Key Differences
In short — FX-4100 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1620 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing FX-4100 is 418 days older than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of AMD FX-4100
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 2% cheaper than FX-4100 - €20.16 vs €20.59
- Up to 10% better value when playing Death Stranding than FX-4100 - €0.09 vs €0.1 per FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD FX-4100 - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-4100 doesn't have integrated graphics
Death Stranding
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Buy for €20.59 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 42 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
213
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.09/FPS
100%
Price, €
€20.16
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €20.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 42 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-4100 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
FX | Collection | Celeron |
Zambezi | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
95 W | TDP | 55 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
18.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |