AMD FX 4100 good cpu?

For my first build I'm really considering the AMD FX 4100. I like the 3.60 quad core for only 119.99 (tigerdirect)
My main use is going to be gaming.

For about 110 dollars, this is a fine cpu.

I was even thinking of the fx 6100 but every review says that the high end i3's or low end i5s are better

It's very lucky for you that you have a i7 laptop. Now you can load Skyrim up on that and show your mate how the game should be played. I'd love to see the video.....

Interesting link Anort.

If you can't afford an Intel system, I highly suggest getting an AM3+ board now along with a good AM3 CPU. (955, 1055, etc.) OC it and be happy. If the dozers ever get improved you can at least upgrade then. You'd be better off with an i5 2400 however. (Or do what I did and pick up an i5 750 for cheap as someone upgraded.)

No CPU above Core 2 Duo bottlenecks any game from 2011. I am sure that the GTX 560ti its your problem.

most amd cpus will deliver playable (e.g. 40+) fps @1080p with gtx 560ti. but, intel core cpus will deliver higher minimum fps compared to phenoms and fx cpus (core i3 vs ph ii x4 955, fx 4100 @ stock). overclocking will help the min. fps a bit at the cost of increased power consumption.
in dual card or higher multi card configurations, amd cpus will bottleneck the gpus at 1080p and lower resolutions, sometimes at 1440p or 1600p resolutions.
that said, fx 4100 is a very cheap, overclockable, power hungry semi-quad core cpu. it's decent for single card configs and gpu bound games.

AMD phenom II 555,955 and 965 are my favorite.others are crap.go with intel.

Huh? Looking at the clock speed graph, a 3.5GHz PhII will get you ~45FPS, while a 4.5GHz 2500k will get you 60+. I'm not sure why they didn't give us a 2500k at 3.5GHz as well, but a 3.0GHz 2500k will do just shy of 55FPS. I'm not sure where you get this 30FPS from.

The sad part is when you look at the core graph. Even a dual core with HT will give you more FPS then an AMD hex core. (Both chips at 3.0GHz.) Going back to the original argument, a PhII or even AthlonII at stock clocks will have issues with this game. They will be very close to the 30FPS avg mark and you'll have problems is busy areas. I think thats what anort was trying to show.

now is not the time to get an FX-Bulldozer chip.
even with the now released windows patch and it's performance boost from it, it's still a sub-par chip.
there will soon be a stepping release and then the FX-4170 will come of that.
maybe then.?
after that should be the release of Piledriver, the last chip to run on AM3+ socket.
there will be no AM4.
maybe then, perhaps.??
but for now if going AMD then I suggest a 965BE @ $130 or so.
it's worth the money over the FX-4100..

other option, Intel..

odds are unlocking it and getting it to be stable aren't 100% so you might just be stuck with what you have, an Athlon II X3..
so your on your own if you go that route.
Athlon chips to me are for business and HTPC's, not for gaming.
I'd rather have Phenom II X4 8-series over the Athlon and they're darn near the same thing..

I could see that.
i3-2120..

It's not that they can't game, they just don't game as well as other CPUs out there. Why buy a CPU that does X FPS if you can buy a different one that provides more? From the gaming benchmarks I've seen a 2500(K) will provide better frame rates then the 8120/8150.

Its not just simply getting a Intel processor, not only is the intel processor going to cost more money, now you need a Intel supported motherboard, which is also cost more money, especially if you want a good motherboard that has a lot of options and supports SLI/CF. Not to mention future upgrades are also limited as every new Intel architecture requires a new motherboard.

AMD platforms may not offer the absolute fastest speeds and all bragging rights, but are still very fast, high performing machines in there own right with out costing near as much once you put the whole system together.

Go onto Newegg and look at both P67 and Z68 boards. Both can be bought for 75-125 dollars. So that whole argument is pretty much useless because both can be bought for around the same price. Once again it all comes down to the actual CPU. Yea the Intel cost more but again you get what you pay for. With the Intel you're getting faster performance.

The problem most of us have with Bulldozer is that AMD took a giant step backwards with it. The IPC is so bad it's slower clock for clock than Phenom II. That is bad for everybody. And now with Phenom being phased out your only choice soon will be Bulldozer. AMD already was behind Intel with Phenom having an IPC similar to Intel's Core 2 architecture. The one good thing about Bulldozer is high clock speeds. The bad thing is even with those high clock speeds it still can not compete in any area except massive multithreaded apps.

AMD admits now they can no longer compete with Intel in the high end CPU market and they are not even going to try anymore. Quite a few heads rolled at AMD because of the Bulldozer fiasco.

Did you read the xbitlabs article I linked to above? AMDs flagship FX8150 in most cases competes directly with the i3 2120, a dual core with Hyperthreading. The one place the AMD chip competes well is in rendering/modeling. Like I said above that is bad for everybody. Once Intel's tick/tock strategy reaches Haswell next year will they even have the incentive to keep improving their chips with no direct competitor?

I wanted them to succeed. I wanted at least an equal to first generation i5/i7. That would be better for us all in the long run.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] html#sect1

I wouldn't quite say its that bad. In CPU tasks the 8150 can often do as well if not better then the 2500K. I think its more appropriate to say that the 2100 can keep up with the 8150 in gaming then the other way around.

It is sad that AMD lowered the IPC. A reworked PhII arch would have been better.

Edit: Rage, I'm not so sure. I'd bet that if you looked at the 4100 vs other ~$120 CPUs the other CPUs would win most of the benchmarks.

guys here you go-
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,3106.html
best cpus for money.AMD is good for tight budget cpus but intel is better with it's all round better performance.

AND THE WINNER IS:
anort3..

If you really think about it...Intel drags in about 300 to 400 dollars for their higher end CPU's, but AMD nearly if double that for their higher end GPU's. Since GPU's can be placed on both platforms they'd more than likely be the larger revenue slice for AMD at any rate. It's no wonder they (AMD) are concentrating more heavily on GPU and APU, because it's where the money is for them.

Yea thats why they're concentrating on APU's and graphics cards. It can't be because the Bulldozer is garbage and they've fallen so far behind Intel that they can't compete anymore with them. Yea everything is just flowery and awsome at AMD and the Bulldozer is the greatest thing since the invention of the personal computer.

..well that's fine, but it's nice to have performance out of the box that does not wholly rely on the highest performing parts. That's how you bring products to mainstream. If more people can play at reasonable reses and frame rates we might even get back to pc's being an important market for games. The way things are going we'll all need to buy gaming consoles and we won't need Ivy Bridge after that. I know this is what's happening because I have seen that this is whay my son and his cohort of computer enthusiast friends are doing. Stick you head in the sand if you want, but uber-powered CPU's are not what the PC industry needs right now.

...it's not my love for AMD, rather what I think is the unreasonable lamb-basting of BD. The expectations on it's performance came largely out of computer forums rather than AMD's offices. Sure put up a few benches and explain how you can build a killer system usuing an i series processor. I have no problem with that. But to call BD crap and then label AMD as crap, yes then I will ask for an explanation.

BD's need significant change in software execution, and we, "the enthusiasts," should know better than most that execution speeds depend on execution code.

We know that in highly threaded software BD screams along, it's entirely expected that single threaded high IPC reliant code will retard it. However BD does handle it and execute it efficiently to the point that most user's won't feel it that much.

...but GPU's are another fish altogether, here you have a player (Intel) that chokes, splutters and dies when asked to deliver some now mainstream graphics code. As enthusiasts we should be making more effort in eliminating that problem, because that is what is holding the Windows platform back, simply because the majority of pc's out their use Intel GPU's so I see it as their responsibility to fix it.

Don't worry, if AMD's CPU get into the same state as Intel GPU's I wouldn't buy them either.

I'm more interested in Ivy even though I have Sandy already not because of the upgraded IGP (internal graphics processor) but because of the tri-gate technology,
22nm process which leads to higher clocks and cooler performance.
I'll always have a dedicated GPU, so that part doesn't matter to me.

no, as for the " the unreasonable lamb-basting of BD. The expectations on it's performance came largely out of computer forums rather than AMD's offices. "
well that's false....
it was AMD that stated these performance projections at first hence the firing of half of their staff shortly after the Bulldozer release.
and then the AMD fanbois argued how the leaked charts showing it's weak performance were all fake.
then the releases, and heads rolled..

you or some might try and say the AMD FX-Bulldozer was/is ahead of it's time but that isn't necessarily true either.
one because of the single threaded performance, it also has to be at least decent but it's not even that.
as for the windows fix and the scheduler issue, not my fault, it is/was what it is.
with the windows hotfix the average is like 11% overall performance, that's a start but now what about the upcoming stepping revision
and it's performance gains from changes made.?
and then Piledriever is to be 15% better than that OR SO SAYS AMD...!!!!

or so says AMD.....
here we go with that again..

I second that...

OK.
so when are you 'side-grading' your 965BE for an FX-4100...?