AMD (black) FX-4100 3.6GHz (3.8 turbo) 95w AM3+ quad processor $99.99 AR,FS @ TigerDirect

Finally sub-$100:
AMD FD4100WMGUSBX FX-4100 Processor - Quad Core, 8MB L3 Cache, 2MB L2 Cache, 3.60GHz (3.80GHz Max Turbo), Socket AM3+, 95W, Fan, Unlocked, Retail $119.99 - $20 MIR (expires 3/18)

Free econo shipping (for now), 4% FatCash (or 6% from that competing Mr. cash-back-site)

Why do these FX processors remind me of the old FX processors, great performance, but dead architecture?

You want to show some benchmarks ?

DaCheeze said:   You want to show some benchmarks ?

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-pe...

fatxman said: The benchmarks are heavy influenced by Intel. The benchmarks are designed to do well on Intel. The reviewers only show benchmark that Intel do well in. If you actually use these processors, you will know that the quad core FX is neck and neck with the 2500k for 1/2 the cost. The FX-8100 blows away anything from Intel

I don't buy the conspiracy theory. If benchmarks are purposely chosen to show Intel bias, why do they also show previous generation AMD Phenom II X4 performing better than FX-4100 in many benchmarks as well? Also, where are you getting "1/2 the cost"? FX-8120 is almost 90% the cost of the 2500K while FX-8150 costs more. 2500K is faster than either 8100 in almost every benchmark, and even IF you were right about an Intel conspiracy where they are really "neck and neck" as you say, you can't forget the FX-8100 series are also power-guzzling toasters which makes the slight cost difference of the 2500K over FX-8120 worthwhile for power savings alone.

I like competition and I want AMD to succeed, but it's quite clear Bulldozer is a fail. I wouldn't mind an upgrade to the Phenom II X4 965 I bought for $100 last year, but benchmarks look like the FX-4100 would be a noticeable downgrade.

GnatGoSplat said:   DaCheeze said:   You want to show some benchmarks ?

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-pe...

fatxman said: The benchmarks are heavy influenced by Intel. The benchmarks are designed to do well on Intel. The reviewers only show benchmark that Intel do well in. If you actually use these processors, you will know that the quad core FX is neck and neck with the 2500k for 1/2 the cost. The FX-8100 blows away anything from Intel

I don't buy the conspiracy theory. If benchmarks are purposely chosen to show Intel bias, why do they also show previous generation AMD Phenom II X4 performing better than FX-4100 in many benchmarks as well? Also, where are you getting "1/2 the cost"? FX-8120 is almost 90% the cost of the 2500K while FX-8150 costs more. 2500K is faster than either 8100 in almost every benchmark, and even IF you were right about an Intel conspiracy where they are really "neck and neck" as you say, you can't forget the FX-8100 series are also power-guzzling toasters which makes the slight cost difference of the 2500K over FX-8120 worthwhile for power savings alone.

I like competition and I want AMD to succeed, but it's quite clear Bulldozer is a fail. I wouldn't mind an upgrade to the Phenom II X4 965 I bought for $100 last year, but benchmarks look like the FX-4100 would be a noticeable downgrade.I'm not a fan of benchmarks - they're easy to do really well in (or build your product to benchmark well). The point is that most people purchase this processor because of the overclocking potential, which is very high at this price point. I didn't buy one, but this is a good price for those that do.
I find that benchmark success rarely indicates real-world success. Build a good product that everyone loves, and they'll make a new benchmark that shows yours is the best .

There is no simple answer for what is best or fastest with CPUs. It's going to depend on the workload. The above referenced DARPA or SPEC benchmarks are a significantly different type of workload than that of a typical personal computer. DARPA is interested in things like simulating nuclear explosions rather than browsing the web. Most benchmarks have some value but it depends for what purpose.

Intel has definitely been pushing past AMD in many measurements, but raw speed isn't the only factor in a purchase. AMD tends to do well in terms of value, speed/cost. You also have to consider things like power consumption. The FX-4100 isn't necessarily the fastest CPU around but it seems to be a decent value for many uses.

For 99% of he public which cpu you buy won't matter. They are already at the overkill stage. For people who are doing 3D CAD or video editing in HD1080, they will care about performance. I can't imagine your AM3 board is going to be obsolete in 10 years time. I am still running Opteron 940socket Italy 290 cpus and boards for doing CAD work because the improvement in core speed has only been about 2% per year. AMD and Intel have had to rely on gimmicks such as quad cores increased cache on the cpu and other gimmicks to increase performance. The laws of quantum mechanics and heat transfer pretty well limit any major advances in core performance at this point.

The bigger question is whether or not the desktop is still relevant. For the general public, laptops and hand held devices will be more than adequate. The six core 1035 for $100 is probably more reasonable if you already have an AM3 board and a real need to upgrade. The projected path forward for both AMD and Intel desktop/workstation cpus are not really what the ordinary user will need.