Atom Z560 vs FX-8100
Primary details
Comparing FX-8100 and Atom Z560 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1647 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.62 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Atom |
| Architecture codename | Zambezi (2011−2012) | Silverthorne (2008−2010) |
| Release date | 12 October 2011 (12 years ago) | 1 June 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Current price | $78 | $702 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-8100 and Atom Z560 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 cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.13 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 0.13 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 533.33 MT/s |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 26 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 47 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.75V-1.1V |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8100 and Atom Z560 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3+ | PBGA441 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 2.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8100 and Atom Z560. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| AES-NI | + | no data |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
FX-8100 and Atom Z560 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8100 and Atom Z560 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8100 and Atom Z560. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | unknown |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8100 and Atom Z560.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 October 2011 | 1 June 2010 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 1 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 2 Watt |
We couldn't decide between FX-8100 and Atom Z560. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that FX-8100 is a desktop processor while Atom Z560 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8100 and Atom Z560, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
