You went with an AMD chip when there is a similarly priced Intel i3-2100 that slays this thing. Also, you didn't provide all of the specifications. But I think it's safe to say you didn't do a lot of research and skimped out on the heart of the system.

Generation wrote You went with an AMD chip when there is a similarly priced Intel i3-2100 that slays this thing. Also, you didn't provide all of the specifications. But I think it's safe to say you didn't do a lot of research and skimped out on the heart of the system.

An i3 2100 dosent "slay" the fx 6100. Not everyone games and even if he does the fx 6100 still beets the 2100 in a number of games. Also the games it "slower" than the 2100 in its by a few fps that would not even be notocible in. Besides gaming the 2100 is shit. It wont be usefull in a year or twos time where the 6100 will still be running strong.

Mangoes wrote

Generation wrote You went with an AMD chip when there is a similarly priced Intel i3-2100 that slays this thing. Also, you didn't provide all of the specifications. But I think it's safe to say you didn't do a lot of research and skimped out on the heart of the system.

An i3 2100 dosent "slay" the fx 6100. Not everyone games and even if he does the fx 6100 still beets the 2100 in a number of games. Also the games it "slower" than the 2100 in its by a few fps that would not even be notocible in. Besides gaming the 2100 is ****. It wont be usefull in a year or twos time where the 6100 will still be running strong.

Some games the i3 wins by a couple fps but others the fx 6100 has 20+fps less than i3. [ Register or Signin to view external links. ] Gaming the i3 will easily beat the fx 6100, if it was rendering then the fx would win.

Mangoes wrote

Generation wrote You went with an AMD chip when there is a similarly priced Intel i3-2100 that slays this thing. Also, you didn't provide all of the specifications. But I think it's safe to say you didn't do a lot of research and skimped out on the heart of the system.

An i3 2100 dosent "slay" the fx 6100. Not everyone games and even if he does the fx 6100 still beets the 2100 in a number of games. Also the games it "slower" than the 2100 in its by a few fps that would not even be notocible in. Besides gaming the 2100 is ****. It wont be usefull in a year or twos time where the 6100 will still be running strong.

You're wrong. I can't even find benchmarks on Anandtech of the 4100 due to it being such a terrible CPU. I do not say things that I don't know if they are true. AMD's FX chips as a whole are just bad - not only do they lose in gaming, but they lose in multi-threaded benchmarks, to the i3 and old AM3 chips. If a manufacturer can't make a product that is not significantly better against their own chips that are years old, there is clearly something wrong. Even their GPU's are lacking - a $400 flat 670 ties with a $480 7970 and flies by a 7950. Show me proof that a i3-2100 won't still dominate games in 2 years, please, show me.

just going to say it AMD CPU's are just underwhelming in every possible way. Intel chips crush every single AMD chip with no problem. budget or not you really shouldn't buy AMD CPU's unless you absolutely need a pc asap.