• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD FX6100 Reviewed!

Martini1991 said:
So BD's crap then, it's lower performance than what was already available.
:p
Click to expand...

TBH,it depends on the price though. At under £100,it would be in the same price range as a Phenom II X4,and looking at the HandBrake chart is around 10% to 15% faster than a Phenom II X4 965BE,and has a 30W lower TDP.

At £120,well just NO!! :p You can still get Phenom II X6 CPUs for around that price,Llano CPUs and Core i3 CPUs.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Thuban seems to gave better MT performance overall than the FX6100 series. On that big HandBrake chart I was compiling the FX6100 is around 10% to 15% behind a Phenom II X6 1055T.
Click to expand...
even the Thuban gives better performance overall than the FX8100 series tbh except in HandBrake (i think)
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
TBH,it depends on the price though. At under £100,it would be in the same price range as a Phenom II X4,and looking at the HandBrake chart is around 10% to 15% faster than a Phenom II X4 965BE,and has a 30W lower TDP.

At £120,well just NO!! :p You can still get Phenom II X6 CPUs for around that price,Llano CPUs and Core i3 CPUs.
Click to expand...

100 pound for a Phenom II x4 and 120 for a Phenom II X6? You'd be a complete prat to get the X4, 20 quid extra for 50% more cores? YES PLEASE.
 
gareth170 said:
even the Thuban gives better performance overall than the FX8100 series tbh except in HandBrake (i think)
Click to expand...

I had a quick scout through Anandtech bench:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=203

The hotfix improved things a bit(bench has not been updated):

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5448/the-bulldozer-scheduling-patch-tested/3

The FX8150 seems a bit better overall than a Phenom II X6 1100T. OTH,the price is way too high for the FX8150(especially with the Core i5 2500K for around £160 to £170).

Martini1991 said:
100 pound for a Phenom II x4 and 120 for a Phenom II X6? You'd be a complete prat to get the X4, 20 quid extra for 50% more cores? YES PLEASE.
Click to expand...

Its better than that. I dare not mention it though!
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I had a quick scout through Anandtech bench:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=203

The hotfix improved things a bit(bench has not been updated):

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5448/the-bulldozer-scheduling-patch-tested/3

The FX8150 seems a bit better overall than a Phenom II X6 1100T. OTH,the price is way too high for the FX8150(especially with the Core i5 2500K for around £160 to £170).
Click to expand...
i should have said clock for clock.

for gaming when i had a 8150 i clocked it at 4ghz and i seen less FPS than with my 1090t @ 4ghz

i had to clock the 8150 around 4.5-4.6ghz to just get about the same FPS than with my 1090t @ 4ghz

this was with trifire setup.

so BD bottlenecks trifire a lot, maybe 2way crossfire too
 
Cooper said:
It wasn't a discussion, it was a statement of fact....

..if you want to enforce forum rules that weren't even broken, apply to be a mod, until then, don't presume to tell others what they can and cant post..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes but if people like keep breaking the rules OCUK could very well decide any legal consequences as result of what someone has posted aren't worth the hassle and may decide to pull down the forums for good.
 
biggest problem with the 'bottlenecking' tri-fire is a tiny tiny proportion of the market use such a set-up, hell very very small portion use crossfire never mind triple cards, so in a 'market normal' system with a single discrete graphics card Bulldozer won't bottleneck no more than a 2500K or 2600K will.

also indeed Thuban is better clock for clock, but Thuban is end of line and slowly becoming an endangered species, Bulldozer has never ever been a 'clock for clock' design anyway, was always based on the exercise of increasing core on the basis of one module / single 'old school' core. with the situation where you take a hit in single-thread performance but achieve a gain in multi-threaded.

also Cooper stop trying to endlessly be a smart arse, either get the hell out of threads where you are simply going to spend all your time trolling or post something worthwhile and constructive instead, instead of bashing everyone else's opinions for once, one of those people who get off on 'taking the high ground' I would guess, man would hate to meet you in reality. guess your on of those 'I'm better than everyone else' graduate types? :rolleyes:
 
That's all well and good.
Except I don't see how BD gains in Multi thread (Given the very nature of its module approach is a hit when executing two threads on a module), an FX6100 in multithread will still lose out to an 1100T.
The only FX that can be considered (And I use that loosely) from the 1100T is the FX8's, and even then, they're pathetic progress, being only better in select situations.
Of course you'll go off on a tangent, stating BD's a high clocking design (Except as it stands right now, it really isn't..... It's not reaching any higher than what we've had previously with SB)
 
All I know is I picked up a 6100 and a pretty decent asus 970 Mb in a combo sale for less than what a 2500k costs here and I am quite happy with it.

It all comes down to price for me. I do not have much brand loyalty but do root for AMD to try and keep prices in check some what.

IF prices come down or you find a good sale I wouldnt hesitate to recommend a FX chip because so far its performed very well for the light internet and gaming I do. I tried to find a good used 1090 or 1100 and the prices on those are getting pretty crazy even if you CAN find one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom