AMD FX-4100 Quad Core 3.6GHz CPU $110 at Amazon

Garbage, get the 960T Instead.

Agreed!!

Where is my gravatar?

Lol Ben ate it..

Why is this bad?

Read the reviews.@ pile driver SHOULD be better. This is like a Dual Core with HT really.

Garbage, I wouldn't agree... given the lower power and OC potential it's not as cut and dry as folk have been coerced; although the common wisdom is the 960T is the better (stock) option from AMD right now, as far as price to performance that's probably true. The problem is the lack of good data against other similar Phenom's. This is like the only FX-4100 review I've come across that has something to compare (kind of).
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/

If we look at these two links the 960T is somewhat between a A6-3650 and A6-3650 so them using that it provides some reference point to consider. It's not a great comparison, but it has me thinking don't slam this lid down so fast.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/206/AMD_A6-Series_A6-3650_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X4_960T.html
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/212/AMD_A8-Series_A8-3850_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X4_960T.html

agree.

Found this with a 955 which is really close may be better a 960T. But it does kind of point out the main issue with Bulldozer real wonky performance which might be a Win7 scheduler issue IdK.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4102html#sect0

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/307/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_955_(aconbay.aconbay)_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X4_960T.html

Ben Wonk'ied the link cut and past it and it works.

Say what you want... BULLDOZER was a failure for AMD and so where the 1st PHENOMs. BD will get better. Both are 95w TDP Look @ this the 4100 is not even listed on here, it scores so low its on the bottom. The 960t is close to the 6100 in performance. [image]

Your point with Cinebench is well taken, as graphic intensive, but single threaded test (if not mistaken) it might have been not great. We also see it with other synthetic and game graphic scores as being lower, but apples to apple the percentages aren’t greatly disturbing. That screen shot of what someone got with the X6 on a 880G (HD4250) graphics system, it was welcome but isn't truely relavant.

As I said, "as far as price to performance that's probably true" if this was an $80 part folks would judge it differently. You're a lucky guy to unlock the 906T into that X6 1605T, but what was the cost of that 906T back like a year and half ago... Mr. Morales?

For $40 more you can get the fx 8120 in store only at microcenter.
You need to like them on facebook https://www.facebook.com/MicroCenter?sk=app_263996086966257
and you get a coupon for it at $159 .... in GA total was 169.59
essentially save $40 off the newegg/amazon price.

So you're saying that the 4250 lowered the score on CPU bench? This I thought was strictly a cpu bench, The 960T was released to retail not to long ago.... it was priced lower than the 4100 @ launch. The bad reviews made AMD lower its prices. [image] My 1055T @ 3.6GHz with a couple of 6850s is slower than the FX-4100 @ 4.6GHz Single Threaded Bench.

I've always use Cinebench for graphics, I saw the big OpenGL up at the top and thought that was the test. Me mistaken...

I find the HD96ZTWFGRBOX hit market 3rd quarter 2010

Edit: spartan805 - I just want to say if you nabbed a 906T for less than the $110 FX-4100 went for from almost right after the launch, you did good and made the better choice, while getting unlock just sweetens it.

I wasn't try to bust your... opinon just want to temper some of the quick rhetoric that was so prevalent after the launch. AMD hatch an "all new" egg, it came with a cracked shell, but that doesn't mean it can't still produce a befitting omelet, when everyone was was thinking some big souffle.

No biggie casecutter! Are you running a BD?