Ryzen 5 2600E vs FX-4130
Primary details
Comparing FX-4130 and Ryzen 5 2600E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2045 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.23 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | 1.29 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zambezi (2011−2012) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 27 August 2012 (12 years ago) | 19 September 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $112 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-4130 and Ryzen 5 2600E 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.2875 V - Max: 1.4125 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-4130 and Ryzen 5 2600E 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) | 125 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4130 and Ryzen 5 2600E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4130 and Ryzen 5 2600E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4130 and Ryzen 5 2600E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4130 and Ryzen 5 2600E.
| PCIe version | n/a | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 27 August 2012 | 19 September 2018 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 6 |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 65 Watt |
Ryzen 5 2600E has an age advantage of 6 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between FX-4130 and Ryzen 5 2600E. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4130 and Ryzen 5 2600E, 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.
