The FX-6100 is the comparison's loser – it's a much slower gaming CPU than the Celeron G4900 and it's also a worse value for money, as it's $0.59 more expensive!
Advantages of the FX-6100
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 6 vs 2 threads
Advantages of the Celeron G4900
- At least 2x faster CPU for gaming
- Up to 2% cheaper – $26.12 vs $26.71
- A better value for money for gaming
- Consumes up to 43% less energy – 54 vs 95 Watts
FX-6100 vs Celeron G4900 for Gaming
The CPU's performance in selected game and settings
Celeron G4900
Apr 3rd, 2018
Average FPS
170
100%
Min 1% FPS
114
100%
Price, €
€26.12
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.15/FPS
100%
FX-6100 vs Celeron G4900 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 G4900 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-6100 vs Celeron G4900 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 G4900
Apr 3rd, 2018
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
2 MB
25%
Base Frequency
3.1 GHz
94%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
FX-6100 | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Celeron G4900 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Apr 3rd, 2018 |
| Not Available | MSRP | $42.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
| Zambezi | Codename | Coffee Lake |
| 95 W | Power Consumption | 54 W |
| Performance | ||
6 | Cores | 2 |
6 | Threads | 2 |
3.3 GHz | Base Frequency | 3.1 GHz |
| 3.6 GHz | Turbo Frequency | Non-Turbo |
8 MB | L3 Cache | 2 MB |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | DDR4 @ 2400 MHz |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 610 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
