Better Option: AMD FX 4100 or Phenom II X4 960T...

[dmoney1980]

For a mid level gaming system? This would be for a new build for one of my friends. He's never had a gaming PC before. Due to his limited budget, he plans on hooking up the PC to his 60" DLP for now, so this would be for gaming at 1080p. We dont have a GPU picked out yet, but I'm thinking that I'll find something here in FS/FT in the $180-$200 range (6950 / 5870 2GB)

The reason for this chocie of CPU's? I have a MC near me, and both cPU's are going for $99 along with a discount off the mobo.

Thanks in advance

 

[polyzp]

The 960T is on a whole other level. So in this case the 960T is the better choice.

However, the FX 6100 is more equivalent to the 960T, so if your thinking about going FX this is the chip you should look at.

 

[dmoney1980]

strange, I see your post is before mine LOL. So you're saying the 960t? Even though both are quad core and the FX is 600mhz faster stock?

 

[Magic Carpet]

Are they equal in price? If so, 960T.

 

[dmoney1980]

Are they equal in price?

yes, both are $99

 

[Magic Carpet]

yes, both are $99

Even though, an oc'ed 4100 might give you a few more frames in a few games, 960T has stronger cores and has a chance to unlock 2 extra cores. I say, go for it.

Unless you require AVX, FMA, it's a no brainer.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Even though, an oc'ed 4100 might give you a few more frames in a few games, 960T has stronger cores and has a chance to unlock 2 extra cores. I say, go for it.

Unless you require AVX, FMA, it's a no brainer.

+1

 

[Rvenger]

If you can get the fx6100 for $130 I would swing for that. 960t is a good choice but when I bought one, it didn't unlock.

 

[BD231]

960T is vastly superior to the 4100 and 6100, go for four real cores.

 

[dmoney1980]

so the fx 4100 is not a true 4 core?

 

[nanaki333]

so the fx 4100 is not a true 4 core?

it's more like a dual core with HT

 

[Magic Carpet]

In short, FX 4100 consists of two modules, 2 cores sharing its resources, making each core somewhat castrated.

 

[blckgrffn]

In short, FX 4100 consists of two modules, 2 cores sharing its resources, making each core somewhat castrated.

Yeah. The FPU is stronger in FX but there is only one per every two "cores" whereas each core in the Phenom II line has a comparatively weaker FPU.

It could have been awesome, but some design compromises did just that, compromised the performance of the FPU and put AMD in the uncomfortable position of having "new" chips that only out performed their former offerings in niche cases or at a very high number of threads.

If the 6100 and the 960t were the same price we might have a debate... but the 4100 vs the 960t is really not much of a contest IMHO. They are basically going to be even for many tasks but the potential upside on the 960t is huge.

I have been contemplating picking up another with a free board to help sell my 830 P2 but that wasn't in my computer parts budget for the month We'll see what April brings...

it's more like a dual core with HT

It is better than that, which is why AMD obviously wants us to think of each module as two cores... its just that each core is so weak anyway. Even when reviews have turned off the module "sharing" and trimmed an eight thread FX to four, performance hasn't scaled that well.

 

[BD231]

4100 is a dual core, 6100 is a tri-core. A typical cpu core has 1 FPU and 1 Integer unit. What amd did was add 1 extra integer unit for a total of two per every floating point unit. Basically what this does is overload the FPU with excess traffic and confuse most modern software to a point of diminishing returns. In some cases it works, in most cases it doesn't. When it doesn't you're sitting on a dual core with IPC similar to performance we had over three years ago. The process tech used to make it was immature and has some pretty horrendous power consumption issues as well, so when you overclock to compensate for the shortcomings your power consumption goes far beyond that of even previous generation chips just to achieve the same performance we've had for some time now.

It's an ugly duck at the moment, traditional cores give you a lot more performance where it counts for the dollar.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I'd go with the FX if only because it'd be fun to overclock...

 

[pelov]

Scales up rather well, unfortunately the Bulldozer design doesn't scale down very well and that's because both Intel and AMD have chips in the same price range that are better. Case in point, the 960T and the FX4100.

strange, I see your post is before mine LOL. So you're saying the 960t? Even though both are quad core and the FX is 600mhz faster stock?

Don't look at the clock speed. They are two completely different architectures so comparing clock speed is next to useless. Both will overclock very well but the 960T will give you better performance and has a chance of unlocking to 5 or 6 cores if you're lucky

 

[dmoney1980]

cool, thanks for the info!

 

[nenforcer]

This should really be a non-issue. While the 4100 isn't a BAD chip by any means, the fact that both chips function on an AM3+ platform makes it better to go with the 960T in the short term, with an upgrade path to Piledriver FX (AMD FX2?) chips when they come out later this fall.

 

[Darren43]

How about the 4170 or 6200 as opposed to 4100 and 6100? Should these be any better?

Both are on Newegg now.

 

[daveybrat]

I have the 960T from a Microcenter Deal myself. I am able to unlock it successfully to a 6-Core cpu at 3.2GHz with no problems. I'd say the 960T is the better option by far.

 

[AtenRa]

FX4100 vs 960T go for the 960T but, I would get the 6100 and OC it.

Since both the 4100 and 6100 are multiplier unlocked you dont need to go for the 4170 or 6200.

 

[LoneNinja]

How about the 4170 or 6200 as opposed to 4100 and 6100? Should these be any better?

Both are on Newegg now.

Better at stock speed, but if overclocking they won't be any better, they are the same chips just set to higher default clock speeds out of the factory, no evidence that they overclock better that I've seen.

It takes an FX 4100 @ 4.5Ghz to match the performance of a Phenom II @ 4.0Ghz when gaming, so either a FX 4100 or Phenom II 960T will offer similar results once overclocked. The 960T does have the advantage of a possible unlock to 6 cores if that matters.

 

[eternalone]

This is all you need to know:

It turns out that the budget-oriented Sandy Bridge-based Pentium family performs very well in games. Specifically, Intel's $80 Pentium G630 beat the FX-4100, -6100, and -8120 in our recent sub-$200 CPU gaming comparison. In fact, it finished right on par with the Phenom II X4 955.

In other words if you want to save money and are on a budget get the G630 or the G850 that is on sale at Frys for $79.99. FX-4100, -6100, and -8120 are beat by intels low end in otherwords AMD is not even an option for budget minded consumers.

Look at these benchmarks:

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

These Sandybridge pentium Cpus are no joke.

 

[dmoney1980]

I have the 960T from a Microcenter Deal myself. I am able to unlock it successfully to a 6-Core cpu at 3.2GHz with no problems. I'd say the 960T is the better option by far.

which motherboard did you pick from the bundle?

_________________________________________________

wow, good info eternalone!

 

[blckgrffn]

which motherboard did you pick from the bundle?

_________________________________________________

wow, good info eternalone!

I'd get the Gigabyte 970 board at a minimum, there has been some frustration with the free GB board (it's just uber-cheap) and the 970 UD3 has the kind of power delivery and such that you want. Well worth the money over the ASUS board, IMHO.

I have that free GB board and a 1045t, it's fine but I wish I had picked up the better board so I could more thoroughly exploit this chip