Key Differences
In short — FX-4100 outperforms Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-4100 is 418 days older than Celeron G1610.
Advantages of AMD FX-4100
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- 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
ARK: Survival Evolved
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
FX-4100
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-4100 | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| FX | Collection | Celeron |
| Zambezi | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
| 3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 95 W | TDP | 55 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 18.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
