Is FX 6100 really that bad?

[blckgrffn]

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?

After the disappointing showing of the 8150, it seems like everyone decided to pretend like the 4100 & 6100 don't exist.

 

[gibbs007]

Would an SSD (agility 3) perform worse under X6 than BD? Motherboard: Asrock 970 Extreme 3.

 

[blckgrffn]

Would an SSD (agility 3) perform worse under X6 than BD? Motherboard: Asrock 970 Extreme 3.

I don't think there would be any discernible difference between the two. Sata Gen 3 is Sata Gen 3.

 

[AtenRa]

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.

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.

Thank you for contradicting yourself

So, at 1080p and above we are GPU limited so a faster CPU will not help, making the FX6100 @ 4GHz+ a very nice Gaming CPU at its price point.

 

[pelov]

Thank you for contradicting yourself

So, at 1080p and above we are GPU limited so a faster CPU will not help, making the FX6100 @ 4GHz+ a very nice Gaming CPU at its price point.

Very nice of you to COMPLETELY leave out the middle part where I explained how and why 1080p doesn't matter but why the 960T is still a better gaming CPU regardless. If that wasn't the epitome of taking a post out of context then I don't know what is. Mind you, the 960T is also cheaper as well as a better gaming CPU

If we're going to make remarks about gaming price-to-performance at 1080p then he might as well go with a SB Pentium, no? Core i3? How does the FX6100 win out in any case whatsoever? I can't think of a single scenario where an FX6100 would make a good gaming CPU, and this isn't an exaggeration. 1 less FPU than the 960T and at worst a whole 3 FPUs less and an IPC decrease that hurts it in gaming badly. 4.5ghz on an FX6100 is equivalent to ~4ghz on the 960T when you take into account the IPC decrease, but you're also forgetting the extra FP performance that the 960T offers in gaming where it's already FP heavy.

It's an integer processor that's a server chip first. Recommending it as a gaming CPU would require a cheaper price when compared to competing chips that perform roughly the same. AMD's biggest issue selling the 2 and 3 module BD chips is that Denebs and Thubans are still readily available and at reasonable prices.

Let me rephrase this with some numbers.

The 960T will perform as well as the 6 core Thubans if you're lucky enough to successfully unlock both cores. The fx6100 doesn't have that option.

The 960T even if not unlocked will perform between the 6 Thubans and the 4 core Deneb in gaming benchmarks due to a better IMC than the Deneb despite having the same number of cores.

The overclocking headroom in a 960T is roughly the same as an fx6100 when comparing their stock speeds to their ceiling.

Remind me again, why is the FX6100 a better gaming CPU under any circumstance whatsoever? Maybe lower idle power consumption but what the hell that has to do with gaming I have no idea.

 

[gibbs007]

A user with 6100 at Tom's hardware forum has said:

GET THE PHENOM!. Trust me when i say this, you will be way more happy. the FX 6100 is $#@!. Its cooler than the Phenom six cores but the performance you get from the FX is just......i would rather have forked out the extra money to get the Intel Core I5

So, I guess I'll be going with X6 1045T or 960T. However, I would much rather choose FX since it's newer and has more overclocking potencial, but looking at graphs above, it doesn't look good.

 

[AtenRa]

……

I will have to remind you again what the OP is asking.

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.

Can you now please remove the 1050p benchmarks and replace them with 1080p benchmarks to see if 960T is faster than FX6100 ??

 

[Bman123]

I will have to remind you again what the OP is asking.

Can you now please remove the 1050p benchmarks and replace them with 1080p benchmarks to see if 960T is faster than FX6100 ??

Raising the res that little bit isn't going to change anything, what you see is what you get in those games. Getting beat by a core i3 2120 is pretty damn funny.

 

[pelov]

I will have to remind you again what the OP is asking.



Can you now please remove the 1050p benchmarks and replace them with 1080p benchmarks to see if 960T is faster than FX6100 ??

Throw in a second graphics card for crossfire and you'll have your answer.

But that doesn't matter. Being roughly the same at 1080p doesn't mean they are the same at 1080p, but rather that the benchmarks aren't interesting enough to matter in a review. The 960T will pretty much always be faster than the fx6100 even at 1080p on a GPU bottlenecked scenario by tenths-of-a-frame to a couple of frames a second. Though not nearly as big a gap as the benchmarks above, it's still better. The benchmarks above, though they don't show 1080p, still show that the FX6100 is not a good gaming GPU regardless of your setup.

Don't go by the clock speeds alone. Due to the difference in architecture the 960T will come out on top even at disproportionately lower clocks due to the gain in FPU and IPC.

The FX6100 isn't a bad buy, but make no mistake, for gaming purposes the 960T is by far the better buy.

 

[gibbs007]

Looking at this BF3 benchmark it seems that there is no difference:

However, this is singleplayer, so things would change in multiplayer, right?

 

[Cyrus9008]

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.

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.

 

[blckgrffn]

A user with 6100 at Tom's hardware forum has said:

So, I guess I'll be going with X6 1045T or 960T. However, I would much rather choose FX since it's newer and has more overclocking potencial, but looking at graphs above, it doesn't look good.

I would pass on the 1045t and get the 960T. Whether you want more threads or more clock speed, the 960T very likely gives you the best flexibility. The unlocked multiplier is a huge advantage, especially given how low the multiplier is on the 1045. If you were talking about the 1075t or something with the same price, the guaranteed six cores might be more persuasive.

AMD should have done a better job of cleaning out Phenom 2 stock ahead of the BD launch, obviously...

 

[Hubb1e]

You're technically NEVER gpu limited on a decent GPU because you can always lower the settings a bit. The FX6100 with a mild overclock is fast enough to play most games at 60fps at low graphics settings. Adding more graphics doesn't touch the CPU much, it only starts to stress the GPU until your GPU becomes the part holding you back, but when choosing a CPU you need to check the low resolution benchmarks to make sure it can hit 60fps in the games you want to play. There are only a few games such as starcraft II where a FX6100 can get bogged down. So, that's your answer. The FX6100 is fast enough to play your games unless you have one that stresses CPUs. I'd game on a FX6100, but the i5 2500K would be still be the best option.

 

[sequoia464]

I have a FX6100 that was running at 4200MHz with Turbo at 4700 - it is setting in its box in a drawer.

I am currently running a 960T unlocked to 6 cores at 3850MHz - that said, my first 960T would not unlock even 1 additional core. The few benches that I ran seemed to favor the 960T, I don't game at all though.

Th FX did run cooler, but not substantially - each around 1.392 volts.

 

[LoneNinja]

Couple reviews since few people have luck finding them on google, but FX 6100 reviews do exist.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100.html

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/

 

[thilanliyan]

The FX6100 with a mild overclock is fast enough to play most games at 60fps at low graphics settings.

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.

 

[Mallibu]

Can you now please remove the 1050p benchmarks and replace them with 1080p benchmarks to see if 960T is faster than FX6100 ??

Considering that differences between the 2 resolutions are like 5%,you expect something 'magically' happens? Come on son

I'd choose ANY Thuban over a FX 6100,even maybe vs 8120.

 

[Puppies04]

Same old question, same old misquoted crap. Apparently pointing out that you can get the same or better performance than bulldozer for less money makes you an "intel fanboy" even if you recommend an AMD chip!

This thread started with a biased title "Is FX 6100 really that bad" and things just went downhill from there. No they aren't "really that bad" yes you can get better chips for the same or less money. If you can get one of these awsome deals I keep hearing about where you get a free mobo (or is it a certain amount off a mobo?) then they might be a valid option if you can't, for gaming they are either overpriced or under performing compared to other chips on the market.

 

[blckgrffn]

Same old question, same old misquoted crap. Apparently pointing out that you can get the same or better performance than bulldozer for less money makes you an "intel fanboy" even if you recommend an AMD chip!

This thread started with a biased title "Is FX 6100 really that bad" and things just went downhill from there. No they aren't "really that bad" yes you can get better chips for the same or less money. If you can get one of these awsome deals I keep hearing about where you get a free mobo (or is it a certain amount off a mobo?) then they might be a valid option if you can't, for gaming they are either overpriced or under performing compared to other chips on the market.

Heh, the problem with those deals right now is that you can get the 960t for the same price as a FX4100, let alone the FX6100... So... PD can't get here soon enough.

And it's either a free 760G board or $40-$60 off a nicer board, so both.

 

[AtenRa]

Considering that differences between the 2 resolutions are like 5%,you expect something 'magically' happens? Come on son

I'd choose ANY Thuban over a FX 6100,even maybe vs 8120.

1680x1050 = 1764000 pixels
1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels, that is 17,5% more not 5%.

All you have to do is run the same benchmark at the two resolutions and observe the outcome. I believe you'll find that most games are becoming GPU bound at 1080p (especially when using AA filters).

Crysis 2 DX11 VGA and CPU performance benchmarks

Now 1920x1200 is the most preferred monitor resolution (next to to 1920x1080). Here's where the CPU starts to matter less and less, and where the GPU gets increasingly more important. The irony is always the same, bang for buck wise a cheapo CPU will get you the better deal. Hence for hefty gaming the graphics card is way more important then the processor.

Intel Core i7-3820 Processor Review

Have a look at 1200p, they dont even use AA. FX6100 at default clocks is close to $300 CPUs.

 

[Ferzerp]

Considering that differences between the 2 resolutions are like 5%,you expect something 'magically' happens? Come on son

I'd choose ANY Thuban over a FX 6100,even maybe vs 8120.

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.

 

[MegaWorks]

Get the 960T, for it's price nothing come close. Plus it's a mad overclocker see sig, I could push it to 4.6Ghz but I would need a water cooling setup.

 

[Chiropteran]

I think the 6100 and 1045t are pretty close on most tests, but the 6100 has the edge as far as easier overclocking with it's unlocked multiplier. Though, if you have access to a Microcenter I think the best budget deal is the FX-8120 w/ free motherboard.

 

[mrcmtl]

I would just grab an FX-6100 and overclock it to around 4Ghz or above. I doubt that anyone can notice the difference between a Thuban and a FX in gaming.

 

[SunnyD]

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?

If you need 4 actual cores for gaming, then a FX6100 isn't going to help you. For gaming purposes, the FX6100 is essentially a 3-core processor.

It has 6 ALUs but only 3 full floating point units - the latter of which are more important for gaming than the former.