Is FX 6100 really that bad?

[gibbs007]

Yes, the diference is 35€, but you need a better motherboard, and that's another 30€.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

How did MC come up in this thread once again?

The guy leaves near Bosnia, have you figured the cost of travel into that equation yet?

 

[AtenRa]

AtenRa,

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

Im still trying hard to find from those slides the performance difference in 1080p gaming between FX6100 and Phenom II X6 1045t but i cant find it. Is it because those are irrelevant CPUs tested in the above slides and have nothing to do with the OPs question ???

You trying hard to prove that FX in general is lucking in performance against the Core i7 but that was never the subject of this thread.

Can you show us the difference in performance between an FX6100 and Phenom II 1045t in 1080p gaming ??? If you cant just dont bother quoting irrelevant benchmarks.

 

[Chiropteran]

How did MC come up in this thread once again?

The guy leaves near Bosnia, have you figured the cost of travel into that equation yet?

Well, if you scroll up a few posts you will see that Magic Carpet brought up MC because he said you could get an i5 2500k for only $40 more than an FX-6100 if you went to Microcenter. Of course that isn't accurate, but that is why he brought up MC (actually the FX-6100 comes with a free motherboard at Microcenter, which counters for a bit more than just the apparent $40 price difference).

At newegg, the FX-6100 is $140 with free shipping (w/ promo code EMCNGND22, ends 3/12), the i5 2500k is $225 also with free shipping, an $85 difference. Even still, I'd suggest the OP to buy an i5. I like the FX-8120 Microcenter deal, but if you can't get a free motherboard the cost savings just isn't that large.

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

only because the benchmark is using a 7970

using a 7970

7970

Yes, you did switch to a higher resolution benchmark, and I applaud you for doing so. But if you only fix half of the problems you still have broken argument. Find benchmarks with a Radeon 7770 and use those to prove that a 6100 is "that bad". You won't because you can't- the 6100 is fine in a low end budget machine, as the video card will be the limiting factor, not the CPU.

 

[grkM3]

At newegg, the FX-6100 is $140 with free shipping (w/ promo code EMCNGND22, ends 3/12), the i5 2500k is $225 also with free shipping, an $85 difference. Even still, I'd suggest the OP to buy an i5. I like the FX-8120 Microcenter deal, but if you can't get a free motherboard the cost savings just isn't that large.
.

You keep doing the same thing over and over again.OK since this is a low end budget rig and you picked the cheaper BD why did you just compare pricing of the 2500k when you can easily look on newegg that a I5 2300 is 179 with free shipping and the 2400 is 189 with free shipping and both those cpus will out perform the 6100 in gaming.

Do you not see at all how biased you are and you try to show one little tiny thing the BD setup has and then compare it to a more expensive intel cpu.

So now we have a 40 dollar difference and the i5 will run cooler and has more single thread performance and will out game the 6100

Now you will say the 6100 can be overclocked and I will then say you need water cooling to get that sucker cool enough to beat the sandy and for the price of high end air cooling you can easily buy the 2500k and get 4.6ghz out if it with the stock cooler.

then you have a gaming system that beats the 6100 in pretty much everything except zipping a file

 

[pelov]

Yes, the diference is 35€, but you need a better motherboard, and that's another 30€.

How tight is your budget? If you're looking to keep the PC for a lengthy period of time you're better off spending the money and going with the 2500K. It will give you the option of upgrading your GPU without having to replace the motherboard + CPU if you go AMD. The 7850 will be a great GPU for 1080p and you can add a second if you need the extra horsepower, but pick a mobo that supports crossfire. For gaming you really can't go wrong with a 2500K.

 

[AtenRa]

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.

I will have to quote the OP again for the 1000 time,

I'm on a budget, so I'm looking for a cheap cpu for gaming and other stuff. 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.

So, the question you should ask to your self is, did i read what the OP was asking ?? Apparently you havent. Well, i believe now you know why we where talking about GPU bound resolutions.

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.

My logic starts at the OPs questions above. He wants to know it the FX6100 will bottleneck his HD7870 or the Phenom II X6 1045t is better at 1080p.

It seams that he wants to game at 1080p, im sorry that this resolution is GPU bound but that is the resolution the OP will game.
Anyone debating that the FX6100 is weaker at lower resolutions here in this thread is trolling or have an agenda against FX CPUs in general.

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.

It is you after all that is biased here, the thread is about FX vs Phenom and you bring in to the debate the Intel SB. I havent mentioned the SB and i was only debating that FX6100 is better than Phenom 1045t from the start.

People charged in this thread defending the Intel CPUs with out even reading what the OP was asking. He clearly said that he is from Slovenia (Europe) and still people offered advice about MC Intel deals.

It is irrelevant if CPU A is faster than CPU B at 1280x1024 in the current thread, the OP will game at 1080p and that is the only resolution that we need to evaluate if CPU A is faster than CPU B.
We dont write a CPU Review here, we trying to help the OP choose a budget CPU like the FX 6100 or Phenom 1045t for 1080p gaming.

But yet, people trying to prove that because Intel CPUs are faster in lower resolutions they are faster in GPU bound resolutions as well. Im sorry to brake it to you but most DX-11 games are becoming GPU bound at 1080p and above and an OCed FX6100 will not bottleneck the HD7850 at that resolution.

Read again the thread from the start and you will see whats going on here.

 

[Rvenger]

I will have to quote the OP again for the 1000 time,





So, the question you should ask to your self is, did i read what the OP was asking ?? Apparently you havent. Well, i believe now you know why we where talking about GPU bound resolutions.



My logic starts at the OPs questions above. He wants to know it the FX6100 will bottleneck his HD7870 or the Phenom II X6 1045t is better at 1080p.

It seams that he wants to game at 1080p, im sorry that this resolution is GPU bound but that is the resolution the OP will game.
Anyone debating that the FX6100 is weaker at lower resolutions here in this thread is trolling or have an agenda against FX CPUs in general.



It is you after all that is biased here, the thread is about FX vs Phenom and you bring in to the debate the Intel SB. I havent mentioned the SB and i was only debating that FX6100 is better than Phenom 1045t from the start.

People charged in this thread defending the Intel CPUs with out even reading what the OP was asking. He clearly said that he is from Slovenia (Europe) and still people offered advice about MC Intel deals.

It is irrelevant if CPU A is faster than CPU B at 1280x1024 in the current thread, the OP will game at 1080p and that is the only resolution that we need to evaluate if CPU A is faster than CPU B.
We dont write a CPU Review here, we trying to help the OP choose a budget CPU like the FX 6100 or Phenom 1045t for 1080p gaming.

But yet, people trying to prove that because Intel CPUs are faster in lower resolutions they are faster in GPU bound resolutions as well. Im sorry to brake it to you but most DX-11 games are becoming GPU bound at 1080p and above and an OCed FX6100 will not bottleneck the HD7850 at that resolution.

Read again the thread from the start and you will see whats going on here.

The OP did PM me and I told him that he would be just fine with an FX6100 for gaming. He just won't be breaking records in frame rates which the FX cpus are no slouch anyways.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Can you show us the difference in performance between an FX6100 and Phenom II 1045t in 1080p gaming ??? If you cant just dont bother quoting irrelevant benchmarks.

I have shown enough. I am pretty sure, OP has had this "nut" cracked since.

It's embarrassingly evident to everybody, that Bulldozer does only perform under "certain circumstances" and accidentally, the lower price does just reflect that. Unfortunately, gone are the days when we paid less and had more. Anyway, we have thrown in enough options and arguments for the OP to decide. Thanks everybody for being part of a healthy discussion here.

 

[Chiropteran]

Even still, I'd suggest the OP to buy an i5.

Do you not see at all how biased you are and you try to show one little tiny thing the BD setup has and then compare it to a more expensive intel cpu.

I'm at a loss. I actually tell the guy to buy an i5, and you are calling me biased over it? Am I biased because you think the FX is a better deal?

Do you change sides that easily just to keep an argument going, or what?

 

[Maximilian]

I'm at a loss. I actually tell the guy to buy an i5, and you are calling me biased over it? Am I biased because you think the FX is a better deal?

Yeah you did say that... after 5 pages of debate on the subject when all the OP needs to know is the following:

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?

Buy a 2500k if you can afford it. Failing that get a 960T and unlock it if you feel lucky or just get the 1045T.


Two sentences, is all that's needed here yet we have 5 pages

 

[Puppies04]

Now you will say the 6100 can be overclocked and I will then say you need water cooling to get that sucker cool enough to beat the sandy and for the price of high end air cooling you can easily buy the 2500k and get 4.6ghz out if it with the stock cooler.

Maybe if you live in an ice box, the stock cooler is junk I wouldn't OC with one and if someone really didn't want to buy an aftermarket cooler the absolute highest I would go is 4.2.

 

[blckgrffn]

Maybe if you live in an ice box, the stock cooler is junk I wouldn't OC with one and if someone really didn't want to buy an aftermarket cooler the absolute highest I would go is 4.2.

Yeah, it has enough problems under full load at stock, I can't imagine pushing it that hard.

You can get such an improvement in cooling for $20-$30... Then you're talking.

 

[grkM3]

Maybe if you live in an ice box, the stock cooler is junk I wouldn't OC with one and if someone really didn't want to buy an aftermarket cooler the absolute highest I would go is 4.2.

My 2600k does 4.2-3 at stock vcore and most review sites got 4.4-4.6 ghz with oem heat sinks.

Dont know why your chip is running hot,maybe to much vcore or not mounted right with too much thermal paste.

 

[bononos]

THW has an interesting article comparing the FX4100 vs 2100 in gaming benchmarks using a variety of cards(low to high end). The most interesting graphs are those comparing the 6770 benches because it uses med (more real world) settings. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html The 2100 has a small but still fairly significant lead in some, zilch in others but if Metro 2033 is any indication of the future, the Intel route is better for the gamer.

 

[Chiropteran]

I like that review because it uses a realistic scenario, although I am curious how the FX-6100 would do instead of the FX-4100. Also would have been nice to see some overclocked results.

 

[blckgrffn]

My 2600k does 4.2-3 at stock vcore and most review sites got 4.4-4.6 ghz with oem heat sinks.

Dont know why your chip is running hot,maybe to much vcore or not mounted right with too much thermal paste.

Hmm... when I load a CPU, it's 24/7 with distributed computing projects. That's a lot different than just having it a couple hours prime stable and using it to play games, etc. The stock cooler, installed fresh from the box, hard to work pretty darn hard as it was on the 2600k I had in my hands for a few days. Not so hard as the stock cooler on the 1090t if absolute fan noise is used as a barometer, true, but we are talking about power dissipation on two different levels there

Are you tweaking the voltage on your 2600k? It requests more voltage when you crank up the multiplier all on its own. I guess it could still be considered "stock" but is definitely higher than what it would request @ stock speed unless you are manually dialing it back.

 

[bononos]

I like that review because it uses a realistic scenario, although I am curious how the FX-6100 would do instead of the FX-4100. Also would have been nice to see some overclocked results.

It wouldn't do any better than the 4100 because the 4100 is faster in base and turbo core speeds (6100 has a 100Mhz advantage in max turbo but from what I've seen from gaming benchmarks its usually slower). The THW conclusion states that even an 8120 doesn't outperform the 4100 in their tests for games (for the same reason I stated). Only the 8150 has a big enough difference in turbo and max core speeds to pull ahead of the 4100 in games.