Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 6110

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6110

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 2 MB 3x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 6 vs 4 2 more threads
Front view of AMD A4 6210

Reasons to consider the
AMD A4 6210

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 12.19W vs 77.19W 6.3x lower typical power consumption
Newer manufacturing process 28 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower annual home energy cost 3.61 $/year vs 22.89 $/year 6.3x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 13.14 $/year vs 83.22 $/year 6.3x lower annual commercial energy cost

Features Key features of the FX 6110  vs A4 6210 

L2 cache

FX 6110
6 MB
A4 6210
2 MB

TDP

FX 6110
95W
A4 6210
15W

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 6110  vs
A4 6210 
Cores Hexa core Quad core
Socket type
AM3+
BGA 769
Is unlocked Yes No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
BMI1
AMD64
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

details

FX 6110  vs
A4 6210 
Threads 6 4
L2 cache 6 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 28 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

power consumption

TDP 95W 15W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 3.61 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 13.14 $/year
Typical power consumption 77.19W 12.19W
AMD FX 6110
Report a correction
AMD A4 6210
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus