AMD FX-6100 AM3+ Six Core 3.3GHz CPU $170 at Tiger Direct

They say the world is not YET ready for the alien technology this cpu brings. If you want RAW POWER go with 2nd Gen. Core i5, i7. Phenom II X6s are good cpus also, the price of them will be going down with the FX here, finally!

This is a pretty sweet CPU for a virtualization lab on a lowly engineer's budget. I can spin up a few servers on this bad boy with capacity to spare. Right now, I gotta run a few physical servers and it shows on the electric bill.

Honestly, from the few reviews showing this FX-6100 these provide the best balance from this new architecture. Is it faster than the X6... it's at least par, while other things it betters. This offering holds down on using power, actually not much off the X6, but yes that's not saying a lot. Raw power/price I see it as good an investment. Especially in media decoding against the i5, this FX-6100 pulled above the X6, which already was the darling for that work.

Gaming with a FX6100 and a $90 mobo permits strong OC'n, with an i5 and a descent OC'n P67 (you really would rather use a Z68) you got $40 extra. That means $40 that could be added to a video card, so instead of settling in the 6870/GTX 560 class, you can get a 6950 1GB. When it comes to gaming a better video card will always trumps a ever slightly better synthetic capable CPU. When looking at the gaming B-M, check the resolution many reviews held to @1280x to remove the GPU and highlight CPU, but we're almost 2012! Who's building a $600-$900 gaming rig to run @1280x!

Am I saying the FX 8-Cores wasn't a letdown, it's had no grand entrance. Though considering how good Sandy Bridge is... it had a surmountable task. Considering a total revolutionary architecture, turmoil that afflicted AMD the last probably 18 mo's, smaller engineering (than Intel), and having G-F starting 32 nm SOI process, this initially has been thoroughly hampered. To even attempt this is a gallant venture, and as I see AMD pulled a big 1st and 10 and still in the game. Are there issue yes... some architectural (long pipe lines) abnormalities in getting 2 million transistors to be efficient, manufacturing process, OS scheduler, etc, but as each of those are addressed there's potential.
[Truncated]
http://bensbargains.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=240703&highlight=


Will "Piledriver" turn it around, not so much, but I sense AMD is still fine. I for one am glad they're nipping at ankles of Intel, and…

Bulldozer turned out to be a HUGE failure. But hey, don't take my word for it. Just read up on EVERY single review out there that states the Thuban x6 are superior, not to mention the cheaper Intel equivalent. I only have AMD in my systems and I'm a self proclaimed AMD fan-boy, but this chip was meant for servers and is an embarrassment after all the hype that started several years ago. They lost a lot of respect from their fan-base after this debacle. Now they claim it will run faster with Windows 8 (big maybe). What a child-like response.

Here are some gaming results @1920x and with a GTX580. If there was some balance (who buy/pairs an i5 and GTX580?) as I pointed out above and your working in "a real budget factored build" such B-M would be much different if i5/GTX560 verses the FX-6100/6950 1Gb. Gaming is less CPU bound until you force graphics' out of the equation by using the über expense solution.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpctuning.tyden.cz%2Fhardware%2Fprocesory-pameti%2F22227-amd-bulldozer-procesory-fx-8150-a-8120-v-testu-1-2%3Fstart%3D5

I'm concern of power consumption under full load. Based on reviews, FX-6100 doesn't look good in comparing to i5-2500k.

While yes power against the i5 it's whack; especially considering the extra work being provided by the i5 when single thread'n it's ugly. But when compare to the 1100T it's better and it comes down to the type of work load if you predominantly do multi-thread (as #2) a FX-6100 fairs very well, but home desktops aren't tasked with doing that today.

Here's what I kind of take away... they kill one module an run the clocks down (8% than its 8-core brethren), the same clock as the 1100T and it aligns nicely with the 1100T (coincidence?). Though here's the oddity the 1100T is a 125W part, the FX-6100 is a 95W. So yes, a die shrink and what I see as a realign of the cache(s) and way more transistors, all new architecture. It's not any big leap, but if they wrangle out some issues there might be room to grow.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/314/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6100_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T.html

Here are some other things to consider that 1100T when released was $265 and this is only $170, the FX-6100 has a maximum operating temperature of 70°C; 1100T 62°C. so sustaining in OC the FX-6100 I would say it has better headroom.

Casecutter doesn't know his a-s-s-hole from his elbow. Hot Hardware's most common review found and I quote, "AMD's new flagship eight-core chip can't quite keep pace with the previous generation Phenom II X6 six-core processor, let alone any of Intel's quad or six-core processors." Also they found it consumes MORE power than the 45nm CPUs it replaces, even though it is rated at lower watts.
From Overclcok3D, "To say we're disappointed is to understate things. It's not that the Bulldozer FX8150 is poor when compared to the LGA1155 processors, it's not good when compared to AMDs own Phenom II X6. It's less of a Bulldozer, and more of a trowel."

Manipulate the data all you want, but the real world data doesn't lie. Read for yourself.

Failure. Done.