FX-4100 vs EPYC 9684X
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9684X outperforms FX-4100 by a whopping 4531% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 20 | 2510 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.61 | 0.18 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 7.37 | 0.67 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |
| Architecture codename | Genoa-X (2023) | Zambezi (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 13 June 2023 (3 years ago) | 12 October 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $14,756 | $115 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9684X has 239% better value for money than FX-4100.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of EPYC 9684X and FX-4100: number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 96 | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 192 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.55 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 4096 KB |
| L3 cache | 1152 MB (shared) | 8192 KB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 12x 72 mm2 | 315 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 71 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 135,240 million | 1.2 billion |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| P0 Vcore voltage | no data | Min: 1.1 V - Max: 1.4125 V |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9684X and FX-4100 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9684X and FX-4100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9684X and FX-4100 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9684X and FX-4100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9684X and FX-4100.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | n/a |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 71.31 | 1.54 |
| Recency | 13 June 2023 | 12 October 2011 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 4 |
| Threads | 192 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 95 Watt |
EPYC 9684X has a 4531% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 84% more advanced lithography process.
FX-4100, on the other hand, has 76% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 9684X is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD FX-4100 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 9684X is a server/workstation processor while FX-4100 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
