Ryzen 9 3900X vs FX-8100
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8100 by a whopping 706% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8100 and Ryzen 9 3900X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1647 | 238 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.62 | 33.80 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 9 |
| Architecture codename | Zambezi (2011−2012) | Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 12 October 2011 (12 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
| Current price | $78 | $403 (0.8x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 9 3900X has 5352% better value for money than FX-8100.
Detailed specifications
FX-8100 and Ryzen 9 3900X 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) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8100 and Ryzen 9 3900X 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+ | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8100 and Ryzen 9 3900X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8100 and Ryzen 9 3900X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8100 and Ryzen 9 3900X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 51.196 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8100 and Ryzen 9 3900X.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no 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.
Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8100 by 706% 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%
Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8100 by 707% 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%
Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8100 by 312% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8100 by 445% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.62 | 21.11 |
| Recency | 12 October 2011 | 7 July 2019 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 12 |
| Threads | 8 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
The Ryzen 9 3900X is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8100 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8100 and Ryzen 9 3900X, 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.
