FX-4100 good AMD CPU for gaming?

[Trojan Horse]

I am wondering where the AMD FX-4100 is the best 'bang for ya buck' CPU out there for gaming,

I have read multiple reviews, and commendations saying the FX-4100 cpu is worse, and the phenoms; better, and the latter.

Could anyone clarify which is the best CPU for gaming? (I mostly want to record Skyrim and other RPGs)

The 965 goes for around 80 (1 pound more than the FX-4100) worth the cash?

 

[Knufire]

Specifically talking about the FX-4100, I'd say the Phenom II X4s are better. The FX-6100 is better than both though.

If your current system is fine playing the game, but lags when recording, then you might want to look into getting a capture card.

 

[Trojan Horse]

What makes the Phenoms better though? I've read and heard so many people say it is better, but not why it is better!

I would love to know the specifics, 'n everything.

 

[Knufire]

You might not understand all of it, but try to read this: http://semiaccurate.com/2011/10/10/exclusive-a-look-at-the-bulldozer-architecture/

As that article said, Bulldozer isn't a traditional CPU with a certain number of cores, instead it has modules. Each module has two cores, but the cores share parts. Mainly, each module has two integer scheduler, but one floating point scheduler. This means that a module will perform like two cores with integer calculations, but like one core with floating point calculations. (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-real-difference-between-integers-and-floatingp.html) Games tend to use a mix of both, I'm not exactly sure which one is more prevalent.

With a FX-8xxx CPU, with four modules, this means that it performs like a octocore with floating point (great!) and like a quad core with integer (still very good).

Now, as you drop the number of cores...the number of cores used in FP calculations goes down twice as fast. With a FX-4xxx CPU, it's going to perform like a quad in integer, but only like a dual with floating point.

That combined with the fact that it's IPC (performance when clock speed and number of cores are equal) is less then Thuban (Phenom II X6).

Bulldozer is good, but only in specific (i.e. integer-based) applications.

 

[ivanlabrie]

You might not understand all of it, but try to read this: http://semiaccurate.com/2011/10/10/exclusive-a-look-at-the-bulldozer-architecture/

As that article said, Bulldozer isn't a traditional CPU with a certain number of cores, instead it has modules. Each module has two cores, but the cores share parts. Mainly, each module has two integer scheduler, but one floating point scheduler. This means that a module will perform like two cores with integer calculations, but like one core with floating point calculations. (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-real-difference-between-integers-and-floatingp.html) Games tend to use a mix of both, I'm not exactly sure which one is more prevalent.

With a FX-8xxx CPU, with four modules, this means that it performs like a octocore with floating point (great!) and like a quad core with integer (still very good).

Now, as you drop the number of cores...the number of cores used in FP calculations goes down twice as fast. With a FX-4xxx CPU, it's going to perform like a quad in integer, but only like a dual with floating point.

That combined with the fact that it's IPC (performance when clock speed and number of cores are equal) is less then Thuban (Phenom II X6).

Bulldozer is good, but only in specific (i.e. integer-based) applications.

Cool! (I think you meant *FP operations* at the end though)

And how would you say a 5ghz oc would work with a fx6100 vs a 1090t/955be or something at 4ghz?

 

[RGone]

And how would you say a 5ghz oc would work with a fx6100 vs a 1090t/955be or something at 4ghz?

Here in the forum we have not seen any 'real' and stable 5.0Ghz speeds. Certainly not on air, but very very good water, maybe. So the idea of a 5.0Ghz clock to run against the 4.0Ghz thubans is not very likely.

You are just guessing and theorizing but the theories are short of being obtainable.

 

[ivanlabrie]

Here in the forum we have not seen any 'real' and stable 5.0Ghz speeds. Certainly not on air, but very very good water, maybe. So the idea of a 5.0Ghz clock to run against the 4.0Ghz thubans is not very likely.

You are just guessing and theorizing but the theories are short of being obtainable.

A friend has an 8120, but that's just too power hungry and hot to go over 4.6ghz with his H100...not for 24/7 use at least.

I'd think a 6100/6200 or 4100/4170 should run much cooler.