Celeron E3500 vs FX-6100

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-6100
2011
6 cores / 6 threads, 95 Watt
2.32
+293%
Celeron E3500
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.59

FX-6100 outperforms Celeron E3500 by a whopping 293% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-6100 and Celeron E3500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking17942799
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.99
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency2.310.86
Architecture codenameZambezi (2011−2012)Wolfdale (2008−2010)
Release date12 October 2011 (13 years ago)29 August 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$62

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-6100 and Celeron E3500 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads62
Base clock speed3.3 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz2.7 GHz
L1 cache288 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache6 MB1 MB (shared)
L3 cache8 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size315 mm282 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data74 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million228 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.3625V

Compatibility

Information on FX-6100 and Celeron E3500 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 configuration11
SocketAM3+LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6100 and Celeron E3500. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

FX-6100 and Celeron E3500 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6100 and Celeron E3500 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6100 and Celeron E3500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR1, DDR2, DDR3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6100 and Celeron E3500.

PCIe version2.02.0

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-6100 2.32
+293%
Celeron E3500 0.59

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-6100 3688
+294%
Celeron E3500 935

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.

FX-6100 383
+39.8%
Celeron E3500 274

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.

FX-6100 1229
+203%
Celeron E3500 406

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.32 0.59
Recency 12 October 2011 29 August 2010
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 6 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

FX-6100 has a 293.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron E3500, on the other hand, has 46.2% lower power consumption.

The FX-6100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3500 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6100 and Celeron E3500, 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-6100
FX-6100
Intel Celeron E3500
Celeron E3500

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.


3.8 1097 votes

Rate FX-6100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 27 votes

Rate Celeron E3500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-6100 or Celeron E3500, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.