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 Intel Core i3 2100

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 2100

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 69.1 °C vs 61.1 °C Around 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
Slightly lower typical power consumption 98.28W vs 101.56W Around 5% lower typical power consumption
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 93.47 $/year vs 109.5 $/year Around 15% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 0.5 MB 16x 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
Significantly higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 3.1 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
More cores 8 vs 2 6 more cores; run more applications at once
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.56 GHz vs 3.23 GHz More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.75 GHz vs 3.23 GHz More than 45% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Much lower annual home energy cost 30.11 $/year vs 37.88 $/year More than 20% lower annual home energy cost
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 1 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 2100 vs FX 8320

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 2100
4,786
FX 8320
10,352

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 2100
2,258
FX 8320
2,066

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 2100
153,100 MB/s
FX 8320
2,320,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 2100
4,738
FX 8320
9,798

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 2100
5,042
FX 8320
10,594

GeekBench

Core i3 2100
7,901
FX 8320
11,631

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i3 2100
3,664
FX 8320
8,183

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i3 2100
1,583
FX 8320
1,402

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i3 2100  vs
FX 8320 
Clock speed 3.1 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 1155
AM3+
Is unlocked No Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 2000 N/A
Number of displays supported 2 N/A
GPU clock speed 850 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,100 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 21,333.32 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

Core i3 2100  vs
FX 8320 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L2 cache 0.5 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 3 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 31 20
Operating temperature Unknown - 69.1°C Unknown - 61.1°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 101 63
Overclocked clock speed 3.23 GHz 4.56 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.23 GHz 4.75 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 1,518.9 9,317
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.23 GHz 4.56 GHz

power consumption

TDP 65W 125W
Annual home energy cost 37.88 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 93.47 $/year 109.5 $/year
Performance per watt 1.41 pt/W 7.79 pt/W
Typical power consumption 98.28W 101.56W
Intel Core i3 2100
Report a correction
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus