Key Differences
In short — FX-6100 outperforms Celeron 3205U on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-6100 is 1236 days older than Celeron 3205U.
Advantages of Intel Celeron 3205U
- Consumes up to 84% less energy than AMD FX-6100 - 15 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-6100 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-6100
- Performs up to 0% better in Death Stranding than Celeron 3205U - 212 vs 211 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron 3205U - 6 vs 2 threads
Death Stranding
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Celeron 3205U
Mobile • Mar 1st, 2015
FX-6100
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron 3205U | vs | AMD FX-6100 |
|---|---|---|
Mar 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
| Celeron | Collection | FX |
| Broadwell | Codename | Zambezi |
| Intel BGA 1168 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Mobile | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 6 |
| 2 | Threads | 6 |
| 1.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.3 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
15 W | TDP | 95 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
| 15.0x | Multiplier | 16.5x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
