Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Celeron G4900 outperforms the more expensive FX-6100 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Celeron G4900 is 2365 days newer than the more expensive FX-6100.
Advantages of AMD FX-6100
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G4900 - 6 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G4900
- Performs up to 2% better in Elden Ring than FX-6100 - 112 vs 110 FPS
- Up to 49% cheaper than FX-6100 - CA$49.99 vs CA$98.43
- Up to 49% better value when playing Elden Ring than FX-6100 - CA$0.45 vs CA$0.89 per FPS
- Consumes up to 43% less energy than AMD FX-6100 - 54 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-6100 doesn't have integrated graphics
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Buy for CA$98.43 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 0 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
FPS
112
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.45/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$49.99
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for CA$49.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 0 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6100 | vs | Intel Celeron G4900 |
---|---|---|
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Apr 3rd, 2018 |
FX | Collection | Celeron |
Zambezi | Codename | Coffee Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 2 |
6 | Threads | 2 |
3.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.1 GHz |
3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
95 W | TDP | 54 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
16.5x | Multiplier | 31.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 610 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |