Winner
Intel Core i7 3770
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 3770 based on its .
See full details Intel Core i7 3770 vs AMD FX 4100 |
Released April, 2012
Intel Core i7 3770
- 3.4 GHz
- Quad core
7.9 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core i7 3770
 | Is hyperthreaded Yes | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
| | Newer manufacturing process 22 nms | | Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,072 |
VS
Released October, 2011
AMD FX 4100
- 3.6 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
6.5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD FX 4100
| | Is unlocked Yes | | More l2 cache 4 MB |
| | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core | | Slightly higher clock speed 3.6 GHz |
by Legit Reviews (Nov, 2011)The AMD FX-4100 is a fully unlocked processor, so you can easily overclock it.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3770 vs 4100
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Passmark and GeekBench | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Passmark (Single Core) | |
Power Consumption | |
How much power does the processor require? | |
| TDP | |
Value | |
| | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value | |
 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Core i7 3770CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Newer manufacturing process | 22 nms | vs | 32 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 2,072 | vs | 1,229 | Around 70% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Significantly better geekbench (64-bit) score | 13,296 | vs | 5,710 | More than 2.2x better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Significantly better PassMark score | 9,449 | vs | 4,050 | More than 2.2x better PassMark score | |||
| Better 3DMark11 physics score | 7,920 | vs | 5,760 | Around 40% better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Better performance per watt | 16.02 pt/W | vs | 4.45 pt/W | More than 3.5x better performance per watt | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 18.55 $/year | vs | 34.18 $/year | More than 45% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 67.45 $/year | vs | 114.41 $/year | More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Marginally newer | Apr, 2012 | vs | Oct, 2011 | Release date 6 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Is unlocked | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking | |||
| More l2 cache | 4 MB | vs | 1 MB | 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Slightly higher clock speed | 3.6 GHz | vs | 3.4 GHz | More than 5% higher clock speed | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.71 GHz | vs | 4.06 GHz | More than 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.8 GHz | vs | 4.29 GHz | More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 3770 vs FX 4100
GeekBench (32-bit)
GeekBench (64-bit)
GeekBench
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
FX 4100 | by damric (Sep, 2012)I ran a few quick benches like the CPU physics test in 3dmark11, and the linx FLOPS test.
Passmark
FX 4100 | by Legit Reviews (Nov, 2011)The performance of the FX-4100 wasn't awful, but we didn't expect to see the AMD A6-3650 running at 2.6GHz to beat the AMD FX-4100 running at 3.6GHz in benchmarks like POV-Ray and Cinebench!
Passmark (Single Core)
FX 4100 | by Legit Reviews (Nov, 2011)Benchmark Results: The AMD FX-4100 was able to hit an overall score of 14408 points in 3DMark Vantage, which puts it at the bottom of the performance chart.
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core i7 3770 | vs | FX 4100 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.6 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 3.8 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 1155 | |||
| AM3+ | |||
| Is unlocked | No | Yes | |
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has vitualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| AES | |||
| 3DNow! | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4000 | N/A | |
| Latest DirectX | 11.x | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 650 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,150 MHz | N/A | |
| 3DMark06 | 5,339.9 | N/A | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1866 | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,600 MB/s | 29,866.66 MB/s | |
details | Core i7 3770 | vs | FX 4100 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 8 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 4 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 2 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nms | 32 nms | |
| Transistor count | 1,300,000,000 | 1,600,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 2 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 67.4°C | Unknown - 70°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 8 | 127 | |
| Overclock review score | 0.9 | 4 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.06 GHz | 4.71 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.29 GHz | 4.8 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 3,085.5 | 2,972.7 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.06 GHz | 4.71 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 77W | 95W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 18.55 $/year | 34.18 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 67.45 $/year | 114.41 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 16.02 pt/W | 4.45 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 62.56W | N/A | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | DMI | HyperTransport 3.1 | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Transfer rate | 5,000 MT/s | 5,200 MT/s | |
 Intel Core i7 3770  Report a correction |  AMD FX 4100 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $310 | |
| Intel Core i7 3770 vs 4770 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $300 | $330 | |
| Intel Core i7 3770 vs 3770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $300 | $200 | |
| Intel Core i7 3770 vs AMD FX 8350 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $300 | $240 | |
| Intel Core i7 3770 vs i5 4670K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $300 | $119 | |
| Intel Core i7 3770 vs AMD A8 6500 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $300 | $220 | |
| Intel Core i7 3770 vs i5 4670 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $300 | $213 | |
| Intel Core i7 3770 vs i5 3570 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $47 | $117 | |
| Intel Celeron E3300 vs Core2 Duo E4600 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $340 | ||
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 | ||
| | VS | |
| $240 | $340 | |
| Intel Core i5 4670K vs i7 4770K | ||
| | VS | |
| $200 | $240 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 4670K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $340 | $332 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs I7 4820k | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $281 | |
| Intel Core i5 3230M vs 4200U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $393 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs i7 4500U | ||
