Athlon Silver 3050U vs A10-6700
Aggregate performance score
A10-6700 outperforms Athlon Silver 3050U by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1909 | 1940 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD Picasso (Ryzen 3000 APU) |
| Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Dali (Zen) (2020) |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 6 January 2020 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.3 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 23 |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 95 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 4500 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U 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 | no data |
| Socket | FM2 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | FMA4 | + |
| AVX | AVX | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 8670D | AMD Radeon RX Vega 2 |
| Number of pipelines | 384 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
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 | 2.01 | 1.94 |
| Recency | 1 June 2013 | 6 January 2020 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
A10-6700 has a 3.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Athlon Silver 3050U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U.
Note that A10-6700 is a desktop processor while Athlon Silver 3050U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-6700 and Athlon Silver 3050U, 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.
