A9-9410 vs FX-6100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-6100
2011
6 cores / 6 threads, 95 Watt
2.33
+143%
A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.96

FX-6100 outperforms A9-9410 by a whopping 143% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-6100 and A9-9410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking17942491
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency2.316.03
Architecture codenameZambezi (2011−2012)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date12 October 2011 (13 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-6100 and A9-9410 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads62
Base clock speed3.3 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz3.5 GHz
L1 cache288 KBno data
L2 cache6 MB2048 KB
L3 cache8 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2125 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on FX-6100 and A9-9410 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+FP4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6100 and A9-9410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataVirtualization,
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6100 and A9-9410 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6100 and A9-9410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2133
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R5 Graphics
iGPU core countno data3
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-6100 and A9-9410 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-6100 and A9-9410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6100 and A9-9410.

PCIe version2.03.0
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-6100 2.33
+143%
A9-9410 0.96

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-6100 3689
+142%
A9-9410 1522

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.33 0.96
Recency 12 October 2011 31 May 2016
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 6 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 15 Watt

FX-6100 has a 142.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

A9-9410, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.

The FX-6100 is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9410 in performance tests.

Note that FX-6100 is a desktop processor while A9-9410 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6100 and A9-9410, 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-6100
FX-6100
AMD A9-9410
A9-9410

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 1096 votes

Rate FX-6100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 113 votes

Rate A9-9410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-6100 or A9-9410, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.