four cores, will handle the workload much better.

Anyway, the 965 BE is, at the moment in sales, £10-£20 less than the i3 2100. It performs just as well in single threaded games/apps, but pulls ahead when multithreading is in the equation.

So yeah. Get a 965. You'll be happy wit' it.

Aaaaaand, as I say waaaay too often; The 965 BE is only 25% slower overall than the i5 2500k, but costs half the price; 965 BE = £70-£80, the i5 2500k = £160+
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The only budget chip I think I would trust for what you want to do is the FX6300, but I'd really recommend you jump to an i5, even if it is the cheapest one.

I know you have a tight budget, but if your solution won't do what you want, then you can have that for zero.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A Phenom II 965 @ 4.0GHZ matches an i3 in single thread performance, and crushes it substantially in 4 threaded performance. Since the 965 is cheaper than the i3 currently (by a fairly large margin)... That would be the direction I would go. Now, if you're afraid of overclocking, by all means, go for the i3.

I do all of those things the OP mentioned with the rig in my signature, it does its job well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I just checked out a couple of youtube videos of Battlefield 3 multiplayer gameplay on identical settings (full ultra 1080p). Both videos were recorded with gtx 560 ti's, but one had a phenom ii x4 965 and the other one used an fx 6100. The one with the 6100 maintained 45-60 fps while recording, but the one with the phenom ii x4 only had around 32 fps while recording. According to those videos, I'm inclined to go with the 6100....Aside from a simple tier table from Tom's hardware, is there any solid reason to take the 965 over the 6100?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, Battlefield 3 is one of the rare exceptions to the rules when it comes to gaming. It is one game known to use at least 6 cores of the processor.

Now that being said, theres something else to keep in mind. Multiplayer results vary greatly, thats why you don't see many tech sites using MP benchmarks in order to rate a CPU or video card. A server might be laggy, and one might not. Or one may be laggy and be completely stable 5 minutes later. You can't really get consistent results from MP benchmarks.

As far as a reason to take the 965 over the 6100. Bulldozer FX's (6100/4100s/4170/8120s/8150s) Have a very Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde nature to them. Really, I would be fine recommending one if you weren't afraid of overclocking. But there are some things (applications and games) that the FX CPUs have been known to perform worse than prior gen Phenom IIs. Now, if you were looking at the PileDriver FX-6300 (the new generation) those are more worthy successors to AMD's older design. But with no overclocking, my opinion is if you're set on AMD, the Phenom II is going to offer more consistent performance overall.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I also just checked out another pair of vids for Witcher 2 with the same specs as I listed in my previous post. The fx 6100 got 52 fps whereas the phenom only got 35. Nevertheless, you say the phenom provides more consistent performance and I'm inclined to believe you since it is the rig in your signature and you clearly have a lot of personal experience with it...I guess I'm still very torn, but am leaning more towards the phenom at this point...

I should also mention that I am not really looking at Piledriver at this point. The 6300 is a good 40 bucks out of my budget and considering I'm unemployed and in highschool its not like I can just put off ordering for another week until I have the 40 dollars 😛
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, Witcher 2 is not a game I'm that familiar with. As far as the consistent performance, eh, heres one article showing some of the differences, yes, its using an 8150 not the 6100, but incidentally, it also shows you how these games are doing with an 8 core CPU up against a quad (Phenom II), for good measure they threw in the 1100T Phenom II which is a 6 core.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

As far as personal experience, for the record, I don't own a 6100 myself, so I couldn't tell you what my personal results are for it. But yea, I have a quite a few games I've played. Metro 2033, BF3, BFPlay4Free, all of the COD games (including Black Ops2). All of them, by my standards run flawlessly @ 1080p.

My ex had an i5-2300 w/ a GTX 460, and TO BE FAIR, at the time I had an overclocked 550 TI, both video cards perform about the same, and neither were up to snuff to max out more modern games at such a high resolution like my 7870 is. Also, the i5-2300 is not really a big reflection on better i5s and even some i3s because they had a terrible clock speed (2.8GHZ)

We played in 1280x1024 at the time... There wasn't any discernible difference in gaming performance of either rigs. I mention it simply because, like you said the budget is tight. If you're looking at a entry-mid level graphics card, you won't see much of a difference buying heavier on the CPU anyway, since you're going to run into a video card limitation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom