Opinions on the AMD FX 6100 Processor

[y2adre]

lol Im honest about mine, but because most ppl wouldnt know the difference between performance in quad-core, hexa, or octa processors, amd will always have a market for great processors that will compete with Intel.

 

[PP Mguire]

lol Im honest about mine, but because most ppl wouldnt know the difference between performance in quad-core, hexa, or octa processors, amd will always have a market for great processors that will compete with Intel.

When they actually go to use it they notice the difference. AMD doesn't really have any competition for Intel. For right now there just isn't enough use of the CPU in a gaming system to warrant something faster. It's typically cheap ass gamers that buy AMD. The people who actually need the power and use 100% CPU spend a little extra on Intel because it's usually for work.

 

[y2adre]

cheap ass gamers keep intel from being a monopoly on the cpu chip market for the most part. I think AMD keeps Intel revolutionary and reverse. Cheap ass gamers also show u different ways to get that performance u crave but at a cheaper price.

Just saying......

 

[PP Mguire]

cheap ass gamers keep intel from being a monopoly on the cpu chip market for the most part. I think AMD keeps Intel revolutionary and reverse. Cheap ass gamers also show u different ways to get that performance u crave but at a cheaper price.

Just saying......

When 50 dollar Celerons can play games on Intel's side, and a Haswell i3 creams practically every AMD chip in gaming for 129 bucks. Like I said, there isn't a reason. Not only that, but you can buy a 50 dollar B85/75 motherboard and stick an i7 on it without worry of compatibility issues. To upgrade to an 8350 it's really recommended to have a good 990FX board which costs over 100 bucks.

Intel really isn't all that revolutionary anymore. Core 2 was revolutionary, and Core i increased on that. Otherwise, we're looking at incremental steps in performance and more strides on the power consumption side from Intel. Since all it takes is 10% increase in performance and they keep piling on the pressure. They have low end cheap chips that outperform APUs on the CPU side for games, and then you have the i3 which is basically the perfect middle man.
It's why I made the article. I know that there will always be that person who wants to support the middle man with the assumption of "I'm not missing much" because it gets the job done. For somebody like me, I will make my point unless they refuse to listen which is half the reason I made my article on literal CPU performance. After that, it's a "you're on your own" type of attitude. I've already had people come to me to replace their FX 4300s with i5's several times simply because the performance difference is more than marginal like some people want to believe. It doesn't take much more cash to do this, and they realized why after they had the product in their machine why I say Intel all the way.

But hey, it's like I've said several times now in this thread alone. You're happy with your AMD chip? That's cool, I'm happy for anybody who is satisfied with their purchase. But like I've said again several times, numbers don't lie and neither does experience. I'm so dead set on this because I was just like everybody else. I had my 955BE cranking 4.2GHz and running 2 highly clocked GTX280s under water being creamed by a 3.8GHz clocked i5 750 and 2 4890s. Only real difference was CPU holding me back. Once I got my own i5 I never looked back. AMD has to make a real winner on the CPU side and numbers have to be clear without PR market nonsense before I change my stance. Simply clocking a few slow modules real fast isn't going to get the trick done. In the end, you asked a question and I replied with fact backed by several released years of numbers on the table from Bulldozer. I can't help it when AMD fanboys get mad at the truth.

I'm not all anti AMD though. I'm impressed with what I'm hearing from the R9 290x so far. Not really liking them masking all the numbers with extra fluff but we'll see pretty soon how it fairs.

 

[RichM499]

My 1090t does well against i5 750. When I upgrade to an FX chip I'll make sure to benchmark. I do pretty well in benchmarks with this hexacore too.

I'm not mad about anything I just prefer AMD. The difference in productivity applications these days is negligible unless you're buying the best of the best from either side and as you said yourself a few times in games it really doesn't make a difference.

Synthetic benchmarks aside the high-end CPUs from either company are powerhouses and perform similarly.

 

[PP Mguire]

My 1090t does well against i5 750. When I upgrade to an FX chip I'll make sure to benchmark. I do pretty well in benchmarks with this hexacore too.

I'm not mad about anything I just prefer AMD. The difference in productivity applications these days is negligible unless you're buying the best of the best from either side and as you said yourself a few times in games it really doesn't make a difference.

Synthetic benchmarks aside the high-end CPUs from either company are powerhouses and perform similarly.

The 1090t is a different ballpark compared to the i5 750, but in IPC the 750 still wins because stock for stock they are very similar. The i5 750 can be clocked very easily to 4.2GHz on air too, as I did for the longest time. The thing about Phenom 2 though, is like I told Mike. IPC on Phenom 2 is higher and the 1090t is a real hex as the 6100 is not.

Actually, in productivity is where it really matters, when you're actually using those cores. Typically always favors Intel. I mean, compare the 4 module 9590 vs the 3960x (which is SB). The 3.3Ghz 3960x wins in practically every single thing imaginable compared to a 5Ghz 8350 (pretty much what it is). When you look at single threaded performance a 5Ghz AMD chip barely bests even the slowest SB chips. Which is why I still to this day stand the ground on, i3 over any AMD for gaming. Period.
AMD FX-9590 Review; Piledriver at 5GHz - Page 6

They clearly don't perform similarly. That's a mammoth 220w TDP chip clocked at 5GHz which can be done by the 200 dollar 8350. It gives a rash example of exactly what I'm talking about. Cores and clock speeds don't make up for bad architecture. It only performs ok to the people who decided to use them because they work for those people. Knowing what it's like on both sides of the spectrum, I can sit here and say similar is far from the adjective I would use.

 

[Joe C]

Actually, there's an independent review over here
Richland Review - Page 4 | Maximum PC

That's the newer Richland A10 AMD chip

 

[PP Mguire]

Yea seen them, same scenario. It's 20 dollars more than a Haswell i3 (which will be faster than IB i3) and the i3 3220 beats it in all but maybe 3 tests. The only place it gets the others on is when they take out dedicated card at the end, but I would expect better than integrated to beat integrated. And this is their latest silicon to be released.
In the end, the FX 6300 would be a better buy than the A10 simply because the platform is better for dedicated cards.

The sad part, Rumor mill is twitching saying AMD doesn't have anymore plans for dedicated processors.

 

[Joe C]

I'm not one for the whole GPU/Cpu combo either but you can not deny the results given

The A10 doesn't disappoint. It simply destroys the HD2500 and HD4000 graphics. Intel's new HD4600 gets closer, but there's no cigar. Maybe HD Graphics 5200 aka Iris Pro will beat it, but we didn't have it to test. These are overall scores, and higher is better.

This test isolates the graphics, and we again see the A10 make a monkey out of all of the Intel parts. Don't expect this to change much, either. These are overall scores, and higher is better.

The new 3DMark actually sees the results close up a bit between the A10 and 4000-series Intel graphics, but the A10 still wins, especially against the HD2500 Core i3 CPU.

Firestrike is the heavy-duty test in the new 3DMark and is more apt for testing discrete graphics, but it's still interesting to see the Intel parts lose out to the A10

3DMark's Ice Storm Graphics test is intended for mid-range PCs. Here we see HD4600 close up the distance with HD4000. But again, the A10 reigns supreme

The Cloudgate test in 3DMark is aimed at entry-level computing. For the first time, the HD4000 and HD4600 outpace the A10. The reason? The emphasis shifts from graphics performance to x86 performance, when the physics is factored into it, and the Intel chips now come out on top. Still don't get it? If you're running a game so old and so graphically easy as say Quake III, the Intel graphics and CPUs can actually be faster due to the better x86 performance. Well, except for HD2500 graphics, which is apparently there to insult or tease you. Hmm, maybe Intel shouldn't be allowed to use the word "graphics" with HD2500. Just as you can't call something "juice" unless there's actually fruit in it, maybe the HD2500 should be the purple-colored drink of the graphics world next to the grape juice A10.

Resident Evil 6 is surprisingly difficult on integrated graphics, but we think it's almost playable at a low resolution. Still, count this as a win for the A10

There's a bit more, but as for gaming, the A10 gives Intel a run for the money. it is my opinion the AMD has got something that gamers can use for less

 

[PP Mguire]

I'm not one for the whole GPU/Cpu combo either but you can not deny the results given















There's a bit more, but as for gaming, the A10 gives Intel a run for the money. it is my opinion the AMD has got something that gamers can use for less

Yea, you'll get better performance out of console. Gaming with an IGP is still gaming with an IGP. Every test was low res and lower settings to make FPS respectable. Everything quoted was from the IGP testing of which everybody knows the APUs have an obvious edge. Thing is, if you want any kind of decent gameplay from the PC, you need a dedicated card. Well for that, might as well get an i3 for cheaper.
Even in one of the quotes there it says plain in day what I've been saying this whole thread.