-
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!
- Thread starter Cyanide
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,738
- Location
- Planet Earth
purely down to financial problems and clearing a credit card. only 1 left now.
many thanks. will check that out. have heard that 4.2 ghz on stock is easily achieved but above that would need after market one and upping the v.cores which i have very little practice and experience doing.
my motherboard is a 970A-D3 gigabyte.
built the rig last night will test over weekend.
AFAIK,the Gigabyte 900 series motherboards had some BIOS related throttling issues with the FX series CPUs. IIRC,a BIOS update solved the problem.
While I agree that it's not anywhere near as good as it was supposed/intended to be I wouldn't say it was a shocking chip. If it were £150+ it would be but it's priced against the i3 and in most cases performs better. It's not great but it's certainly a decent budget chip.
would totally agree on that one, they aren't the fastest chips in the world, but they aren't the worse either and far from 'shocking', there is a huge anti-Bulldozer bandwagon rolling around and more or less everyone has jumped on it, but those who have used them give pretty positive reports for the most part.
with messing around, think the biggest problem with the architecture is the cache set-up, the execution engines are having to wait around far too long for information to execute, double the time Sandy Bridge has to wait in a lot of situations, so its not that Bulldozer, or at least its 'engine' is badly designed its more problems with the memory supporting the engine.
haven't had too bad experiences with mine so far, though threads do alarmingly jump around between cores and modules a lot in normal usage which cannot be helping matters, Sandy Bridge has one massive, titanic advantage over Bulldozer and that is better cache, give them the same cache and we'd probably be not having this debate.
Edit: also for the current prices they should be considered a genuine alternative than going Intel, because unless your obsessed with benchmarks then chances are you'd never notice which was which, contrary to some peoples opinions.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,502
- Location
- Dormanstown.
The dawn of war benchmarks don't make sense.
Got to agree mmj_uk I easilly overclock 1055t to 4ghz with a Gellid Tranquillo £20 cooler. Which would out perform the BD chips at 4.5ghz and you have a true 6 core not 3 modules / 6 hyperthreads.
Still nice to see it is not as bad as some of the reviewers said. Mind if intel ever release an i3 k series chip that OC's to 4.5 -5ghz for around £100-120 then 6 core BD would be obsolete overnight.
Still looking forward to seeing what improvements AMD can make on BD with the next iteration although they have gone a bit quiet on this lately fingers crossed for them pulling a rabbit out of the hat
Still nice to see it is not as bad as some of the reviewers said. Mind if intel ever release an i3 k series chip that OC's to 4.5 -5ghz for around £100-120 then 6 core BD would be obsolete overnight.
Still looking forward to seeing what improvements AMD can make on BD with the next iteration although they have gone a bit quiet on this lately fingers crossed for them pulling a rabbit out of the hat
Thats because you've been blinded by the drivel on the net.
Its a reasonable chip for 100 notes, not great and not the disaster some of the nets hyperbole would have you believe.
Hopefully AMD sort power draw in future revisions and press on.
I think I'll keep my eyes peeled for the pre-order and grab one, I'm quite enjoying this reviewing stuff
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 713
- Location
- UK
This silliness about Bulldozers cores not being 'true' cores or somehow being equivalent to virtual hyper-threading cores is getting a bit tiresome now. There are plenty of articles on reputable hardware sites that describe BD's architecture in detail and make it quite clear BD cores are no less real or functional than those of any other x64 processor.
Going back on topic, I had a major downer on BD when it came out but I built my first system with an FX 6100 as a budget gaming box for a client a couple of weeks back and was very pleasantly surprised. Performance was much better than expected, and even under heavy load ran nice and cool. We normally use i3 Sandys, but the 6100 is looking like a really strong alternative. If AMD cut the price by £20 we'd happily switch away from the i3.
Even so, if you've got one and you're happy with it there's no point swapping to BD and if you've not got one and want an upgrade from a lessor Phenom they're at a hugely inflated price and are competing with the i5 so I don't get why there's so my BD hate around at the moment
Good review, hope to see more
For me personally BD was a big letdown as i had high hopes..it probably means im going eat humble pie and go of Intel/ASUS next upgrade even after having massive problems with both. Intel seem to be 2 gens ahead at the moment the BD concept looks good on paper for me the power draw was the killer and seemed to point at production problems rather than design,.
For me personally BD was a big letdown as i had high hopes..it probably means im going eat humble pie and go of Intel/ASUS next upgrade even after having massive problems with both. Intel seem to be 2 gens ahead at the moment the BD concept looks good on paper for me the power draw was the killer and seemed to point at production problems rather than design,.