Is FX 6100 really that bad?

[frozentundra123456]

You know I get tired of people bashing how "bad" the FX chips are all the intel fanboys and shit. Yes I have a 2500k and it's a good chip but listen, if that's not an option a 6100 would be FINE for gaming. My brother has a 4100, together with 8gb of 1866 ram and a AMD 5xxx series video card. He plays BF 3 flawlessly, runs perfectly man. A 6100 is fast enough to run games don't listen to people that say you can't game with FX series chips they have no idea what they're talking about. They read what other people say about the chip and add in their 2 cents about the claim to exaggerate it more.

I knew this thread was going to turn into people posting their favorite benchmark for their chip they support, put your d**ks away. There are better options for gaming other than the FX chips but if you're on a budget they will game FINE.

The reason people keep bashing bulldozer is people keep opening threads asking if it is really that bad. They get the same answer: for gaming and most other applications it is.

And I dont think anyone here said you could not game on the FX6100. They just said there are better options from either AMD or Intel.

 

[Chiropteran]

The reason people keep bashing bulldozer is people keep opening threads asking if it is really that bad. They get the same answer: for gaming and most other applications it is.

Nonsense. For gaming, you are either GPU limited and the performance is the same or within 5% for all CPU, or you are talking about a difference at low res where the AMD system performs fine with no lag and the intel system performs "even better" but effectively the same due to monitor limitations. Or you are looking at something silly like quad 7970 crossfire setups where trying to save $150 on the CPU isn't worth the loss of 5 fps.

AMD FX isn't that bad.

Intel is better, but is boosting your average fps from 100 to 130 really worth spending an extra $150?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Nonsense. For gaming, you are either GPU limited and the performance is the same or within 5% for all CPU, or you are talking about a difference at low res where the AMD system performs fine with no lag and the intel system performs "even better" but effectively the same due to monitor limitations. Or you are looking at something silly like quad 7970 crossfire setups where trying to save $150 on the CPU isn't worth the loss of 5 fps.

AMD FX isn't that bad.

Intel is better, but is boosting your average fps from 100 to 130 really worth spending an extra $150?

Untrue.

There are cpu limited games where bulldozer can't maintain decent fps.

While it's ok in many titles less cpu bound, it's still awful for SLI/CF no need to go Tri or even Quad to see the performance loss bulldozer provides since it's often already holding back single gpu configs.

5 fps is an imaginary number you made up while posting.

 

[Maximilian]

Nonsense. For gaming, you are either GPU limited and the performance is the same or within 5% for all CPU, or you are talking about a difference at low res where the AMD system performs fine with no lag and the intel system performs "even better" but effectively the same due to monitor limitations. Or you are looking at something silly like quad 7970 crossfire setups where trying to save $150 on the CPU isn't worth the loss of 5 fps.

AMD FX isn't that bad.

Intel is better, but is boosting your average fps from 100 to 130 really worth spending an extra $150?

Here we go again

Do you never tire of this?

 

[Bman123]

Nonsense. For gaming, you are either GPU limited and the performance is the same or within 5% for all CPU, or you are talking about a difference at low res where the AMD system performs fine with no lag and the intel system performs "even better" but effectively the same due to monitor limitations. Or you are looking at something silly like quad 7970 crossfire setups where trying to save $150 on the CPU isn't worth the loss of 5 fps.

AMD FX isn't that bad.

Intel is better, but is boosting your average fps from 100 to 130 really worth spending an extra $150?

5 FPS lmao, that is some funny stuff right there

 

[Bman123]

here is the 8150 vs i3 2100
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=289
8 core (cough) vs 2 core with hyper threading, look at the gaming benchmarks. The only thing the 8150 beasts in is the multi threaded stuff. Now take away 2 cores (cough) from the 8150 and there is the 6100

 

[AtenRa]

While the guy you were replying to does exhibit extreme bias, if in that 17%, the gpu becomes the bottleneck, something magical would happen. the values would be the same for both systems.

Out of curiosity, why do you believe i was bias choosing the FX6100 over the Phenom 1045t for Gaming at 1080p when they cost the same to the OP ????

 

[Hubb1e]

At LOW settings?!

Lol, I played Witcher 2 with much better than low settings (except ubersampling) and I maintained near 60fps with my FX6100 at 4.4GHz and a 6950.

4000+ posts and you still don't understand that when measuring CPU performance in a game you set the graphics to low? We're not talking about GPUs here, we're discussing CPUs and if the CPU can keep the game above 60fps then you aren't CPU limited in that game. You can always remove a GPU limit by reducing settings to get at what the CPU is capable of.

 

[BD231]

960t

 

[MustangSVT]

I was thinking AMD route was pointless until I saw some deals at micro center. Its just so cheap with free mobo deals.

If you are really really tight for budget I guess u can go AMD. but if you are getting 7850 and trying to argue getting amd, no one is stopping you.

Numerous reviews clearly show why intel dominates amd currently.

/thread

 

[Magic Carpet]

A used i3 will give you better experience / perf per $ in a majority of games. 6100 is rather a poor choice for games. If you play older games, this is especially true. Whether you need that extra performance is another question. You decide. Like I said earlier, 1045T/6100 are about the same in games. At stock clocks 6100 runs cooler and uses a bit less watts but the difference isn't very noticeable. 960T might be a comparable option if you get to unlock the extra 2 cores. In fact if you do, that could probably be your best option.

Buy what you like, buy what you can afford

 

[Don Karnage]

Did anyone ask why not an I3? Its going to be the best gaming processor compared to an FX. DO NOT buy a 760. Its a dead socket

This board

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157271

this processor

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115077

2120 has a 15 dollar off code making it 102

 

[Magic Carpet]

Did anyone ask why not an I3? Its going to be the best gaming processor compared to an FX. DO NOT buy a 760. Its a dead socket

This board

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157271

this processor

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115077

2120 has a 15 dollar off code making it 102

If I were assembling a gaming computer on a budget, I would get this combo as well.

 

[gibbs007]

But I wouldn't use it for gaming only, but some video editing where more cores are better.

 

[Magic Carpet]

But I wouldn't use it for gaming only, but some video editing where more cores are better.

In that case, you have to make compromises. 2600K is the best of both worlds but pricey. If I were you, I'd seriously consider snatching one when Ivy Bridge comes out, even if that involves getting a part-time job. Price should be more competitive then. But ultimately, you decide.

 

[Chiropteran]

4000+ posts and you still don't understand that when measuring CPU performance in a game you set the graphics to low? We're not talking about GPUs here, we're discussing CPUs and if the CPU can keep the game above 60fps then you aren't CPU limited in that game.

How is it that you don't understand that the guy is asking for advice on a CPU to use in real life to run real programs, not to measure meaningless benchmarks with graphic settings turned down lower than normal?

The goal isn't to take a game that normally plays fine and break it enough that it becomes CPU limited. The goal is to take the games you play, see if they play at decent FPS with each CPU. If there is no apparent difference, take whatever is cheapest or smells the nicest.

If there is a meaningful difference (hint: there won't be for a cheap budget build), then you might have a reason to pay extra for a stronger CPU.

You can always remove a GPU limit by reducing settings to get at what the CPU is capable of.

Yeah, of course you can- if you want completely worthless results that don't match reality.

 

[Chiropteran]

While it's ok in many titles less cpu bound, it's still awful for SLI/CF no need to go Tri or even Quad to see the performance loss bulldozer provides since it's often already holding back single gpu configs.

I'm on a budget

it's still awful for SLI/CF no need to go Tri or even Quad to see the performance loss bulldozer provides

Why exactly do you think someone on a budget would even consider SLI or crossfire? It makes no sense at all. If you are going to spend $500+ on video cards, then go ahead, spend the extra $100-$200 to get the better CPU. No question.

If you are on a budget, that usually doesn't mean spending $500+ on the video cards alone. And for the vast majority of games, without a super high end video card or crossfire setup, the 6100 isn't going to hold you back.

 

[gibbs007]

Recalculating things, I can get i5 2310 + ASRock H61M/U3S3 for the same money as AMD (960T, 1045T, 6100) + Asrock 970 Extreme 3. Because, there is no need for aftermarket cooler (no overclocking) and lower PSU. The only problem I have, is that that motherboard is low-end, will CPU perform slower than on a better H67 board? Stock i5 2310 is faster than overclocked AMD, right?

 

[Chiropteran]

Recalculating things, I can get i5 2310 + ASRock H61M/U3S3 for the same money as AMD (960T, 1045T, 6100) + Asrock 970 Extreme 3. Because, there is no need for aftermarket cooler (no overclocking) and lower PSU. The only problem I have, is that that motherboard is low-end, will CPU perform slower than on a better H67 board?

Do you live near a Microcenter? I'd forget about the 2310 (didn't even know this model existed), and just pay a few extra for a 2500k. Or if you buy it from Microcenter, get the combo deal and pay less than you would for the 2310+motherboard.

What exactly are you thinking when it comes to power supplies? While an AMD CPU will probably use more power than a similar level intel, it's usually not the kind of difference that would actually save you anything on a power supply. you should always over spec your power supply some anyway, you shouldn't plan to run too close to the rated max, and the minor 20-40W difference between your intel and AMD build options shouldn't be enough to push you into a significantly more expensive power supply.

Also, why would you overclock the AMD system? You didn't mention what video card you were thinking of getting, but on any budget build your bottleneck is most likely going to be the video card. Overclocking the CPU will not improve performance in that case.

Stock i5 2310 is faster than overclocked AMD, right?

Very debatable, depends how high you overclock and which AMD CPU you are talking about But again, if you are doing a budget build, it's not going to matter which CPU is faster. You'd need to be considering $300+ video cards before the slowest AMD FX CPU would even begin to hold you back.

People are posting benchmarks made with $600 video cards and giving a rather deceptive picture of the real performance you would see.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-6.html

Not really much a difference when you use a 6950 or lesser video card.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Recalculating things, I can get i5 2310 + ASRock H61M/U3S3 for the same money as AMD (960T, 1045T, 6100) + Asrock 970 Extreme 3. Because, there is no need for aftermarket cooler (no overclocking) and lower PSU. The only problem I have, is that that motherboard is low-end, will CPU perform slower than on a better H67 board?

No, it will be about the same. I'd get a used P67/2500K combo though. Check other sub-forum, somebody might offer you a deal you can't refuse

Stock i5 2310 is faster than overclocked AMD, right?

No, an overclocked AMD part (be it 6100, 1045T or 960T) will be close to that and definitely faster in video tasks. However, it will also run hotter and use more watts. Could be important if you plan on 24/7 activity.

 

[gibbs007]

Please, don't tell me what I can buy in MC, because I'm from Europe. GPU would be HD7850. I was thinking of getting a 650W PSU (80+bronze) for AMD, but for stock Intel 550W would probably enough.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Please, don't tell me what I can buy in MC, because I'm from Europe.

So am I. I shop on eBuyer, mostly.

GPU would be HD7850. I was thinking of getting a 650W PSU (80+bronze) for AMD, but for stock Intel 550W would probably enough.

If you don't want an i3 2120 but can't get an i5 2500K. Why not get an 8120 then, price-wise it should be similar to 2310. But you will have "flexible" performance at least, at the cost of higher power consumption, though.

 

[blckgrffn]

In that case, you have to make compromises. 2600K is the best of both worlds but pricey. If I were you, I'd seriously consider snatching one when Ivy Bridge comes out, even if that involves getting a part-time job. Price should be more competitive then. But ultimately, you decide.

Seriously? A part time job to pull down a computer part? When clearly there is already a decent budget for parts on the table? :wtf:

Life is too freaking short man, or you need to take the sonz route to pull the cash in ridiculously quickly. Because the 6800U/2600k is totally worth it.

OP, personally, I hate getting mATX for the type of build you are doing. On the other hand, that board looks fine - it has the good stuff like SATA3 and USB3 - I'd just be sure to buy an 8GB ram kit off the bat as you aren't going to be adding memory later

Other than that, the 500W+ PSU will do you fine, that i5 is going to be very efficient and provide you with great performance. That's what I would do if I were you

 

[Magic Carpet]

Life is short, I agree... so make the most of it. Get what you want or... work trying ;-)

 

[Chiropteran]

Please, don't tell me what I can buy in MC, because I'm from Europe. GPU would be HD7850. I was thinking of getting a 650W PSU (80+bronze) for AMD, but for stock Intel 550W would probably enough.

There is no reason at all that you couldn't use a quality 550W power supply with an AMD build. FX-8120, dual Radeon 5830, 2 hard drives etc is my main home system. Power draw from the wall measured with a kill-a-watt is less than 300W while bitcoin mining on both video cards, and even while running prime95 on all cores power usage is barely above 400W. Assuming you will be running a single video card, a 550W ps is more than sufficient. The 7850 will use a lot less power than my dual 5830s, and also note that FX-8120 uses more power than the FX-6100.

The power usage of bulldozer is a negative, yes, but it's been blown way out of proportion and it's really not a big deal in reality.

All that said, the 7850 isn't all that "low end". It could well be enough to be CPU limited by an FX CPU, it's right around the borderline according to the above toms article. I'd really just try to get enough money to build a 2500k, only a little bit more than the 2310 you were looking at.

Sorry about you living in Europe, I didn't realize newegg was an option over there.