Key Differences
In short — Celeron G6900 outperforms FX-6100 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G6900 is 3737 days newer than FX-6100.
Advantages of AMD FX-6100
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G6900 - 6 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G6900
- Performs up to 5% better in Assassin's Creed Valhalla than FX-6100 - 176 vs 167 FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-6100 doesn't have integrated graphics
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
FX-6100
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Celeron G6900
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6100 | vs | Intel Celeron G6900 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2022 |
| FX | Collection | Celeron |
| Zambezi | Codename | Alder Lake |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 2 |
6 | Threads | 2 |
| 3.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
| 3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 95 W | TDP | Not Available |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
| 16.5x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 710 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
