FX-8100 vs E2-9000

VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-9000
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.61
FX-8100
2011
8 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
2.55
+318%

FX-8100 outperforms E2-9000 by a whopping 318% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-9000 and FX-8100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28021750
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesBristol Ridgeno data
Power efficiency5.772.54
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Zambezi (2011−2012)
Release date1 June 2016 (8 years ago)12 October 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

E2-9000 and FX-8100 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 cores2 (Dual-core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads28
Base clock speed1.8 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cacheno data384 KB
L2 cache1 MB8 MB
L3 cacheno data8 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size124.5 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistors1200 Million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on E2-9000 and FX-8100 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 configurationno data1
SocketBGAAM3+
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-9000 and FX-8100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,no data
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-9000 and FX-8100 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-9000 and FX-8100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 600 MHz)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-9000 and FX-8100.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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.

E2-9000 0.61
FX-8100 2.55
+318%

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.

E2-9000 967
FX-8100 4055
+319%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 2.55
Recency 1 June 2016 12 October 2011
Physical cores 2 8
Threads 2 8
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 95 Watt

E2-9000 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 850% lower power consumption.

FX-8100, on the other hand, has a 318% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

The FX-8100 is our recommended choice as it beats the E2-9000 in performance tests.

Be aware that E2-9000 is a notebook processor while FX-8100 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-9000 and FX-8100, 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 E2-9000
E2-9000
AMD FX-8100
FX-8100

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.


2.5 314 votes

Rate E2-9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 64 votes

Rate FX-8100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-9000 or FX-8100, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.