FX-4100 or Phenom II x4 960T?

[MercuryDoun]

So possible build coming up in the near future here, and it would definitely be on the cheaper side of things. I was looking at low end SB i3's but lack of overclocking has me looking other places, for a real bang/buck deal. Wouldn't an i3-2100k be nice??

 

I was originally looking at the Phenom II x4 960T. I don't think i'd bother trying to unlock it, i don't much care for the lack of core temps when trying to overclock, plus likely higher per core GHz seems useful. It doesn't have to last a lifetime, but it does need to not cause me any grief. This would be a secondary build for me, since my last attempt at secondary build was commandeered by my brother. Ideally this computer will be used as a significantly more portable gaming system, as I'm sick of lugging my 50 pound DF-85 around to my friends house when we play SC2/other games, but mostly SC2 every other weekend. Plus when i have people over, ill have an additional computer for someone.

 

I haven't finalized any parts whatsoever, but a nice well cooled mid tower, and a nice tower heat sink was planned. Either something along the lines of NZXT Havik or perhaps a new Phantek cooler for my main rig, and using my megahalems on this. Not sure yet, but for sure assume top dog contending air cooling.

 

Ideally speaking the 960T(which is basically 4-core 1090T) will reach into the 4.0GHz-4.2GHz area reliably under air, maybe higher, but im being realistic those Thubans got real flaky breaking that 4.2GHz barrier. But from what i see on the interwebz, the FX-4100 reaches 4.6GHz fairly easy on good air cooling, with many people hitting 5.0GHz with little to no issue, even with just air. Its no secret that Phenom II clock for clock is better than BD, but when comparing 4.0GHz-4.2GHz vs 4.6GHz-5.0GHz, what do you think ill see performance wise?

 

TL;DR

 

Phenom II x 4 960T @ 4.0GHz-4.2GHz

 

vs

 

FX-4100 @ 4.6GHz-5.0GHz

 

 

Also, please dont turn this into a buy an i3-2120 its pretty much the same price debate. I could care less about stock vs stock, i know stock vs stock the i3 is the clear winner. But i am interested in other suggestions!

[MercuryDoun]

Oh, I'm not opposed to getting my feet wet with BD provided i don't lose very much performance. Playing with a new chip you'be never played with before can be fun in of itself.

 

I have a Alpha copy of Win8 ill attempt to install on the rig when the time comes. One i wanna play with Win8, two be nice to see if BD really is better on win8.

[Waco]

My FX at 4.5 GHz was slower than my Phenom 2 at 3.5 GHz in games. Go for the 960 no doubt about it.

[El_Capitan]

Hey Merc, if you want some good deals on what you may want from what I have, let me know. From your original question, I think SC2 will utilize Bulldozer more than any other games, but Phenom II CPU's is enough for any games.

[MercuryDoun]

My FX at 4.5 GHz was slower than my Phenom 2 at 3.5 GHz in games. Go for the 960 no doubt about it.

 

Slower than your triple core?!? Even for BD i find that hard to believe! I thought you were having an issue with it down clocking on its own?

 

Hey Merc, if you want some good deals on what you may want from what I have, let me know. From your original question, I think SC2 will utilize Bulldozer more than any other games, but Phenom II CPU's is enough for any games.

 

Well it would only be an FX-4100 which is a quad-core. Mostly its the $120 price tag even brand new that has me interested. I wouldn't be buying anything til Feb probably, im just doing my research now. There is a small chance(Based on fundage) that ill be using my current GTX570 in this build, and getting a shiny new 7970 for my main rig!

 

Is your sales thread up to date? What did you think about that mATX Z68 board??

[dihartnell]

My FX at 4.5 GHz was slower than my Phenom 2 at 3.5 GHz in games. Go for the 960 no doubt about it.

 

 

+1. Might even unlock to a Hex core as well. Get the 960T while you still can.

[Tjj226_Angel]

My vote is for the Phenom. Otherwise, consider the 970 or the APU. The 970 will give you more speed, and the APU graphics will give you some gaming performance once paired with a good GPU. Either way, just thought I would give you more options.

[Drdeath]

In some gaming, the frame rates will be a little lower than a Phenom. Once the instructions are rewritten for win7 and a patch fully relesed, the FX chip will be the call. Once software is written to fiully take advantage of FX chips, Phenoms will be a distant memory. The frame rate will not be noticably different so FX would be the best choice.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Drdeath

[d6bmg]

Phenom II 960T without any doubt. Per core performance beats FX-4100 by a considerable margin.

[VaporX]

In some gaming, the frame rates will be a little lower than a Phenom. Once the instructions are rewritten for win7 and a patch fully relesed, the FX chip will be the call. Once software is written to fiully take advantage of FX chips, Phenoms will be a distant memory. The frame rate will not be noticably different so FX would be the best choice.

 

First the frame rates do not mean much now. Have not played with the 4100 but with the 8150 and 8120 I have yet to find a game they cannot play with a good gaming experience. However the software re-write you are referring to will only partially happen. The fix to the Windows scheduler will given enough performance back that the FX will only get to about even with the Phenom II in direct core to core speed. The special codes for the FX FPU has a snag to it that even people at AMD acknowledge. Unless Intel adopts all the same instruction sets these will not be used. So while the potential for performance is there it relies on Intel now to become a reality.

 

At the end of the day the FX as it is currently designed is not just a chip worthy of the effort. Hopefully a second revision will fix that.

[Waco]

In some gaming, the frame rates will be a little lower than a Phenom. Once the instructions are rewritten for win7 and a patch fully relesed, the FX chip will be the call. Once software is written to fiully take advantage of FX chips, Phenoms will be a distant memory. The frame rate will not be noticably different so FX would be the best choice.

4 Bulldozer cores aren't going to beat 4 Stars cores in anything except encryption...which the Stars cores aren't too shabby at anyway. There's no real-world situation where a 4 core BD is preferable to a 4 core Phenom 2 especially since the Phenom 2 in question might unlock to 6 cores.