AMD Phenom II x6 1100T, Still a viable cpu?

[Halfling83]

I have one laying around, should I use it in a build now and upgrade later, or save up more money and build later?

[SundownKid]

Not really, I would suggest saving up money and building later when you can get a better CPU. Like Intel i5-6600k. Or at the very least i5-4460.

[_I_]

thats one of the best amd cpus

but a skylake i3 or ivy+ i5 will be better for gaming

[Fluffy]

.... its a bit dated but its not a terrible cpu not as terrible as the intel guys will have you think can always upgrade later it will play newer games with a decent gpu demanding games prolly medium less demanding maybe high settings

[upcoast]

http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

It's not the best cpu but it does manage and if it's just lying around use it until you get something better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFLAicd1c0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_9ib2o8Eao

Ps, ya it's still viable.

[DingleberryBurger]

I'm still on my 1100T, and yeah it's perfectly fine... 6 x 3.3 ghz is plenty and it's unlocked so you can easily oc it. And it fits in the am3+ socket so if you go for a motherboard with that socket, you can upgrade to a newer cpu and just a bios update.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

OC to around 4.0Ghz and good cooler and it'll be as good as any FX CPU out there.

[∫öĿ Vξċŧøг]

Originally posted by Bad-Motha:

OC to around 4.0Ghz and good cooler and it'll be as good as any FX CPU out there.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/7944796/fs/7166529/fs/7946559/fs/7793781#
Just look at the physics testing between the 1090t and the fx9590 which is the CPU test of the bunch... If you go with AMD then stick with the 1010t and you'll be fine. Don't waste money on a faildozer!

Originally posted by Fluffy:

^lol anyways.... its a bit dated but its not a terrible cpu not as terrible as the intel guys will have you think can always upgrade later it will play newer games with a decent gpu demanding games prolly medium less demanding maybe high settings

Also notice how the 3 gen old Intel competes (by almost doubling it's score...) with the best AMD has to offer... It's not that the 1010t is bad, far from it, its just that AMD hasn't improved much since then that bugs me.

[vadim]

Originally posted by _I_:

thats one of the best amd cpus

I even want to say that thats the best AMD CPU.

[Alexalmighty502 Sup Acc]

∫öĿ Vξċŧøг you are aware that you should ignore benches and use real world comparisons right?

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Halfling83:

I have one laying around, should I use it in a build now and upgrade later, or save up more money and build later?

Yes, it's better than Bulldozer I think. Not really good but it works. An i3 may be better so it depends on your budget, personally I use a Phenom X4 9850 and your Phenom II X6 1100T is quite a bit better than mine. Mine isn't something I would recommend to anyone so there's that but still. I'd at-least be happier with a 1100T :)

So either get something from Intel or keep your 1100T and wait half a year+ for Zen and maybe upgrade then?

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by Fluffy:

^lol anyways.... its a bit dated but its not a terrible cpu not as terrible as the intel guys will have you think can always upgrade later it will play newer games with a decent gpu demanding games prolly medium less demanding maybe high settings

Single thread performance will be worse than i3 and multi-threaded performance will likely be better I guess. It won't hold up to an i5 I think for gaming when that level of performance is necessarily but that's not always the case. I*m too lazy to check benchmarks, it may be worse than the FX-6300 and the FX-6300 may be better or not than the i3 6100.

[vadim]

Originally posted by Etnopluralism:

the FX-6300 may be better or not than the i3 6100.

i3-6100 is significally better gaming-wise than FX-6300.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by vadim:

Originally posted by Etnopluralism:

the FX-6300 may be better or not than the i3 6100.

i3-6100 is significally better gaming-wise than FX-6300.

In general yes.
Seem like Witcher 3 can be one rare possible exception (if overclocked):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5ejBlynOV8

[vadim]

According to techspot, even i3-4130 slightly faster than FX-6350: http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html
But i3-6100 has 300MHz more than i3-4130 and very slightly (i bet, 5-7%) better IPC.
While FX-6300 runs at 3.5GHz (400MHz less than FX-6350).
I compare both CPU at stock speed. In other case we should consider possibility to overclock i3-6100 to 4.4-4.8GHz (I never did that myself, however).

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by vadim:

I compare both CPU at stock speed. In other case we should consider possibility to overclock i3-6100 to 4.4-4.8GHz (I never did that myself, however).

That overclocking isn't intended and Intel is against it and want to lock it down so I wouldn't take it for granted anyway.
Anyway the i3 is the better pick for a gaming PC anyhow.