Originally Posted by guyladouche
The FX-4100 looks like a very tempting offer to me, assuming it doesn't have the same bug that the FX-8150 has been shown to have (and if AMD issues a hotfix for it, I really couldn't care less). 3.8GHz quad isn't bad for $130 on release (I'm also guessing that the prices might go down a bit), especially when it can match the gaming performance of an i5-2500k.
The biggest failure was poorly planned marketing along with everyone and their brother in the computer hardware arena assuming that the release would sweep the floor with intel--which I was skeptical of in the first place.
And people whose primary interest is gaming, criticizing the benchmarks that show the FX series keeping up with intel's i5 and i7 CPU's in games, yet unable to keep up in other/synthetic benchmarks, is just nitpicking. If all I care about is gaming performance and I can get the FX CPU's for less money and get the same gaming performance, I really have no reason to spend more on an intel CPU if the general things I do don't benefit from it.
I'd really love for AMD to release their hotfix, for the windows environment to more-efficiently utilize the architecture, only just so people can stop discussing this ad nauseum beyond the point of practical relevance.
It's a roadbump for AMD for sure, but I still think they're moderately successful with their release, and TBH, I'd be happy to have an FX-4100 or an FX-8150. Granted, if I had an i5 or an i7, there'd be no reason to switch. Except I don't, and it seems like a lot of OCN forgets that outside of our small enthusiast community, not everyone has 2500k's and 2600k's cranking at 4.5+GHz.
1. You're overlooking the PhII 955/965. Can be had a bit cheaper (I paid $120 for my 965) than the FX 4100, and trashes it in benchmarks. You did see where a 4.9ghz 4100 couldn't keep up with a stock 965.. right? (Yes, it was Cinebench, not a "gaming benchmark" but Cinebench is much better at showing CPU potential than "gaming benchmarks.") At 4.9ghz I'd be surprised if it didn't consume quite a bit more power than the 955/965 does at stock, too.
2. I agree with you about the marketing, the hype, etc. It stinks. They need to clean out their marketing department along with the rest of upper management. Then they may once again be a competent CPU manufacturer. I didn't expect it to wipe the floor with SB, but I DID expect it to meet/beat my i5 760 - and it DOESN'T.
3. How on earth are you getting it for less money? I've already pointed out 955s and 965s are less expensive. Sure, if you want to compare it to a 2500k it's cheaper - but who's going to have to upgrade first in the future? The guy with the "FX" (ugh, they ruined a legacy) or the guy with the 2500k? I bet my i5 760 and 965 BE will both outlast the 4100 and the 6100 for that matter.
4. There is no "hotfix." (maybe one to fix the BSODs) Not one that's going to dramatically increase performance. Do you think they've been sitting on their hands since January with crappy CPUs and taking THIS LONG to release what you're calling a "hotfix"?
5. A roadbump?! When Llano and Phenom I both destroy it in single threaded performance, that's a ROADBUMP? What would it take to be a real disaster? Man, Phenom I got stomped by the first generation C2D/C2Qs. Those chips (PhI) are faster than BD, clock for clock, to give you an idea of just how far behind the curve BD is right now. It would have been laughed at during the Q9550s heydey.
You don't need a 4.5ghz 2500k for gaming. My 3.5ghz i5 destroys any game thrown it's way. My stock clocked 965 BE does pretty well too considering how much cheaper it was. That still doesn't make the 4100 a good deal.
When your new "flagship" performs worse than your dirt cheap mainstream CPUs, when your "flagship" is rolled by last (2) generations flagship, you've released a piece of junk.
Originally Posted by Weasel555
^^This. I will most likely purchase an FX series processor. I dont run crossfire and I don't have the need for running benchmarks (sorry it kind of reminds me of some kind of self serving asexual act) Jokes aside. This processor is still a viable upgrade path. Im sure this will run Battlefield 3 perfectly fine. (and Space Empires 4 when I feel like ive had my fill of high def graphics)
Same goes to you. The "FX" 4100 is -not- an upgrade to your Athlon II. If you want a minor upgrade, buy a Thuban or 3.2-3.5ghz Deneb (on sale.) Performs better, will last longer.Edited by pursuinginsanity - 10/21/11 at 8:04am