amazing performance for price

A Review On: AMD FX 4100 4-Core Processor, 3.6 4 Socket AM3 - FD4100WMGUSBX

AMD FX 4100 4-Core Processor, 3.6 4 Socket AM3 - FD4100WMGUSBX

See all 8 reviews
Recent Pricing:
xjtrx
Posted · 3559 Views · 12 Comments

Pros: speed/stability

Cons: none so far

simply... it is a inexpensive, very easy to overclock cpu. i easily overclocked mine to 4.5Ghz without extremely high temps. in my opinion, you cant buy a better performance cpu than this. intel and amd have there pros and cons but you just cant beat the price and speed of this.thumb.gif

12 Comments:

And yet an Intel 2gz dual core notebook cpu is faster than that.
Sorry but AMD's last gen cpus are better bang for buck and performance per core than FailDozer.
It's not a faildozer, it plays games well and is a fast quad core processor.
I quote passmark's cpu benchmarks, the FX quad core pulls off the same speed as Intel mobile dual cores (effectively being half as fast in single-threaded apps - or, just about 99% of apps and games)

AMD FX-4100 Quad-Core 3,978 $109.99*
Intel Core i3-2105 @ 3.10GHz 3,935 $134.99*
Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10GHz 3,854 $119.98*
Intel Core i5-2540M @ 2.60GHz 3,850

If you can just ignore the utter fail of FailDozer like this, well, you deserve what you get. Even hardcore AMD fans are pissed at how bad FailDozer bulldozed its way into faildom.
hey look, its about the same, and if he likes the chip and a potent little OC on it its beating the Intel, sure single threading it may fall behind, but for his purpose it may be perfect
You should notice that the AMD is the cheapest of the lot you listed, AMD is generally for the budget market you don't need the best CPUs to play games and run applications anyway.
the amd 4170 black edition with bulldozer is 4.2 ghz quad (quad core like most of amd's new cores), i think amd worry about the clocks and intel are for the threads and etc.
I don't think Reaper realizes that frequency is just a meaningless number. A single core from a cpu can be 20% (or more) faster at the same clock than a competing cpu.

The cpus I listed are dual cores with a lower frequency, that perform the same as AMD's much higher clocked quad.
Im an Intel guy, no questions asked. I bought a 2500k and love it. Having said that, this is a quad core that can be oc'd to 4.5ghz for 105$. Who cares if intel's is only a dual core and matches it's STOCK speed...moving on to my next point. Those dual cores you listed can be overclocked by what, 400mhz? AMD's quad at 4.5ghz will spank that cpu, for less money too. Anything under 150$, AMD almost always has the best bang/buck.
Its effectively a dual core + CMT (think HyperThreading)... So its no wonder it performs like a dual core. Cost to performance is decent though, and its fun to OC it to hell and back for cheap.
Dalamar, please stop preaching as if you know anything about central processing if you think clock speed is useless.

Sincerely, everyone.

Also, lol, thanks for showing us the FX-4100 is the better buy over the i3 with those benchmarks. Better at stock clocks, and can be overclocked unlike the i3's and it's cheaper.
Having run said I3s and the 4100 in several configs, I would take the 4100 any day, silly argument there. Even on the newer Intel processors, yeah they rock, but literally have pennies on the dollar comparatively in my processor and it will play all the same games. Whats the big deal?