Key Differences
In short — Core i3-13100 outperforms the cheaper FX-6100 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-6100 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i3-13100 is 4102 days newer than the cheaper FX-6100.
Advantages of AMD FX-6100
- Up to 74% cheaper than Core i3-13100 - £35.24 vs £133.2
- Up to 66% better value when playing Battlefield IV than Core i3-13100 - £0.1 vs £0.29 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i3-13100
- Performs up to 24% better in Battlefield IV than FX-6100 - 456 vs 367 FPS
- Consumes up to 37% less energy than AMD FX-6100 - 60 vs 95 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-6100 - 8 vs 6 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-6100 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for £35.24 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 225 minutes ago
Buy for £133.2 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 225 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6100 | vs | Intel Core i3-13100 |
---|---|---|
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2023 |
FX | Collection | Core i3 |
Zambezi | Codename | Raptor Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 4 |
6 | Threads | 8 |
3.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.5 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 60 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
16.5x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |