[wrsj77]

Originally Posted by Lordred

Like this?

Very nice!!! was it stable ? and on what cooling ?

[Lordred]

Nope, maximum stable clocks are in the 4800's on my chip (as in prime-95 overnight, or folding)

[wrsj77]

Originally Posted by Lordred

Like this?

Originally Posted by Lordred

Nope, maximum stable clocks are in the 4800's on my chip (as in prime-95 overnight, or folding)

Okay,well 4.8 is still very good and I just noticed your cooling lol I will be doing my first custom build and plan on trying out overclocking a cpu for the first time. I've overclocked many gpu's,but for the time being, until I get more comfortable with it, i'll just overclock small on air for now....but I have a feeling that won't last long lol.

[wrsj77]

thanks again to all who left me advice and tips

[Frakk]

Originally Posted by wrsj

Okay,well 4.8 is still very good and I just noticed your cooling lol I will be doing my first custom build and plan on trying out overclocking a cpu for the first time. I've overclocked many gpu's,but for the time being, until I get more comfortable with it, i'll just overclock small on air for now....but I have a feeling that won't last long lol.

As long as you keep it with in certain temperatures it will last for years.

[Bubba-Hotepp]

Originally Posted by Frakk

Don't know what Skyrim is, but clearly its not codded in the same way as Battlefield 3, Dirt 3, Metro 2033 and the like as it struggles with the FX CPU's while those games don't.

FX-4100 vs FX-4170 it seems an FX-4100 @ 4Ghz to 4.2Ghz (Turbo) yet it is a much later addition to the line up and seems to overclock higher and run cooler than the FX-4100, so may be a some what different chip.

For one, without the latest updates, skyrim doesn't use accelerators (i.e. instruction sets like SSE2 etc.). Even without updating, my 6100 clocked to just 4.0GHz and using a 5870 I was averaging in the 40FPS range with everything maxed. After updating it jumped up even higher. Moving from 4.0 to 4.5 made very little change in the FPS which means the CPU isn't the bottleneck at that point. People would do well to keep that in mind when looking at the "reviews". 4.0 is an EASY overclock on an FX and can almost be done (and some have) on stock voltages. 4.5 on the 4100 and 6100 can be done easily with a good air cooler too. I've taken mine over 5GHz on a modified closed loop water cooling system (with two rads instead of one).

[Frakk]

Originally Posted by Bubba-Hotepp

For one, without the latest updates, skyrim doesn't use accelerators (i.e. instruction sets like SSE2 etc.). Even without updating, my 6100 clocked to just 4.0GHz and using a 5870 I was averaging in the 40FPS range with everything maxed. After updating it jumped up even higher. Moving from 4.0 to 4.5 made very little change in the FPS which means the CPU isn't the bottleneck at that point. People would do well to keep that in mind when looking at the "reviews". 4.0 is an EASY overclock on an FX and can almost be done (and some have) on stock voltages. 4.5 on the 4100 and 6100 can be done easily with a good air cooler too. I've taken mine over 5GHz on a modified closed loop water cooling system (with two rads instead of one).

Thats a lot more than the review quoted on a much more powerful $500 GPU. Just shows how reliable 8 Month old reviews actually are.

IMHO Its also a bit of a farce to review sub $200 CPU's on a $500 GPU and then also to include an overclocked 2500K as part of the results and say nothing about the overclocking potential of the inexpensive FX-4 / FX-6 CPU's.

[wrsj77]

Originally Posted by Frakk

Thats a lot more than the review quoted on a much more powerful $500 GPU. Just shows how reliable 8 Month old reviews actually are.

IMHO Its also a bit of a farce to review sub $200 CPU's on a $500 GPU and then also to include an overclocked 2500K as part of the results and say nothing about the overclocking potential of the inexpensive FX-4 / FX-6 CPU's.

Yea well as we all know everyone knocks AMD and praises Intel but AMD is just as good imo and a alot cheaper, also alot more reliable, for example I have 2 other pcs in this house and one has an Intel Celeron and one an AMD Athlon and the Athlon blows away the Intel in every way they are both the same generation and are both around 3 yrs old, but the Intel i'm afraid is on its last leg, it lags behind so bad just doing simple web browsing, but i've never had a single isssue with the Athlon not on blue screen or system freeze up can't say that for the intel it locks up all the time

[BeepBeep2]

Originally Posted by Frakk

Thats a lot more than the review quoted on a much more powerful $500 GPU. Just shows how reliable 8 Month old reviews actually are.

IMHO Its also a bit of a farce to review sub $200 CPU's on a $500 GPU and then also to include an overclocked 2500K as part of the results and say nothing about the overclocking potential of the inexpensive FX-4 / FX-6 CPU's.

Well you have to know the exact settings used

[Frakk]

Originally Posted by wrsj

Yea well as we all know everyone knocks AMD and praises Intel but AMD is just as good imo and a alot cheaper, also alot more reliable, for example I have 2 other pcs in this house and one has an Intel Celeron and one an AMD Athlon and the Athlon blows away the Intel in every way they are both the same generation and are both around 3 yrs old, but the Intel i'm afraid is on its last leg, it lags behind so bad just doing simple web browsing, but i've never had a single isssue with the Athlon not on blue screen or system freeze up can't say that for the intel it locks up all the time

I use Intel Sandy Bridge PC's regular as well as my own personal pride and joy.

Both are very good, solid Chips and perform off the planet in different ways, neither is bad in any attribute, they just have different strong suits and when one is weaker it can usually be remedied with a few tweaks.

One thing you will always get with even the lower end of the scale of AMD's is that they are unlocked, so you can play with them until your heart content.

Whats more by doing so such reviews as the one cited become meaningless.

Anyway... i have a BF3 match to attend in glorious Ultra preset and 60+ FPS....

[Bubba-Hotepp]

Originally Posted by Frakk

Thats a lot more than the review quoted on a much more powerful $500 GPU. Just shows how reliable 8 Month old reviews actually are.

IMHO Its also a bit of a farce to review sub $200 CPU's on a $500 GPU and then also to include an overclocked 2500K as part of the results and say nothing about the overclocking potential of the inexpensive FX-4 / FX-6 CPU's.

That's when I started losing faith in the so called "reviews". When I, at stock and with a cheaper GPU, was getting better FPS than what they supposedly got in that review.

Oh and don't forget, they didn't just put in a 2500K as part of the results, they overclocked that 2500K while showing stock FX results. That should have been the first red flag for me to start questioning the motivations of the "reviewer".

[Frakk]

Originally Posted by Bubba-Hotepp

That's when I started losing faith in the so called "reviews". When I, at stock and with a cheaper GPU, was getting better FPS than what they supposedly got in that review.

Oh and don't forget, they didn't just put in a 2500K as part of the results, they overclocked that 2500K while showing stock FX results. That should have been the first red flag for me to start questioning the motivations of the "reviewer".

This is what i'm talking about with reviewing $110 CPU's on $500 GPU's.

If your budget is ~ $150 for the CPU your not going to be pairing it with a $500 GPU, your going to be pairing it with a GTX 560 / 6870 or something around there.

Now if you look in this TomsHardware review http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rk,3136-7.html

The FX-4100 has a perfectly good 50 to 60 FPS at high settings and 1920 x 1080 res, exactly the same as the i3.

See picture



Now this strikes me as odd, in the CPU's for - $200 review they have the same FX-4100 CPU on a 6950 and the same settings other than AF, i don't know how much of a FPS hit AF is but the difference is about 60%. that's a hell of a lot.

The i3 pulls away on the high end GPU's in that to, but again are you really going to have such a high end GPU on an entry level CPU? And even if you do, the i3 is locked, the FX-4100 isn't. Overclock it.

[Lordred]

There is a reason I built a fx-4100 coupled with an hd 7770

[Bubba-Hotepp]

Originally Posted by Frakk

This is what i'm talking about with reviewing $110 CPU's on $500 GPU's.

If your budget is ~ $150 for the CPU your not going to be pairing it with a $500 GPU, your going to be pairing it with a GTX 560 / 6870 or something around there.

Now if you look in this TomsHardware review http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rk,3136-7.html

The FX-4100 has a perfectly good 50 to 60 FPS at high settings and 1920 x 1080 res, exactly the same as the i3.

See picture



Now this strikes me as odd, in the CPU's for - $200 review they have the same FX-4100 CPU on a 6950 and the same settings other than AF, i don't know how much of a FPS hit AF is but the difference is about 60%. that's a hell of a lot.

The i3 pulls away on the high end GPU's in that to, but again are you really going to have such a high end GPU on an entry level CPU? And even if you do, the i3 is locked, the FX-4100 isn't. Overclock it.

But, again, the review ignores the fact that with a mild overclock to 4.0GHz the 4100 will start to match or exceed the i3's performance on the 6950 or higher. We know of course that clock for clock SB/IB will post better results than FX. I find it funny though that in a review that explores which are the better "budget" CPU's they completely ignore the strengths of the FX chips (mainly the ability to achieve high overclocks vs the locked "budget" CPU's from Intel) while playing to the strengths of the Intel CPU's. IMHO that seems a little shady.

[Frakk]

Bubba, i know, i completely agree with you, i'm saying the same thing and have said it