In Control, the Core i3-330M is same performance as the FX-6100. However, it's a much worse value for money, as it's $65 more expensive!
Core i3-330M
- Consumes up to 63% less energy – 35 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 63% less energy
FX-6100
- Is 1 year and 9 months newer – Oct 12, 2011 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 1 year and 9 months newer
- Up to 66% cheaper – $33.90 vs $98.95
- Up to 66% cheaper
- Up to 68% better value in Control – $0.13 vs $0.40/FPS
- Up to 68% better value in Control
Control FPS Calculator
Core i3-330M vs FX-6100: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
244 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$98.95
34%
Value, $/FPS
$0.4/FPS
32%
FX-6100
Oct 12th, 2011
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$33.9
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.13/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-330M vs FX-6100 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-330M vs FX-6100 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
3 MB
38%
Base Frequency
2.133 GHz
65%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
100%
FX-6100
Oct 12th, 2011
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.3 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.9 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-330M Jan 7th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-6100 Oct 12th, 2011 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 7th, 2010 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGAG1 | Socket | AM3+ |
35W | Power Consumption | 95W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1066 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
