Key Differences
In short — Celeron G1620 outperforms FX-4100 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G1620 is 418 days newer than FX-4100.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- 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
Advantages of AMD FX-4100
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 4 vs 2 threads
Control
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FX-4100
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD FX-4100 |
|---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
| Celeron | Collection | FX |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Zambezi |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 4 |
| 2 | Threads | 4 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 95 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 18.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
