A10-9700E vs FX-4100

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-4100
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.71

A10-9700E outperforms FX-4100 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-4100 and A10-9700E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20661898
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.645.50
Architecture codenameZambezi (2011−2012)Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date12 October 2011 (13 years ago)27 July 2017 (7 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-4100 and A10-9700E 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed3.6 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz3.5 GHz
L1 cache192 KBno data
L2 cache4096 KB2048 KB
L3 cache8192 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2246 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.1 V - Max: 1.4125 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-4100 and A10-9700E 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 configuration11
SocketAM3+AM4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4100 and A10-9700E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+
PowerTune-+
TrueAudio-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4100 and A10-9700E are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4100 and A10-9700E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2400
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R7 Graphics
iGPU core countno data6
Enduro-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-4100 and A10-9700E integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-4100 and A10-9700E integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4100 and A10-9700E.

PCIe versionn/a3.0
PCI Express lanesno data8

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-4100 1.71
A10-9700E 2.11
+23.4%

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.

FX-4100 2617
A10-9700E 3229
+23.4%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.71 2.11
Recency 12 October 2011 27 July 2017
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

A10-9700E has a 23.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.

The A10-9700E is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-4100 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4100 and A10-9700E, 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-4100
FX-4100
AMD A10-9700E
A10-9700E

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.


3.8 885 votes

Rate FX-4100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 46 votes

Rate A10-9700E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-4100 or A10-9700E, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.