i have never heard of ithow does it match up with similar intel models??
My opinion is quite positive :)
There's a reason they're called Faildozer and the FX-6100 is a shining example as to why. It might be a decent processor for video encoding but for anything else I would go Intel. Core vs.Core the Intel processors are 30% faster.
There's a reason you've never heard of it. It's because AMD's older Phenom II x6 1100T beats it in nearly every benchmarks. That's why it's cheaper. When you consider that Intel's Quad-Core Core i5-2400 will beat it at everything, AMD would rather see you buy the 8-core. For PC gaming and general use you would see no difference between an FX-series processor and a Phenom II X4. When AMD released the FX processors they only sent the FX-8150 to these benchmarking sites. It cam wrapped in a nice box with a cooler and an Asus Crosshair 5 motherboard. AMD did not send out any of the other FX processors to be reviewed. The single core performance of these FX-Series processors is usually the same as the Phenom II series. In a lot of cases you would see better performance with a task like video editing or something that uses all of the cores. I would rather have a PC with a Core i5-2300. I do not think too highly of the FX-6100.
Unfortunately the AMD bulldozer is &to little to late& we were all hoping it would at least equal an Intel...but alas it was not to be! the FX -6100 is about on a par with Intel's i7-860 and not much better than the AMD 1075T...but ...there is very little that will beat it in its price range! Again however, you need an AM3+ mother board for it.
