Celeron P4600 vs FX-8150
Aggregate performance score
FX-8150 outperforms Celeron P4600 by a whopping 516% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8150 and Celeron P4600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1551 | 2814 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Zambezi (2011−2012) | Westmere (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 12 October 2011 (12 years ago) | 28 March 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
FX-8150 and Celeron P4600 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 0.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 1.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 1 × 2.5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 15 |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 8192 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 382 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.0125 V - Max: 1.4125 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8150 and Celeron P4600 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+ | PGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8150 and Celeron P4600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
FX-8150 and Celeron P4600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8150 and Celeron P4600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8150 and Celeron P4600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-800, DDR3-1066 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 17.051 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel® Processors |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 667 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of FX-8150 and Celeron P4600 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8150 and Celeron P4600.
| PCIe version | n/a | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.39 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 12 October 2011 | 28 March 2010 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 35 Watt |
FX-8150 has a 516.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Celeron P4600, on the other hand, has 257.1% lower power consumption.
The FX-8150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron P4600 in performance tests.
Note that FX-8150 is a desktop processor while Celeron P4600 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8150 and Celeron P4600, 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.
