The FX-6100 is the comparison's loser – it's a much slower gaming CPU than the Celeron G3900 and it's also a worse value for money, as it's only $5.20 cheaper!
Advantages of the FX-6100
- Up to 16% cheaper – $26.71 vs $31.91
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 6 vs 2 threads
Advantages of the Celeron G3900
- At least 2x faster CPU for gaming
- A better value for money for gaming
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 51 vs 95 Watts
FX-6100 vs Celeron G3900 for Gaming
The CPU's performance in selected game and settings
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
170
100%
Min 1% FPS
114
100%
Price, €
€31.91
83%
Value, €/FPS
€0.18/FPS
89%
FX-6100 vs Celeron G3900 in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-6100 vs Celeron G3900 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-6100 vs Celeron G3900 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-6100
Oct 12th, 2011
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.3 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
4 MB
50%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
85%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
FX-6100 | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Celeron G3900 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
| Not Available | MSRP | Not Available |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
| Zambezi | Codename | Skylake |
| 95 W | Power Consumption | 51 W |
| Performance | ||
6 | Cores | 2 |
6 | Threads | 2 |
3.3 GHz | Base Frequency | 2.8 GHz |
| 3.6 GHz | Turbo Frequency | Non-Turbo |
8 MB | L3 Cache | 4 MB |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | DDR3 @ 2133 MHz, DDR4 @ 2133 MHz |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 510 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
