Question FX 4100 cpu has the same performance as a 6th gen i7??

rscheetah30

Reputable
Jun 8, 2018
188
2
4,715
12
I just got an Asus laptop with a 6th gen i7 which according to UserBenchmark.com has the same performance as an FX 4100. The i7 in question is a Dual-core / 2 computing threads per core, which is the case with i3's.

I mean, isn't this strange?
 
I just got an Asus laptop with a 6th gen i7 which according to UserBenchmark.com has the same performance as an FX 4100. The i7 in question is a Dual-core / 2 computing threads per core, which is the case with i3's.

I mean, isn't this strange?
I see what you're talking about on Userbenchmark. I don't know where they come up with that top percentage number (Saying the FX-4100 is +1% faster than the i7-6500U), but it says the i7-6500U is about +31% faster in single-core speed than the FX-4100.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6500U-vs-AMD-FX-4100/m36930vs2878

Scroll down and look at the per-core numbers. It will tell you more about their comparison.
 

Math Geek

Polypheme
Ambassador
i look for actual reviews done by the well known tech sites. the rest is just guessing for the most part. might be an educated guess but why guess when you can know for sure by reading real reviews done by pros!!

when comparing older cpu's to newer stuff you may have to do some leg work but in the end it is not that hard to figure out where they fit together. for instance tom's here has a lovely chart that ranks most every cpu in order by strength.

CPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy 2021: Intel and AMD Processor Rankings and Comparisons | Tom's Hardware

first place i look when seeing relative power vs other cpu's. :)

so your 4100 falls in line with roughly the intel C2Q extreme cpu's which is nowhere near a 6th gen i3/5/7 which fall in line closer to the first gen Ryzen cpu's
 
...
it says the i7-6500U is about +31% faster in single-core speed than the FX-4100.
...
And an FX4100 can rather easily overclock 31% to 4.5-4.6Ghz which should bring parity at single thread performance. While single thread still rules for gaming neither processor is going to be a beast for that: but it should utterly destroy it multi-threaded which is more important than ever in today's OS's and apps. That will make the whole Windows 10 and web browsing experience much smoother, given sufficient memory. Push it even further, 4.6-4.8Ghz is commonly done even on decent air coolers, and get the better of it all around.

But the thing OP is comparing to is a "U" suffix laptop part with 15W TDP...wouldn't that normally be extremely thermally constrained? That would perforce make the 4100 with a 95W TDP better at multi-thread work and explain higher ranking in MT benchmarks even stock.

Bulldozer certainly had it's faults but overclocking potential, especially considering the relative ease of it, mitigated many of them for the willing. It still makes it perfectly good for office productivity apps and web browsing.
 
Last edited:
I just got an Asus laptop with a 6th gen i7 which according to UserBenchmark.com has the same performance as an FX 4100. The i7 in question is a Dual-core / 2 computing threads per core, which is the case with i3's.

I mean, isn't this strange?
Yep, it's strange, and probably wrong. The single thread performance of the fx-4100 won't be as fast as the i7. Not only that, but it will be using almost 5x more power doing so:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-6500U-vs-AMD-FX-4100-Quad-Core/2607vs255
 

DSzymborski

Titan
Moderator
This is a bit like noticing that a good bicycle will lose a race to a junky motorcycle. That the bicycle is slower than the motorcycle doesn't mean the bicycle isn't good; it just means that it's a bicycle. As notoriously incompetent as AMD was during that period, even they were able to design a 95W quad-core (well, quad-ish core) CPU that doesn't get crushed by a dual-core 15W CPU.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS