seems like I will have to post my specs. Before this topic completely derails however a caveat. Parts are already ordered. As far as OC goes, I might bump my proc to 4GHz but no higher.
Mobo: Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3
Proc: AMD FX-4100 Zambezi @3.6 GHz AM3+
Graphics: Sapphire Radeon HD6850
Memory: 16GB (4 × 4GB) Corsair Vengence
HD: Corsair Force Series 120 GB SSD with 2 TB spare drive
PS: Cooler Master Silent Pro M700’
As far as cooling
2x 200mm fans
1x 120mm fan
Case is Cooler Master Storm Enforcer SGC-1000-KWN1
Thoughts?
I would return it. The clock speed means nothing on the FX. Even at 4.4Ghz OC, it is a small gain. 16GB ram will do nothing for gaming. SSD will help with loading and maintaining fps.
If your video card is not up there, you wont see the performance.
3ghz to 4ghz, 23 to 41 minimum fps. “it is a small gain” lol. Also the FX-4000s are known for clocking up to 4.7-5ghz on air. Now look at the 2500k, “it is a small gain”
the Benchmark just proves what i wrote.
the 4100 stock is half the power of a the 2500k stock.
it does perform better overclocked than an Oc’d 2500 but thats the nature of current Intels. to overclock it to 4.7-5ghz he will need a cooler that will cost him more or the same as upgrading the 4100 to 8100 (or a 6100). (so far that overclock ability is the only advantage the FX have over the Phenom II’s) but on the other hand. i dont expect every AMD customer practicing high end overclocking.
Oh really? I clocked my FX-4170 at 4.8 with AMD’s auto clock tool; with the stock cooler. With the older FX-4100 you’re probably going to need an aftermarket cooler if you want to reach 5ghz, but I don’t think that’s a problem since a lot of people already reuse their aftermarket cooler…
I would return it. The clock speed means nothing on the FX. Even at 4.4Ghz OC, it is a small gain. 16GB ram will do nothing for gaming. SSD will help with loading and maintaining fps.
If your video card is not up there, you wont see the performance.
3ghz to 4ghz, 23 to 41 minimum fps. “it is a small gain” lol. Also the FX-4000s are known for clocking up to 4.7-5ghz on air. Now look at the 2500k, “it is a small gain”
AMD’s 8core BD: $180
Intel’s 2500k: $200
Classic case of “you get what you pay for” followed by over-ambitious assumptions of what your hardware is capable of.
1 look at AMD’s architecture diagram says everything. Notice that each 2core “module” shares the same instruction decoder, L2 cache, and floating point unit. This makes an 8core BD much closer to a 4core CPU. It’s literally reinventing the Pentium 4 with hyperthreading.
You’re really just stating the obvious and letting the point go over your head. All this information was described in the post above you. Now quit riding Intel…
You’re linking a synthetic non gaming benchmark that utilizes all cores. As said previously, games don’t utilize all cores, and per core performance is much more important.
Here’s a much more detailed compilations of benchmarks showing Intel massive lead:
Just because the MMO and RTS genre are almost entirely CPU bound doesn’t mean they’re poorly optimized.
You’re again linking synthetic benchmarks. In that entire spreadsheet you link 2 games. One of which is Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is almost purely GPU bound in the same way that BF3 is. In the other game however, you can clearly see that it’s beaten by a mile.
If you’d like to fool yourself into thinking AMD is currently viable, go ahead. But please don’t go ahead misinforming others with false information.
Despite me playing various mmos between wow, rift and aion, I’ve only had problems with this game. Yeah I’m misinforming people by telling them how bad this game is optimized. I guarantee none of the devs are running AMD cpus and are only fixing performance problems for Intel users to save time and money.
Now kindly show me a benchmark were Pentium Dualcores outperform FX 8000’s.
Then go ahead and navigate to the rest of the gaming benchmark pages. Notice how the i3 is above the 8150 in almost every game?
There’s nothing wrong about being misinformed on certain subjects and learning something new. Problems only arise when you start stating said misinformation as unfounded fact.
There are benchmarks were the lesser FX4000 outbeats the FX8000, it’s nothing new.
And like I said; show me a benchmark of a Pentium Dual core beating an FX8000, not an i3…
Well almost all of the FX processors are Black Edition with unlocked multiplier… So why bother buying one if you are not going to overclock it^_^ when you O/C they perform quite well for what they worth tho
I also mention this game almost unplayable on Phenom II’s.
No it’s not… I’ve got AMD Phenom II x6 1055T which is not overclocked.
I get around 50-60 FPS all the time with almost everything maxed at 1920×1200 resolution. EDIT: 50-60 FPS in PvE 30 FPS minimum in w3
You’re linking a synthetic non gaming benchmark that utilizes all cores. As said previously, games don’t utilize all cores, and per core performance is much more important.
Here’s a much more detailed compilations of benchmarks showing Intel massive lead:
Just because the MMO and RTS genre are almost entirely CPU bound doesn’t mean they’re poorly optimized.
You’re again linking synthetic benchmarks. In that entire spreadsheet you link 2 games. One of which is Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is almost purely GPU bound in the same way that BF3 is. In the other game however, you can clearly see that it’s beaten by a mile.
If you’d like to fool yourself into thinking AMD is currently viable, go ahead. But please don’t go ahead misinforming others with false information.
Despite me playing various mmos between wow, rift and aion, I’ve only had problems with this game. Yeah I’m misinforming people by telling them how bad this game is optimized. I guarantee none of the devs are running AMD cpus and are only fixing performance problems for Intel users to save time and money.
Now kindly show me a benchmark were Pentium Dualcores outperform FX 8000’s.
Well almost all of the FX processors are Black Edition with unlocked multiplier… So why bother buying one if you are not going to overclock it^_^ when you O/C they perform quite well for what they worth tho
I also mention this game almost unplayable on Phenom II’s.
Phenom II x4 965 here. No issues. Well, occasional lag, but nothing near “unplayable”.
You’re linking a synthetic non gaming benchmark that utilizes all cores. As said previously, games don’t utilize all cores, and per core performance is much more important.
Here’s a much more detailed compilations of benchmarks showing Intel massive lead:
Well almost all of the FX processors are Black Edition with unlocked multiplier… So why bother buying one if you are not going to overclock it^_^ when you O/C they perform quite well for what they worth tho
I also mention this game almost unplayable on Phenom II’s.
It’s no surprise. Per core performance on Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge is miles ahead of per core performance on AMD chips. Since games are usually only dual threaded, obviously Intel’s superior core performance is going to make i3 chips beat out anything offered by AMD.
Have no problems in other games, only have problems on this game. Does not compute.
As you can see the Intel Pentium Dual Core does better than AMD’s FX-8000 in this game. We all know the bulldozer series didn’t meet expectations but come on; this is just ridiculous. It seems the only way to get decent frames in this game on a bulldozer CPU is overclock it like mad.
From personal experience, I wouldn’t even bother playing with a Phenom II unless you like playing at sub ~30 fps with overclocking. WvW? That’s a whole different story…
