Key Differences
In short — FX-6100 outperforms Celeron G3930 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-6100 is 1910 days older than Celeron G3930.
Advantages of AMD FX-6100
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3930 - 6 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3930
- Consumes up to 46% less energy than AMD FX-6100 - 51 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-6100 doesn't have integrated graphics
Crysis 3 Remastered
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
FX-6100
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Celeron G3930
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6100 | vs | Intel Celeron G3930 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
| FX | Collection | Celeron |
| Zambezi | Codename | Kaby Lake |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 2 |
6 | Threads | 2 |
3.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
| 3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 95 W | TDP | 51 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 16.5x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 610 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
