Xeon Gold 6526Y vs FX-4130

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-4130
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 125 Watt
1.70
Xeon Gold 6526Y
2023
16 cores / 32 threads, 195 Watt
28.97
+1604%

Xeon Gold 6526Y outperforms FX-4130 by a whopping 1604% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-4130 and Xeon Gold 6526Y processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2059155
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.3156.09
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.2914.06
Architecture codenameZambezi (2011−2012)Emerald Rapids (2023)
Release date27 August 2012 (12 years ago)14 December 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$112$1,517

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6526Y has 17994% better value for money than FX-4130.

Detailed specifications

FX-4130 and Xeon Gold 6526Y basic parameters such as 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads432
Base clock speed3.8 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz3.9 GHz
L1 cacheno data80 KB (per core)
L2 cache4096 KB2 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data37.5 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size315 mm22x 763 mm2
Maximum core temperature70 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data82 °C
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.2875 V - Max: 1.4125 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-4130 and Xeon Gold 6526Y 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 configuration12
SocketAM3+FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt195 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4130 and Xeon Gold 6526Y. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

FX-4130 and Xeon Gold 6526Y technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4130 and Xeon Gold 6526Y are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4130 and Xeon Gold 6526Y. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-5200
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4130 and Xeon Gold 6526Y.

PCIe versionn/a5.0
PCI Express lanesno data80

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX-4130 1.70
Xeon Gold 6526Y 28.97
+1604%

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.

FX-4130 2696
Xeon Gold 6526Y 46025
+1607%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.70 28.97
Recency 27 August 2012 14 December 2023
Physical cores 4 16
Threads 4 32
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 195 Watt

FX-4130 has 56% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6526Y, on the other hand, has a 1604.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads.

The Xeon Gold 6526Y is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-4130 in performance tests.

Note that FX-4130 is a desktop processor while Xeon Gold 6526Y is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4130 and Xeon Gold 6526Y, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD FX-4130
FX-4130
Intel Xeon Gold 6526Y
Xeon Gold 6526Y

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 174 votes

Rate FX-4130 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 12 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6526Y on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-4130 or Xeon Gold 6526Y, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.