Is FX 6100 really that bad?

[gibbs007]

I'm on a budget, so I'm looking for a cheap cpu for gaming and other stuff. i3 is not an option, because I need 4 cores. Is FX 6100 bad for gaming (BF3 multiplayer) or is it a good option? Or I'm better off with buying a X6 1045T?

 

[guskline]

Tell us more about the hardware you have.

 

[Magic Carpet]

1045T. Unless you can get 6100 real cheap. Performance per $ should be on Thuban's side otherwise.

 

[gibbs007]

I'm buying a new computer with HD7850, 8GB, 60GB SSD. It's going to be used for gaming. Would FX 6100 be a bottleneck for 7850, and would it be good for gaming on 1080p.

 

[Magic Carpet]

If gaming is what you do. I'd get an Intel (2500K) part instead. 6100/1045T should be both some 30% slower in games.

 

[daveybrat]

I'm buying a new computer with HD7850, 8GB, 60GB SSD. It's going to be used for gaming. Would FX 6100 be a bottleneck for 7850, and would it be good for gaming on 1080p.

I would rather have the 1045T or the 960T processor over the 6100 although i'm sure that cpu would be fine for gaming as well, just not quite as fast.

 

[AtenRa]

For gaming the FX6100(3600MHz) must be faster at default clocks than Phenom 1045t(2700MHz).

I would get the FX6100 and OC at 4GHz with default heat-sink or higher with a better heat-sink.

 

[gibbs007]

If gaming is what you do. I'd get an Intel (2500K) part instead. 6100/1045T should be both some 30% slower in games.

I know i5 2500k is the best cpu, but if I had the money for it, I wouldn't be asked for much cheaper alternatives, would I?

Would i5 750 be better than FX 6100?

 

[AtenRa]

Would i5 750 be better than FX 6100?

I will say that both of them overclocked will be fine for any game. Perhaps i5 750 will be faster in some games and FX6100 in others. For BF3 both CPUs O/Ced will be fine and not a bottleneck for the HD7850 at 1080p.

 

[gibbs007]

Am I better off buying a Bulldozer, or X4 960T (which is pretty old technology) for the same money.

 

[AtenRa]

Between the two, personally i would get the FX6100

 

[Rvenger]

FX6100 is a good performer with a modest overclock of 4ghz. I have mine running at only 1.25v. Just make sure you get the MS patch and update Windows in the process. It will run much better that way. Also, get the latest drivers as well.

 

[pelov]

Am I better off buying a Bulldozer, or X4 960T (which is pretty old technology) for the same money.

Without question the 960T. You're gaming so you need the FPUs and AVX doesn't matter, go with the chip that has the better performance and the ability to unlock to a full 6 cores. With a modest OC (most people can hit 4.0 on the 960T) you'll get far better gaming performance than the 6100 OC'd. If you're OCing the 960T remember that it's a Thuban and benefits from a FSB increase as well as multiplier bump. If you succeed in unlocking a 5th or 6th core than it distances itself even further.

In this case the 960T is both cheaper and a better gaming performer.

 

[sm625]

Would i5 750 be better than FX 6100?

Yes. The page linked below is the best comparison I know of. It puts i5-2400 in context with thuban and the i5-7xx. It also helps you estimate the effect of OC for each processor class. It doesnt have BD on there but BD 6 core BD is slower than 6 core thuban, which is on there.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i5-2500-2400-2300_7.html

 

[blckgrffn]

Without question the 960T. You're gaming so you need the FPUs and AVX doesn't matter, go with the chip that has the better performance and the ability to unlock to a full 6 cores. With a modest OC (most people can hit 4.0 on the 960T) you'll get far better gaming performance than the 6100 OC'd. If you're OCing the 960T remember that it's a Thuban and benefits from a FSB increase as well as multiplier bump. If you succeed in unlocking a 5th or 6th core than it distances itself even further.

In this case the 960T is both cheaper and a better gaming performer.

I don't think "most' hit 4 Ghz w/six cores. In any case, 4Ghz on thuban isn't "modest" - that's like saying ~4.5ghz on a BD is "modest." You are going to be well into extra volts and power suckage with most chips at that point, as much as I have observed others pushing that envelope. Or are you saying ~3.6 ghz or something on that 960t? I may have misinterpreted what you were saying there...

Sadly, yeah, I think this is till the "correct" answer though. Based on your CPU choices as listed, I assume you are shopping @ MC? Too bad you missed the 8120 deal, that would have probably gotten me to recommend that As it stands now you can get the 960t with a nice Gigabyte 970 UD3 board for ~$160, you won't be doing that anywhere online... That board should be solid for OC'ing as well.

 

[gibbs007]

I'm not buying at Microcenter, because I live in Europe.

Yes. The page linked below is the best comparison I know of. It puts i5-2400 in context with thuban and the i5-7xx. It also helps you estimate the effect of OC for each processor class. It doesnt have BD on there but BD 6 core BD is slower than 6 core thuban, which is on there.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...00-2300_7.html

But all of those tests are at 1680x1050, wouldn't there be a difference at 1080p?

 

[blckgrffn]

I'm not buying at Microcenter, because I live in Europe

Haha, I guess not

The choices you had listed out simply seemed to correspond with their latest flier:

http://www.microcenter.com/specials/promotions/AMDbundlePROMO.html

My mistake

Oh man, I see MC lowered the 960t to $100... very nice...

 

[gibbs007]

I can get 960T for the same price as 6100, and I can get 1045T for 10€ more. If I can't unlock 960T (bad cores) then it would probably be between this:
960T @ 3.8Ghz
1045T @ 3.5GHz
6100@ 4.5Ghz (some say even more with good cooling)
Which one for gaming and some video editing? I'm coming from Athlon 64 x2 6000+, so anything will be much better.

 

[pelov]

I'm not buying at Microcenter, because I live in Europe.



But all of those tests are at 1680x1050, wouldn't there be a difference at 1080p?

Uh... yes and no, but for all intents and purposes it's a very resounding no.

Gaming benchmarks are done on 2 scales: low end and extremely high end. The reason for that is due to the reviewer correctly eliminating the GPU as a factor in the tests (as much as possible) and that's either done when you tune your resolution and settings low or it's done at the very high end where (usually) multiple GPUs are tested at very high settings and resolutions such that the processor becomes the bottleneck. On both accounts the new Bulldozer chips lose to their Intel counterparts and the 2 and 3 module chips lose out to 4 and 6 core Denebs/Thubans.

Sorry, I meant 4.0ghz on 4 cores on a 960T seems to be quite common. I'd guess the 3.6-3.7 range on 5/6 cores would be the expected range.

At 1080p you're likely GPU limited, thus nearly all the mid/high end desktop processors will perform the same and therefore makes a worthless benchmark. There is always a slight difference, but that difference is usually magnified when lowering or increasing settings/resolution. Some game devs tend to favor one CPU manufacturer (or architecture) over another, and a prime example would be Blizzard's titles. Although they're threaded, albeit very poorly, they tend to favor higher IPC and as a result you'll see the 8150 losing to a core i3 or SB Pentium.

In general, if you want gaming performance from a CPU you'll go Intel. If you're buying AMD then skip over Bulldozer and get yourself a Thuban or Deneb for cheap. The stock is running dry on the 6 core Thubans, but the 960T is a fantastic chip for cheap.

 

[Maximilian]

I know i5 2500k is the best cpu, but if I had the money for it, I wouldn't be asked for much cheaper alternatives, would I?

Would i5 750 be better than FX 6100?

i5 750 thrashes the FX 8150 so yes it would beat the FX6100 easily.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=434

For gaming you preferably need an intel chip. Failing that the 960T which you can unlock to 6 cores is a decent bet, its better than the FX6100.

 

[thilanliyan]

If gaming is what you do. I'd get an Intel (2500K) part instead. 6100/1045T should be both some 30% slower in games.

Depends on at what res and settings and what games, if he's GPU limited he won't be 30% slower than a 2500k.

I agree though, if you can afford it, a 2500k is a better buy.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Hold out for another month or two, I'll be selling my i5-2500k once Ivy Bridge comes out. I'm sure several others will do the same.

 

[gibbs007]

Maybe in other contries, but here in Slovenia, only CPUs you can buy used are old Athlons and maybe one i5.

 

[blckgrffn]

Maybe in other contries, but here in Slovenia, only CPUs you can buy used are old Athlons and maybe one i5.

Sorry, but this made me laugh a bit. I was picturing some lonely, lonely Athlons looking for a home and then a smooth, confident i5 who knows it's only a matter of time before he is back in the game

Yeah, any of these CPUs is going to be a pretty solid upgrade from where you are currently at. Pick what works best for you and your budget and roll on Frankly, I wouldn't even blame you for picking up the 6100. It is new and shiny and all that. If you want "new" it is there, even if it is not going to give you the best absolute performance.

I'd argue that it is a better choice than anyone who picked up a Williamete (sp?) P4 instead of a P3. At least you aren't gonig to be stuck with a funky platform, the X6 and FX will land you on the same motherboard. If power $$$ is a concern, the FX should idle better and use about the same when you OC both under load.

Given the rest of your specs, you are going to rock 1080p regardless.

 

[gibbs007]

Looking at benchmarks (X6 1100T vs FX 8150) I'm leaning towards 1045T, but I'm curious what would happen if 6100 was overclocked to 4.5Ghz. Would it be better than 1100T?
Are there any benchmarks of 6100?