CPU Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear split: the Intel Processor N100 and AMD FX-9830P deliver nearly identical average scores, separated by a mere 0.1%, yet their performance profiles diverge sharply depending on the workload. The Intel N100 dominates single-threaded tasks with a commanding 129.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the AMD FX-9830P counters with an 8.8% advantage in multi-threaded Cinebench R23. Both processors sit at the 27th percentile overall, making them direct competitors in the low-power mobile segment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory belongs to the Intel N100 in single-core performance. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the N100 scores 910.5 against the FX-9830P's 396, a staggering 129.9% delta. This is not a marginal edge, it is a generational gap in per-thread throughput. The N100's Gracemont architecture clearly executes instructions far more efficiently than the aging Excavator cores in the AMD part. For any workload that depends on responsiveness, such as web browsing or office applications, this advantage is transformative.

The FX-9830P fights back in multi-core rendering, but the margin is far narrower. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD chip scores 2806 versus the N100's 2559.5, an 8.8% lead. This result seems counterintuitive given the N100's single-core dominance, but the FX-9830P compensates with a higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz against the N100's 3.40 GHz, and a dual-channel memory bus that likely helps feed all four cores during sustained loads.

The older Cinebench R15 multi-core test tells a different story. Here, the N100 wins decisively with 401.5 points against 282 for the FX-9830P, a 42.4% margin. This discrepancy between R15 and R23 results suggests that the N100's advantage shrinks as workloads scale in complexity and duration. The R15 test is shorter and less memory-intensive, favoring the N100's superior instruction efficiency; the longer R23 test likely exposes the FX-9830P's higher sustained clock potential.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall parity: the N100 averages 1007, while the FX-9830P averages 1006, a 0.1% difference. Both processors sit at the same 27th percentile against all CPUs, placing them in the entry-level tier. The nearest rivals for the N100 include the Intel Core i5-10210Y and Core i7-880, each at 1006 average with a 0.1% delta, while the FX-9830P's closest competitor is the Core i7-2630QM at 1005.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel N100 wins decisively in single-threaded and burst workloads. Its 129.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core makes it the clear choice for everyday responsiveness, launching applications, scrolling through documents, and handling browser tabs. The 42.4% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core further indicates that shorter, less demanding parallel tasks also favor the N100. This processor excels in scenarios where tasks complete quickly and rely on efficient execution rather than raw sustained throughput.

The AMD FX-9830P wins in longer multi-threaded workloads. Its 8.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core suggests that video encoding, 3D rendering, or batch processing that runs for extended periods will complete faster on the AMD part. The FX-9830P's higher 3.70 GHz boost clock and dual-channel memory bandwidth likely contribute to this endurance advantage. For users running continuous background tasks, the FX-9830P offers a measurable, if modest, performance edge.

The N100 also holds a significant efficiency advantage. With a 6W TDP against the FX-9830P's 35W, the Intel part delivers comparable average performance at less than one-fifth the power budget. This makes the N100 the obvious winner for fanless designs, compact laptops, or any application where heat and battery life are primary concerns. The FX-9830P's higher power draw may be acceptable for a device that is frequently plugged in, but it severely limits portability.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is vast. The Intel N100 uses Gracemont cores on a 10 nm process, built by Intel, while the AMD FX-9830P uses Excavator cores on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. This process difference alone explains much of the performance-per-watt disparity, the N100 achieves comparable average scores at 6W where the FX-9830P needs 35W.

Cache hierarchies differ fundamentally. The N100 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The FX-9830P has 320 KB total L1, 1 MB of L2 per module, and no L3 cache at all. The N100's 6 MB L3 cache provides a significant buffer for frequently accessed data, while the FX-9830P must rely entirely on its smaller L2 caches and main memory.

Memory support also diverges. The N100 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a single-channel configuration, while the FX-9830P supports only DDR4 but with a dual-channel bus. Both achieve the same 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, but the dual-channel configuration may offer lower latency under heavy load. The N100's PCIe implementation provides 9 Gen 3 lanes, slightly more than the FX-9830P's 8 Gen 3 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The N100 ships with UHD Graphics 730, while the FX-9830P includes Radeon R7 with 8 compute units. Both are integrated solutions suitable for basic display output, but the Radeon R7's dedicated compute units may offer better multimedia acceleration.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical: both have 4 cores and 4 threads with no hyperthreading or SMT. However, clock speeds differ. The N100 has a 100 MHz base clock and 3.40 GHz boost, while the FX-9830P has a 3.00 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The AMD part's higher boost clock gives it a raw frequency advantage, but the N100's architectural efficiency more than compensates in single-threaded work.

The TDP difference is extreme: 6W for the N100 versus 35W for the FX-9830P. This nearly six-fold difference in power draw is the single most important differentiator for mobile use. The N100 uses socket Intel BGA 1264, while the FX-9830P uses AMD Socket FP4, meaning they are not interchangeable in any system.

The process node gap is also stark: 10 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for AMD. This directly explains the power efficiency difference and the N100's superior single-thread performance. The FX-9830P has 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, while the N100's transistor count and die size are not listed in the data.

The N100 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the FX-9830P is limited to DDR4. Both lack ECC support. The N100 was released in 2023 and remains active in production, while the FX-9830P was released in 2016 and is now end-of-life. The N100 has a launch MSRP of $128, while the FX-9830P has no listed MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The Intel N100 wins decisively with a 910.5 score in Cinebench R23 single-core against the AMD FX-9830P's 396, representing a 129.9% advantage.

Q: Which processor is better for multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD FX-9830P leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 2806 points versus the N100's 2559.5, an 8.8% margin. However, the N100 wins the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test by 42.4%.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: They are nearly identical. The N100 averages 1007 points, while the FX-9830P averages 1006, a difference of just 0.1%. Both sit at the 27th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel N100 has a 6W TDP, while the AMD FX-9830P has a 35W TDP. The N100 delivers comparable average performance at roughly one-sixth the power draw.

Q: Do they support the same memory types?

A: No. The N100 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a single-channel configuration, while the FX-9830P supports only DDR4 but with a dual-channel bus. Both achieve 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: The Intel N100 is active and was released in 2023. The AMD FX-9830P is end-of-life and was released in 2016.

The Verdict

The Intel Processor N100 is the superior choice for nearly all users, and the data makes this clear. Its 129.9% single-core advantage in Cinebench R23 translates to noticeably snappier everyday use, from boot times to application loading. The 42.4% win in Cinebench R15 multi-core further confirms that even parallel tasks favor the N100 when they are not sustained for long periods. The 6W TDP against 35W makes the N100 dramatically more portable and easier to cool, enabling thinner devices with longer battery life. The N100 also supports newer DDR5 memory and remains in active production, ensuring continued availability and support.

The AMD FX-9830P retains one narrow advantage: an 8.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. This makes it the pick for users who run continuous, heavily threaded workloads such as video encoding or 3D rendering on a device that stays plugged in. The higher 3.70 GHz boost clock and dual-channel memory bus give it a sustained throughput edge that the N100 cannot match in longer sessions. However, this comes at a massive power cost and with an end-of-life production status.

The average benchmark scores tell the final story. With the N100 at 1007 and the FX-9830P at 1006, the overall performance is statistically tied. But the N100 achieves this parity at 6W versus 35W, with vastly superior single-thread performance and a modern architecture. The FX-9830P is a relic of a previous era, and its only winning scenario, long multi-core renders, is a niche use case for a mobile processor. For any general-purpose laptop, mini PC, or embedded system, the Intel N100 is the data-backed recommendation.