Is FX 6100 really that bad?

[blckgrffn]

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

LOL.

I think I know how you meant that (ie, you missed that detail earlier), but holy crap. It could also be read like this, "You don't live in the US, and I realize that sucks for you. I am sorry." Hahaha, awesome. That would so reinforce the US citizen stereotype...

 

[Magic Carpet]

Real-world power consumption should be a bit less, though. The i3 2120 really shines here. AMD stock isn't as bad as this test may make it look like. Different mainboard could have "needlessly" added some 10-20w of wasted power vs Intel. You can also easily undervolt AMD stock and further save power, if you want to. Take all of these tests with a grain of salt. Moral of the story, Intel is more efficient when it comes to power. Fact. If your going to rely on AMD OC, then be prepared for extra heat. You decide.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

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.

Because I was on a budget and pieced together a build over a long period of time? I didn't have the money to go out and drop nearly $2000 on a single shopping cart order... But I was able to piece it together over a period of time, an SSD one week, a screen the next month. Over about 7 months I pieced my sig rig together, starting with a 9800GT with DDR2, A Phenom II 555, and a OEM salvaged HDD.

Just because I can't buy everything I want on the first order doesn't mean I can't continue to order parts as the months tick off and more money comes it.

Assuming you won't upgrade or add later is why people get stuck on inferior platforms or end up selling their initial build.

 

[AtenRa]

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

Excellent post, now we see even smaller resolutions like 1280x1024 and 1024x768.
Are you trolling or what ??

Again, read the OPs questions

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?

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.

Next resolution is 800x600,
Im expecting the next troll to paste some benchmark slides proving that Celeron G620 is faster than FX8150 at 640x480. D:

 

[Chiropteran]

Because I was on a budget and pieced together a build over a long period of time? I didn't have the money to go out and drop nearly $2000 on a single shopping cart order... But I was able to piece it together over a period of time,

No, sorry. Your computer doesn't qualify as "budget" in any sense of the word. Just because you paid your money out slowly over time instead of one big lump sum doesn't change the total amount of cash you burned to build it. A $2000 computer isn't budget. Neither is a $1500 computer. In the days when you can have a complete system for $450 and even add a respectable video card and remain under $700, anything over $800 is high end.

 

[pelov]

Next resolution is 800x600,
Im expecting the next troll to paste some benchmark slides proving that Celeron G620 is faster than FX8150 at 640x480.

Maybe you can explain to Anand why his lower res benchmarks should be thrown out the window because they don't affect the majority of 1080p users.

Alternatively you can tell him that, even though the benchmarks at lower res are worse, it's still an "equally powered" gaming CPU as far as 1080p is concerned.

Then maybe you can get back to us with the answer (or if you're smart you'll have a look at my explanation earlier in this very thread). I think the only thing I've been able to discern from this thread has been that you would suck at doing reviews and giving recommendations and don't yet understand how and why gaming benchmarks are done the way they're done. "Equal" has to do with ceiling and ceiling alone, the BD chips will almost always reach their ceiling before Thuban/Deneb or Intel chips will. If the OP wanted to add a second GPU then maybe you could explain to him why his frame rates stayed practically the same and that would also be at 1080p.

gibbs, the added "cores" in the BD fx6100 don't amount to real cores. The real added bonus you'd get from such a chip would be in the video encoding department and mostly due to the added instruction sets rather than core count, because as was mentioned previously the 1045T is an actual 6 core processor.

It depends on what applications you're using for your workloads and how often you find yourself using them. If it's essentially a workstation with some gaming on the side and your apps can take advantage of BD's AVX/FMA then it may be the better buy, but if you're gaming more and/or your apps don't care for them then you should stick to either the 1045T or the 960T, the latter being my recommendation.

 

[Magic Carpet]

AtenRa,

My point is still valid. Bulldozer is already a bottleneck in some games at higher resolutions.

 

[Rvenger]

Skyrim bulldozer performance is just terrible.

 

[Ferzerp]

The reason I said you were biased, AtenRa, is that you want to benchmark CPUs by benchmarking GPUs because that makes things more favorable for BD.

Your logic is that in a GPU bound scenario, every processor is the same (unless it's a cheaper proc from Intel, then other things matter and BD is better). That's just not the case. When you aren't testing GPUs instead of CPUs, BD falls on its face (and the preliminary ivy bridge numbers increase the disparity). BD works well in 4 or 5 apps, and that is it.

I just don't understand why you want to hide behind GPU benchmarks, because as GPUs improve, the bottleneck will shift back to BD long before it does with SB, and the weakness of your position will be illustrated with more and more clarity.

 

[pelov]

Skyrim bulldozer performance is just terrible.

2 threads I believe. Shows how much IPC still matters in gaming :'( DX11 changes that, but we're still limited by consoles and will be for a while.

 

[Chiropteran]

AtenRa,

My point is still valid. Bulldozer is already a bottleneck in some games at higher resolutions.

Yeah, with an HD 7970. The 7850 might be a different story. As I said above, it's kinda borderline and I won't call it either way, depending on the exact application (game), bulldozer might be holding back a 7850.

As always, money is the key. If you are building a budget system it may not be worth spending an extra $100 to get a few more FPS from a CPU upgrade when you could put that money into an SSD or a better video card instead, and see larger returns.

 

[Chiropteran]

The reason I said you were biased, AtenRa, is that you want to benchmark CPUs by benchmarking GPUs because that makes things more favorable for BD.

Your logic is

Uh, this is a thread about a specific situation, NOT a generic "is bulldozer fast" thread. The OP said he is going to use a 7850, it's not really under debate anymore. While I understand your desire to put intel under the best possible light by using the best possible AMD video card, it's not applicable here. Knowing the video card the OP plans to use, the question is how will THAT card perform with each possible CPU.

Performance under a 7970 or crossfire setup or anything else is largely irrelevant.

 

[pelov]

Yeah, with an HD 7970. The 7850 might be a different story. As I said above, it's kinda borderline and I won't call it either way, depending on the exact application (game), bulldozer might be holding back a 7850.

As always, money is the key. If you are building a budget system it may not be worth spending an extra $100 to get a few more FPS from a CPU upgrade when you could put that money into an SSD or a better video card instead, and see larger returns.

Certainly right about the budget, but it doesn't explain why an FX6100 would be a better gaming CPU If the OP wanted to add a second GPU, upgrade his GPU or both, he'd be stuck with an CPU that would put out fewer frame rates and get stuck before a 960T or an Intel alternative. So there's also the question of long term viability, which is where the instruction sets would help, but that highly depends on specificity of applications and which/how often the OP uses them.

It just doesn't make sense any sense to me to build a gaming CPU with 3 FPUs. They can make great chips where they're worthy of recommendation, but this just isn't one of those times.

 

[Ferzerp]

Uh, this is a thread about a specific situation, NOT a generic "is bulldozer fast" thread. The OP said he is going to use a 7850, it's not really under debate anymore. While I understand your desire to put intel under the best possible light by using the best possible AMD video card, it's not applicable here. Knowing the video card the OP plans to use, the question is how will THAT card perform with each possible CPU.

Performance under a 7970 or crossfire setup or anything else is largely irrelevant.

People that disagree with you aren't automatically blind zealots. If AMD had a decent CPU, we would all be suggesting those over the Intel ones.

Frankly, most of us don't care what company performance comes from, as long as it performs the best. Why people endlessly argue with you is because you blindly push an inferior product, and it gets old reading defense after defense of something that isn't competitive at any current price point.

I don't care if Intel, AMD, Via, Cyrix, whatever makes the fastest part. What I don't understand is what makes a person try to mislead others who ask for advice by pretending that something that performs poorly is really faster when all quantifiable evidence disagrees.

The people that disagree with you don't "hate" AMD. We "hate" poor products. In fact, you'll probably find that right now, every person you like to pretend is just an "AMD hater" would suggest to someone buying a GPU to buy AMD at this point in time.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah, with an HD 7970. The 7850 might be a different story. As I said above, it's kinda borderline and I won't call it either way, depending on the exact application (game), bulldozer might be holding back a 7850.

As always, money is the key. If you are building a budget system it may not be worth spending an extra $100 to get a few more FPS from a CPU upgrade when you could put that money into an SSD or a better video card instead, and see larger returns.

The Sandy Bridge is bottlenecking as well, just clearly not as much as bulldozer is.

 

[MustangSVT]

Excellent post, now we see even smaller resolutions like 1280x1024 and 1024x768.
Are you trolling or what ??

Again, read the OPs questions





Next resolution is 800x600,
Im expecting the next troll to paste some benchmark slides proving that Celeron G620 is faster than FX8150 at 640x480. D:

.... and you are calling HIM a troll?

meh.. im out of this thread gl with new rig op.

 

[blckgrffn]

Yeah, so I am picking up some parts for a buddy later at today @ MC.

A G620 and a Asus Z68 motherboard after some lengthy debate. The AMD options just aren't appealing enough.

That free mobo w/8120 deal is done and it was going to take a 4 FPU part to really sway me. It is getting tougher and tougher to recommend the Thubans as well...

Even with the bundles available, for a "pure" gaming rig... sad sad sad. I wanted to have him get a FX-6100 and 970A board, but the upside on the Intel rig is so much freaking higher right now.

He has whopping 9600GSO, so for the basis of this topic both were going to be fast enough He is also coming up from a x2 4400+, so the increase in performance should be pretty tangible.

 

[Chiropteran]

I don't care if Intel, AMD, Via, Cyrix, whatever makes the fastest part. What I don't understand is what makes a person try to mislead others who ask for advice by pretending that something that performs poorly is really faster when all quantifiable evidence disagrees.

I don't think anyone said an AMD CPU would be faster than a more expensive intel CPU. Are you talking about an actual post in this thread, or are you just trying to start some flame war?

What I am saying is that when you are GPU limited, buying a faster CPU is basically the equivalent of taking money out of your pocket and throwing it away. I also said in my last post that I would recommend a 2500k if the OP can find a way to afford one, so I really don't get what point you are trying to make about misleading others.

However, even though I think a 2500k would be good for the OP considering his video card choice, I still don't like to see useless FUD such as benchmarks posted above which show bulldozer doing poor only because the benchmark is using a 7970 and running at low resolutions, which are completely against what anyone would ever do in the real world.

 

[grkM3]

People that disagree with you aren't automatically blind zealots. If AMD had a decent CPU, we would all be suggesting those over the Intel ones.

Frankly, most of us don't care what company performance comes from, as long as it performs the best. Why people endlessly argue with you is because you blindly push an inferior product, and it gets old reading defense after defense of something that isn't competitive at any current price point.

I don't care if Intel, AMD, Via, Cyrix, whatever makes the fastest part. What I don't understand is what makes a person try to mislead others who ask for advice by pretending that something that performs poorly is really faster when all quantifiable evidence disagrees.

The people that disagree with you don't "hate" AMD. We "hate" poor products. In fact, you'll probably find that right now, every person you like to pretend is just an "AMD hater" would suggest to someone buying a GPU to buy AMD at this point in time.

this post should be a sticky for everyone that has a BD and is trying to justify there purchase and push a inferior cpu.

The CEO steps down when sandy leaks out there performance benchs and AMD says in there guidlines to review sites to use an intel cpu to bench with there gpus as there primary test setup but somehow the people that purchashed a BD seem to want to think that that cpu is better while AMD themselves use an intel chip to show off there gpus.

post after post they try to defend BD and its getting old

They use situations where the cpu wont matter much and say yeah but the op has x card and games at x rez.

We are talking about a 30-50 dollar difference in platform pricing here folks,not 300-400 and I cant even think for a second to tell someone to buy a BD for gaming right now.Im not hating on AMD its the plane truth.

 

[Magic Carpet]

As always, money is the key. If you are building a budget system it may not be worth spending an extra $100 to get a few more FPS from a CPU upgrade when you could put that money into an SSD or a better video card instead, and see larger returns.

It's only a $40 (compared to 6100) difference at MC, for example. Now, if you play anything CPU heavy, you want to avoid Bulldozer. That $40-$80 difference, in my opinion, is well justified for a gamer. Especially, if he/she plans to use CPU for a while.

However, even though I think a 2500k would be good for the OP considering his video card choice, I still don't like to see useless FUD such as benchmarks posted above which show bulldozer doing poor only because the benchmark is using a 7970 and running at low resolutions, which are completely against what anyone would ever do in the real world.

Last set of screens were 1200p. Pretty much what people with bigger panels are using today. Still beating a dead horse?

 

[Rvenger]

It's only a $40 (compared to 6100) difference at MC

Microcenter should not be a price comparison since they have limited locations in the US. Not everyone has a local MC.

Average FX6100 internet price is $150
Average 2500k internet price is $225

$75 price difference.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Microcenter should not be a price comparison since they have limited locations in the US. Not everyone has a local MC.

Average FX6100 internet price is $150
Average 2500k internet price is $225

$75 price difference.

I had it covered? Should have put an asterisk for you.

That $40-$80 difference, in my opinion, is well justified for a gamer.

 

[Rvenger]

I had it covered?

Well, you did mention Microcenter. So I went off into the deep end I guess. :awe: I stand corrected on your statement.

At least we have a solid $75 number here now.

 

[mkmitch]

You guys ever notice or care that nothing ever comes from these kinds of threads. All you to do was read the title and see the OP had his line in the water.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Well, you did mention Microcenter. So I went off into the deep end I guess. :awe: I stand corrected on your statement.

At least we have a solid $75 number here now.

The difference between i5 2310 and i5 2500K is only 25 quid. Easy choice, considering you get higher Turbo and unlocked multiplier.

gibbs007, what do you think? :whiste: