what you think of the AMD FX 4100 am3+

077tommy · 6 Sep 2013 at 00:12

I personally really like the fx 4100, I never found it to be a bottleneck on my system when I was running a 7870xt. Its a great overclocker and good for the money.

Futures · 6 Sep 2013 at 00:51

The good news is the fx4100 is the best bulldozer 4 core CPU. Twice the L3 cache as the fx4130, and overclocks just as much as the fx4170.

Also look for the bulldozer hotfix from microsoft

bru · 6 Sep 2013 at 00:57

teppic said:
Here's a budget alternative:

YOUR BASKET
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-6 Six Core 6300 Black Edition 3.50GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £83.99
1 x Gigabyte 970A-DS3P AMD 970A (Socket AM3+) DDR3 Motherboard £53.99
1 x TeamGroup Elite 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C11 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit (TED34GM1600HC11DC01) £31.99
Total : £181.37 (includes shipping : £9.50).

or an Intel based alternative.

YOUR BASKET
1 x Intel Core i3-2120 3.30GHz (Sandybridge) Socket LGA1155 Processor - Retail £91.99
1 x OcUK Value 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 1333MHz Low-Voltage Dual Channel Kit £49.99
1 x MSI H61M-P31-G3 Intel H61 (Socket 1155) DDR3 Motherboard £38.99
Total : £180.97 (includes shipping : FREE).

Completely pointless though as...
a: you already have your bundle
b: its not overclockable.

teppic · 6 Sep 2013 at 01:00

077tommy said:
I personally really like the fx 4100, I never found it to be a bottleneck on my system when I was running a 7870xt. Its a great overclocker and good for the money.

The 6300 is £10 more and in a different league. About twice the CPU performance in many things.

V F · 6 Sep 2013 at 01:45

Orch said:
I get 50-70FPS in BF3

64 player servers?

djbillztgk · 6 Sep 2013 at 11:33

damn ive already fitted it all i ill see if i can geta refund or instore credit, tbh it was a impluse buy, i use to have a am2 amd athlon 64 x2 5000+ am2 cpu black edition so the upgrade should be a massively affect my music DAW workflow, which is more CPU dependent. ok feedback much appreciated, at least i have a upgrade option later on when AMD release thier new socket

Martini1991 · 6 Sep 2013 at 11:34

A Phenom II X4 would have been a cheaper and better upgrade though.

077tommy said:
I personally really like the fx 4100, I never found it to be a bottleneck on my system when I was running a 7870xt. Its a great overclocker and good for the money.

Only way it wasn't a bottleneck is if you never checked GPU usage.
It isn't good for the money when older and faster Phenom II x4's were 60 quid and 15 quid more now gets you a CPU with over 50% potential performance.

Doomedspeed · 6 Sep 2013 at 12:22

Im 100% certain it will be a bottleneck on a 7870..

The old phenom x 4's were awesome.

Orch · 6 Sep 2013 at 13:30

V F said:
64 player servers?

Yep.

Not maxed settings obviously, but pretty close. Most things on ultra, but AA notched down, no motion blur. Can't remember the rest.

On a 1080 monitor it looks great and plays perfectly well.

Orch · 6 Sep 2013 at 13:33

Martini1991 said:
My mate games "fine" on a Q6600, that doesn't make it especially good anymore.

Fair enough, but he's already bought it. People talk like it won't actually work. For his stated usage, which sounds less than mine tbh, it will be fine.

Sure if buying again he could opt for a 6300, so would I infact! But I bet he would be happy enough with it if he keeps it.

V F · 6 Sep 2013 at 15:18

Orch said:
Yep.

Not maxed settings obviously, but pretty close. Most things on ultra, but AA notched down, no motion blur. Can't remember the rest.

On a 1080 monitor it looks great and plays perfectly well.

Not bad at all! To be honest, I can't tell the difference between high and ultra.

Wonder what yours does different unlike the way this person sees it.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24893511&postcount=16

If it's such a massive disappointment getting 50 - 70fps, I'd hate to see what poor is. As most usually have vsync on.

Martini1991 · 6 Sep 2013 at 15:37

Well you can see the reviews of the FX4100, it's usually getting battered.

Orch · 6 Sep 2013 at 15:40

V F said:
Not bad at all! To be honest, I can't tell the difference between high and ultra.

Wonder what yours does different unlike the way this person sees it.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24893511&postcount=16

If it's such a massive disappointment getting 50 - 70fps, I'd hate to see what poor is. As most usually have vsync on.

Dunno, people seem to think because it's not as good as others, it's no good. That's simply not true. Yeh I'd love an upgrade, but I don't need an upgrade.

Davedree · 6 Sep 2013 at 17:57

Martini1991 said:
Well you can see the reviews of the FX4100, it's usually getting battered.

Your right I remember at stock it always got beaten by a 970be even Llano sometimes.
But like the 7950 800mhz reviews, I think the fx4100 cpu's performance was seriously compromised by their low clock speeds. For example its similar to the 1055t, in stock form its very poor, but we both know if you get one that overclocks to 3.8 - 4+ghz then it becomes a champ.
Problem was bulldozer wasn't really an upgrade over a clocked phIIx4 x6. I guess that if you had a fx4100 and clocked it to 4.4 - 4.6 It would be close to 3.6 ghz phII x4??

Also as you know whilst piledriver is an improvement over bulldozer most of it comes from the higher clocks. Look at the 4170 for example.However fact is the fx6's have always been just a few quid more than the fx4's.
With the price of a fx6300 now I would have tried to incorporate that into my bundle..

teppic · 6 Sep 2013 at 18:58

Piledriver is a big improvement over Bulldozer - it's not about the clocks, though Piledriver does overclock a bit better.

The 4100 isn't completely useless, it's just that for £10 more you get a CPU that can offer literally twice the performance, which makes it a terrible buy. Ideally the 4350 would be about £50, which would make it a good option for budget gaming systems - the 4100 shouldn't be sold any more.

Phixsator · 7 Sep 2013 at 10:21

V F said:
If it's such a massive disappointment getting 50 - 70fps, I'd hate to see what poor is. As most usually have vsync on.

I can garantie you that isnt minimums but "averages". Minimums are much lower as you would need something like a OCed 3570k-3770k or a oced fx8320-8350 to get those minimums in BF3 on a FULL 64 player server.

teppic · 7 Sep 2013 at 16:03

Yeah, BF3 64 player needs an i7 or FX 8320/50 to for best performance. BF4 will be the same (DICE used the 8350 for the 64 player demos of BF4). BF3 single player will fly on a 4100, it doesn't use the CPU very much.

Futures · 8 Sep 2013 at 09:53

Look, the fx4100 I good enough for what it is, and when you feel the need for more you have the option of upgrading to a fx6xxx, fx8xxx or maybe even a fx9xxx. So really there are no right or wrong choices.

Phixsator · 8 Sep 2013 at 14:54

Futures said:
Look, the fx4100 I good enough for what it is, and when you feel the need for more you have the option of upgrading to a fx6xxx, fx8xxx or maybe even a fx9xxx. So really there are no right or wrong choices.

really depends on the board in the bundle. we have already had several stories of crap boards with crap vrms not being able to handle the 8350 let alone a 9xxx.

teppic · 8 Sep 2013 at 15:13

Phixsator said:
really depends on the board in the bundle. we have already had several stories of crap boards with crap vrms not being able to handle the 8350 let alone a 9xxx.

Quite. The M5A78L-M/USB3 has no chance of running an 8350 properly, it could fail completely if you put in a 9590.