In Rust, the FX-4100 is slightly slower than the Xeon E5-2643 and it's also a slightly worse value for money, as it's $5 more expensive!
FX-4100
- Consumes up to 27% less energy – 95 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 27% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Xeon E5-2643
- Up to 1% faster in Rust – 211 vs 208 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Rust
- Is 4 months and 24 days newer – Mar 06, 2012 vs Oct 12, 2011
- Is 4 months and 24 days newer
- Up to 4% cheaper – $100.70 vs $105.36
- Up to 4% cheaper
- Up to 6% better value in Rust – $0.47 vs $0.50/FPS
- Up to 6% better value in Rust
Rust FPS Calculator
FX-4100 vs Xeon E5-2643: Comparison of performance and price
FX-4100
Oct 12th, 2011
Average FPS
208 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
40 FPS
93%
Price, $
$105.36
95%
Value, $/FPS
$0.5/FPS
94%
Xeon E5-2643
Mar 6th, 2012
Average FPS
211 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
43 FPS
100%
Price, $
$100.7
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.47/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-4100 vs Xeon E5-2643 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-4100 vs Xeon E5-2643 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-4100
Oct 12th, 2011
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
80%
Base Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Xeon E5-2643
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
10 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.3 GHz
92%
Turbo Frequency
3.5 GHz
92%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-4100 Oct 12th, 2011 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5-2643 Mar 6th, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Mar 6th, 2012 |
| $115.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA2011 |
95W | Power Consumption | 130W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
