If you are not planning to upgrade soon to a better cpu(for ex.2500k) get the 4100 because of 4 cores instead of i3(2 cores with HT)
Actually a two module Bulldozer CPU, like FX 4100, has two full cores. ( each module has a single FPU and two integer units ). AMD is counting cores based on integer units. Which alone, don't really provide the performance of actual quad core ( with 4 FPUs .. ), in certain apps. So you should really look at the reviews and see which one performs better. For example: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0 Clearly i3 2100 performs better in games than even actual AMD quad core like 955 ( Of course it would be best if you found a review with FX4100's results )
I would say if you dont plan on overclocking get the i3 as it does outperform AMDs 4100 at stock clocks. Yes i know the 4 cores sounds great but honestly in games the i3 is very decent for the price. Also it runs cooler and uses less power than the AMD...there is really no upside unless you plan to overclock but even then itl only just outperform the i3.
A better comparison would be the i3-2100 and the A8-3870K, in which case the A8-3870K has it. In terms of yet to be released processors, the A10-5800K would definitely beat its i3 counterpart using suggested performances of both of the processors. The other advantage of the A8/A10's is that they have good graphics capabilities on die. Of course this won't equal the performance of a GTX 690 etc, but it does represent good budget performance and you can crossfire it with certain discrete cards to get better performance. In terms of budget computers the A8/A10 is better overall, but in terms of higher performance computing the i5 etc have it.
i was reading on that earlier. im not sure if apu's are good or not. my dad has one but i never messed with it for gaming when i made it. but it got me interested in amd to save money
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/50952-amd-a8-3870k-unlocked-llano-apu-review-13.html i3 2120 still faster than 3870k ( and all other AMD CPUs ) in games.
I would go to FX-4170, it's newer version of bul. and it works better then 4100, it is not just overclocked, reversion is dif. Will get that CPU when price go down. Also, it depends on your future plans, as others said. But if you plan to use for more years, i would go (and will) with FX-4170.
its exactly the same. just .6ghz faster and has a higher tdp of 125watts. its still a real dual core with 2 modules. op could save 30$ and OC the 4100 himself and they would be the exact same.
You are right, i read it wrong on sales site (never trust them), but anyways, i would still go with 4170 (no matter for price dif.) if i don't like to overclock (and i don't). I have that strange limitation in my head, when CO. make some product, they know what they doing, and they tested it. But you are probably right if you say that is the same chip overclocked .
For what reason ? Its slower, it uses more power, their whole CPU lineup is years behind Intel, its even behind their own phenom 2's. No sane person would waste money on it.
Maybe, and maybe for future upgrades it is better to take i3. At stock, FX 4170 is not behind same priced Phenom II x4 CPU's (960T example), not even in games. There is few other reasons to get FX CPU. First, you can't find new Phenoms II CPU's, or it is hard to find exact model you looking for. I wanted to buy PII 960T, but, give me one reason why would i get it over FX-4170 for the same price? I don't think i3 is anywhere near 960T or FX-4170 (in games maybe)..., for power draw, it is true, very useful CPU. But if OP have AM3+ platform, then it is better, or if he don't plan to upgrade PC for a extended period of time, i don't really see why he would get i3 over those two CPU's. And 2nd reason, it is always nice to support "underdog" (which is really questionable, since most syn. bench. are made for Intel platform..), we don't want to prolong this Intel monopoly? And 3rd reason, i was always satisfied with AMD CPU's, i had very few Intel (just because of price) and worked on same number as AMD, and didn't really noticed dif. to anyone side. Even if compare i3 at 2.x Ghz (don't know model) with mine old Athlon II 240. 4th, i like AMD .
Fans of amd regardless of performance is not good for progress. If people keep buying this stuff they will keep pushing this junk
Well, I'm not a fan of anything, but i don't forget history very easily. When Intel have domination, it blows prices very high (as now for example) and try to keep that domination (and that's normal, and i bet AMD would do that if is on the same place, and once they did mistake and didn't). Also, Intel did some illegal things to keep their products ahead of AMD, maybe is a rumor, i don't know, never investigated really. At the end, two corporations can make agreement, and keep monopoly together. As i did understand (maybe wrong), Intel make/produce chips, while for AMD other corp. makes them? So why not support them? And please explain why you call "junk" CPU that is better in almost every way at the same price of i3 (which is useless CPU, except games maybe)? I'm very interested in that
And not only that, they rip people off. If AMD can put 8 SATA3 ports in the upcoming chipset, and 6 SATA3 on the current chipset for LOW END computing, Intel should be able to put more than 2 on the Z77. Instead motherboard companies have to go third party, and it ends up costing us more! That article is using a discrete GTX460 card, something you probably wouldn't mix with the true budget oriented CPU's anyway. Crossfire the upcoming A10 with a discrete HD7670 video card, and for PRICE you won't be able to beat it with Intel.
Some of what your saying I agree with, eg: Sata 3. But I wouldn't hold my breath for A10 with crossfire HD7670.. that's still gunna be very average gaming performance for current day graphics. A couple of reasons I say this: 1) AMD drivers for crossfire are not enjoyable half the time. 2) what an A10 5800K scores 9396 in 3D Mark 06.. Yeah nice for an apu, but pair it up with HD7670 what score you gunna get 15~18K at best, probably more like 12K ~ 14K knowing amd drivers... That would be rock'n in 2006 ~ 2008.. but it's not that great by today's standard.
