Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Celeron G1840 outperforms the more expensive FX-4100 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Celeron G1840 is 932 days newer than the more expensive FX-4100.
Advantages of AMD FX-4100
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1840 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1840
- Performs up to 2% better in Starfield than FX-4100 - 44 vs 43 FPS
- Up to 17% cheaper than FX-4100 - €19.0 vs €22.88
- Up to 19% better value when playing Starfield than FX-4100 - €0.43 vs €0.53 per FPS
- Consumes up to 44% less energy than AMD FX-4100 - 53 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-4100 doesn't have integrated graphics
Starfield
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for €22.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 17935 minutes ago
Desktop • May 1st, 2014
FPS
44
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.43/FPS
100%
Price, €
€19
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €19 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 17935 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Desktop • May 1st, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-4100 | vs | Intel Celeron G1840 |
---|---|---|
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | May 1st, 2014 |
FX | Collection | Celeron |
Zambezi | Codename | Haswell |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1150 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
95 W | TDP | 53 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
18.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD (Haswell) |
Yes | Overclockable | No |