Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms the cheaper FX-4130 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-4130 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is 1830 days newer than the cheaper FX-4130.
Advantages of AMD FX-4130
- Up to 85% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - $16.76 vs $108.95
- Up to 79% better value when playing War Thunder than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - $0.15 vs $0.73 per FPS
- Consumes up to 31% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - 125 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
- Performs up to 30% better in War Thunder than FX-4130 - 166 vs 128 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-4130 - 16 vs 4 threads
War Thunder
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Buy for €18.6 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 151 minutes ago
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
FPS
166
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.73/FPS
20%
Price, €
€120.93
15%
FPS Winner
Buy for €120.93 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 152 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Desktop • Aug 27th, 2012
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-4130 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X |
---|---|---|
Aug 27th, 2012 | Release Date | Aug 31st, 2017 |
FX | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Zambezi | Codename | Whitehaven |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 8 |
4 | Threads | 16 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 180 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
19.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |