In Atomfall, the FX-4100 is slightly faster than the Core i3-330M. However, it's a slightly worse value for money, as it's $6 more expensive!
FX-4100
- Up to 2% faster in Atomfall – 186 vs 183 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Atomfall
- Is 1 year and 9 months newer – Oct 12, 2011 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 1 year and 9 months newer
Core i3-330M
- Up to 6% cheaper – $98.95 vs $105.36
- Up to 6% cheaper
- Up to 4% better value in Atomfall – $0.54 vs $0.56/FPS
- Up to 4% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 63% less energy – 35 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 63% less energy
Atomfall FPS Calculator
FX-4100 vs Core i3-330M: Comparison of performance and price
FX-4100
Oct 12th, 2011
Average FPS
186 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
139 FPS
100%
Price, $
$105.36
93%
Value, $/FPS
$0.56/FPS
96%
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
183 FPS
98%
Min 1% FPS
137 FPS
99%
Price, $
$98.95
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.54/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-4100 vs Core i3-330M in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-4100 vs Core i3-330M in core CPU performance specifications
FX-4100
Oct 12th, 2011
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
3 MB
38%
Base Frequency
2.133 GHz
59%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
57%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-4100 Oct 12th, 2011 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i3-330M Jan 7th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Jan 7th, 2010 |
| $115.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Laptop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGAG1 |
| 95W | Power Consumption | 35W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 1066 MHz (DDR3) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
