Which CPU is better for gaming

I am looking for a cpu to do some gaming on a new cpu and was wondering which cpu would be better AMD FX4100, or a AMD Phenom II X4 965 and pair it with a Asus M5A97 mobo, the games i mostly play are gta San andreas, GTA 4, and some others, i am hoping to play GTA 5 when it comes out so i was wondering which one would be better.
Thank You

It's highly debated, but I would take the 965.

i'd get the FX4170

Knufire said:

It's highly debated, but I would take the 965.

Click to expand...

That is what i thought, but im thinking now that the FX 4100 would be better for newer games, like GTA5, maybey not that new, but some other future games, i know that the 965 would smoke the 4100 in games that are out now.

The problem is that the FX-4xxx CPUs aren't true quad-cores. The Bulldozer architecture is designed in a way that the cores share parts, so if your performing integer calculations, it performs like a quad, but if your doing floating point calculations, it performs like a dual core. Most applications are a mixture of both, but it's pretty much impossible to determine what programs use more of which.

I'll vouch that the FX-4100 performs superbly with GTA4... as well as every single other game I own.

Aldakoopa said:

I'll vouch that the FX-4100 performs superbly with GTA4... as well as every single other game I own.

Click to expand...

Based on how well the FX 4100 handles GTA 4, do you think that it would handle GTA 5?

soxfan11 said:

Based on how well the FX 4100 handles GTA 4, do you think that it would handle GTA 5?

Click to expand...

Judging by the looks of it, GTA5 should have similar system requirements as GTA4, so I would assume so. GTA5 was one of the upcoming games I built this computer for as well.

No question.

The 965 is the stronger CPU.

The FX-4 core would need 4.8+ to match a 4 GHz OC on the 965...in anything.

BeepBeep2 said:

No question.

The 965 is the stronger CPU.

The FX-4 core would need 4.8+ to match a 4 GHz OC on the 965...in anything.

Click to expand...

i think i am going to go with the 965, thanks for all of your help.

BeepBeep2 said:

No question.

The 965 is the stronger CPU.

The FX-4 core would need 4.8+ to match a 4 GHz OC on the 965...in anything.

Click to expand...

Stronger at what? Certainly not playing games. Where exactly did you get this information? I have run both 955 and FX-4170 on this M5A97 EVO mobo and I can assure you that the FX is far and away the better gaming chip.

@ Soxfan: That 965 will probably do what you want it to, but I woudn't pay more than $90 for one. You can get an FX-4100 for $99 and they are superior gaming chips compared to the Phenoms, regardless of how people want to carry on about slightly better Super Pi scores or such with Phenoms. If you want to run benchmarks all day and brag about how fast you can calculate Pi to the Trillionth decimal place, then get a 965. If you want to play the latest games with the best framerates and overall fluidity then get an FX.

Jagged_Steel said:

Stronger at what? Certainly not playing games. Where exactly did you get this information? I have run both 955 and FX-4170 on this M5A97 EVO mobo and I can assure you that the FX is far and away the better gaming chip.

Click to expand...

The FX series aren't bad chips at all. I don't regret my decision to go with the 4100 over a quad core Phenom II at all. They're not worse, they're more of a side-step if anything because they're very similar in performance from what I have seen. Sometimes a Phenom is better, sometimes the FX is better... depends on the game and the rest of the setup I suppose.

EDIT: I see the 965 is on sale on Newegg, making it the better deal currently.

For somebody already running a 955/965 etc, it would probably not be worth it to spend $100+ to upgrade to an FX-4100/4170, but if deciding between the two for a new build it makes no sense to go with a Phenom unless you can get one crazy cheap.

Jagged_Steel said:

For somebody already running a 955/965 etc, it would probably not be worth it to spend $100+ to upgrade to an FX-4100/4170, but if deciding between the two for a new build it makes no sense to go with a Phenom unless you can get one crazy cheap.

Click to expand...

Several tests have shown that you're wrong. Neither one is clearly better than the other.

http://m.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html

Knufire said:

Several tests have shown that you're wrong. Neither one is clearly better than the other.

http://m.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html

Click to expand...

Ahhh, good old Tom's. Gotta love how they have benchmark graphs with a bunch of stock AMD's and then throw in an OC'd 2500 just to make sure that an Intel is on top of any chart they post.

If you read the specs for the rigs you will see that the FX setups are intentionally hobbled. 1333 Mhz memory? Give me a break. A properly configured and tuned FX performs better at games than a similar Phenom. This includes the entire gaming experience. Faster loads (WAY faster), smoother map scrolls and zooms and yes, better framerates too. It comes down to throughput speed. You get 20-30% more throughput with an FX using proper high speed memory that you simply cannot do with a Phenom. I have run them both and I know firsthand how much better FXs are, I could care less about whether Tom's wants to put on a clownshow with intentionally hobbled systems.

P.S> You posted a wonky link. This one takes you to the Tom's FX trashing shillpiece.

What the hell are you talking about?

First of all, the 2500K was included as a REFERENCE point. The article is clearly titled Sub-$200 gaming CPUs, and a 2500K is not sub-$200.

Today we have the following sub-$200 CPUs, plus a $230 Core i5-2500K for comparison:

Click to expand...

And where did you get 1333MHz memory from. All the CPUs were tested with the same memory, http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-ddr3-pc3-16000-flex-ex-series-eol.html. It's clearly listed in the 2nd page of the review.



No need to get emotional and biased just because scientific tests show that your opinions are wrong.

Sorry, but properly configured Phenom II systems beat out properly configured FX systems.

I'll start on both rigs right away. (Or not.)

Phenom II at 3.8/4.0/4.2, 2.8-3.0 CPU-NB
FX at 4.4-4.8, 2.4-2.6 CPU-NB
1800 6-6-6-18 for the Phenom II machine, 2133 7-7-6-20 for the 4-core FX machine?

Phenom II wins...

Knufire said:

What the hell are you talking about?

First of all, the 2500K was included as a REFERENCE point. The article is clearly titled Sub-$200 gaming CPUs, and a 2500K is not sub-$200.



And where did you get 1333MHz memory from. All the CPUs were tested with the same memory, http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-ddr3-pc3-16000-flex-ex-series-eol.html. It's clearly listed in the 2nd page of the review.

View attachment 114198

No need to get emotional and biased just because scientific tests show that your opinions are wrong.

Click to expand...

First: Tom's has an article about sub-$200 CPUs and throws in a more expensive one and then even overclocks it. I get what is going on just fine, if you don't that is your business.

Second: That page that you kindly posted says that they are using PC - 16000 memory. Below that it says 1333 MT/s , I suspect that is a typo and is supposed to read "Mhz". PC16000 memory = 1333 Mhz memory.

Looks like your knowledge is limited to Google/copy/paste and you don't actually know anything about the subject on which you are commenting.

1333 MT/is megatransfers per second, not Megahertz. Memory bandwidth is frequetly given in that unit, or more commonly GT/s (gigatransfers per second).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT/s

PC-16000 is 2000MHz memory. PC-10666 is 1333MHz. Go on Newegg and search any 1333MHz RAM kit, you will see either PC-10600, PC-10660, or PC-10666 in the model name (multiple due to rounding). Or, straight from the power-search function on Newegg:



No, you're just obscenely biased and making wildish claims and slandering a good website just to try to justify your incorrect point. Tom's clearly specified that it was included as a reference point, as I quoted. It was listed in every graph as a 2500K @ 4GHz. Anyone taking more than a quick look at the graph would easily see the difference and know that a 2500K is not sub-$200 (especially not in January).

BeepBeep2 said:

Sorry, but properly configured Phenom II systems beat out properly configured FX systems.

I'll start on both rigs right away. (Or not.)

Phenom II at 3.8/4.0/4.2, 2.8-3.0 CPU-NB
FX at 4.4-4.8, 2.4-2.6 CPU-NB
1800 6-6-6-18 for the Phenom II machine, 2133 7-7-6-20 for the 4-core FX machine?

Phenom II wins...

Click to expand...

I would love to see whatever game benchmarks you are going to run. However, this is not truly scientific. From your standpoint the "best" you could do is to prove that you have an FX machine that runs slower than a Phenom machine that you have. What does that prove? Is it because the FX is slower, is there a hardware or software incompatibility? PEBKAC? Something else? Nobody knows. Proving a negative is difficult at best, and usually impossible. What you could do is post your Game benchmarks and have others compare to them. The only game I have with a scripted repeatable benchmark is Shogun 2. I will throw it out there, although you are then getting into the GPU limiting issue, so for reference, my 2x6790's perform about the same as a single 6970. Show me a better score using a Phenom with similar GPU strength for the Shogun 2 1080p benchmark. I have looked on several forums including TWC and the benchmarks I have seen with a Phenom x4 pushing a 6950 or 6970 are not even close to the 59 I score with this FX-4170.



Edit: I stand corrected on the memory speed listed issue. My apologies. This does not however mean that the rigs are properly configured. We have no idea what speed is actually being run, I know for sure the Phenoms are not running at 2000 Mhz and if the FX systems were let to auto-choose the speed it may very well be 1333.