AMD FX 6100 $139 After Promo Code @ NewEgg

dkizzy · Feb 6, 2012

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103962

$10 off w/ promo code HARDOCPX2X1A, ends 2/7

$139 is not too bad for this CPU. Figured I would share even if most of you saw it already.

scornduffer · Feb 6, 2012

Tempted Is it worth it?

dkizzy said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103962

$10 off w/ promo code HARDOCPX2X1A, ends 2/7

$139 is not too bad for this CPU. Figured I would share even if most of you saw it already.

I was thinking about this along with the Gigabyte MB 990UDA 3 for$287.00 out the door but was wondering if its an upgrade from my old Quad Core 8400 and Neo Geo 2 MB.

I already have 8 GIGS of DDR 3 memory from G skill.

ratbuddy · Feb 8, 2012

Ehh, $140 is kinda steep for a tri-core.

freakdiablo · Feb 8, 2012

ratbuddy said:
Ehh, $140 is kinda steep for a tri-core.

The 6100 has 6 cores, unless you're referring to something else...

ratbuddy · Feb 8, 2012

freakdiablo said:
The 6100 has 6 cores, unless you're referring to something else...

No comment

cw823 · Feb 10, 2012

Cyber deals is probably not the place for that argument.

Niku-Sama · Feb 14, 2012

i'm confused

ShadowPho · Feb 14, 2012

Niku-Sama said:
i'm confused

Basically what bulldozer has as a "module" is a mix of dual-core and hyperthreading [although done differently]. They end up sharing floating point but have separate integer point modules. Thus they have OK integer performance but sub-par floating.

With that said, 2500k is a more powerful cheap in pretty much anything that requires <4 threads, while 6100 is sometimes better in bigger thread environments.

tl;dr: 8100 [more speed, more cache then this] vs 2500k and 2600k

Niku-Sama · Feb 14, 2012

oh i see so:
cores * threads = AMD putting total number of threads on box (?)
so the "six" core is really a tri core with 2 threads per core?

either way it sounds like i would be better off with a 960T

dkizzy · Feb 15, 2012

ShadowPho said:
Basically what bulldozer has as a "module" is a mix of dual-core and hyperthreading [although done differently]. They end up sharing floating point but have separate integer point modules. Thus they have OK integer performance but sub-par floating.

With that said, 2500k is a more powerful cheap in pretty much anything that requires <4 threads, while 6100 is sometimes better in bigger thread environments.

tl;dr: 8100 [more speed, more cache then this] vs 2500k and 2600k

This is all true but are those benchmarks from launch? which OS were those benches tested with? Windows 8 will enhance BD architecture by at least 10% or more in most instances. The backported patch for Windows 7 is not coded to provide the full enhancement that the new OS will provide. So the "tri-core" 6100 will have better numbers than what was reported. Plus we have to factor in the applications that are tailored for Intel. Is it true that Intel had some app devs put a AMD Kill code to make their benchmarks look worse?

muddocktor · Feb 15, 2012

This thread is not the place to have this argument on whether it's a triple core or hex core processor. This thread is for the deal not the architecture.

muddocktor
Forum Staff

AMD FX 6100 $139 After Promo Code @ NewEgg

dkizzy

Member

scornduffer

Member

ratbuddy

Member

freakdiablo

ratbuddy

Member

cw823

Honeybadger Moderator

Niku-Sama

Member

ShadowPho

Member

Niku-Sama

Member

dkizzy

Member

muddocktor

Retired

Similar threads