Xeon E5450 vs FX-6100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-6100
2011
6 cores / 6 threads, 95 Watt
2.38
+43.4%

FX-6100 outperforms Xeon E5450 by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-6100 and Xeon E5450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking17011982
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.990.05
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Architecture codenameZambezi (2011−2012)no data
Release date12 October 2011 (12 years ago)1 October 2007 (16 years ago)
Current price$39 $70

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

FX-6100 has 5880% better value for money than Xeon E5450.

Detailed specifications

FX-6100 and Xeon E5450 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)no data
Threads6no data
Base clock speed3.3 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHzno data
L1 cache288 KBno data
L2 cache6 MBno data
L3 cache8 MB (shared)12 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size315 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data67 °C
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierYesNo
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.35V

Compatibility

Information on FX-6100 and Xeon E5450 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 configuration1no data
SocketAM3+LGA771
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt80 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6100 and Xeon E5450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+no data
FMA+no data
AVX+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoringno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data+
FSB parityno data+
Statusno dataDiscontinued

Security technologies

FX-6100 and Xeon E5450 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 Xeon E5450 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data
VT-xno data+
EPTno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6100 and Xeon E5450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6100 and Xeon E5450.

PCIe version2.0no data

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 2.38
+43.4%
Xeon E5450 1.66

FX-6100 outperforms Xeon E5450 by 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

FX-6100 3682
+43.2%
Xeon E5450 2572

FX-6100 outperforms Xeon E5450 by 43% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

FX-6100 385
Xeon E5450 385

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

FX-6100 1234
+12.8%
Xeon E5450 1094

FX-6100 outperforms Xeon E5450 by 13% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.38 1.66
Recency 12 October 2011 1 October 2007
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 80 Watt

The FX-6100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5450 in performance tests.

Note that FX-6100 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5450 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6100 and Xeon E5450, 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 Xeon E5450
Xeon E5450

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.


3.9 1012 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1220 votes

Rate Xeon E5450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-6100 or Xeon E5450, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.