A4-3310MX vs A10-8700P
Aggregate performance score
A10-8700P outperforms A4-3310MX by a whopping 188% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-8700P and A4-3310MX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2213 | 2900 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Carrizo | AMD A-Series |
| Power efficiency | 3.81 | 1.32 |
| Architecture codename | Carrizo (2015−2018) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 3 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 14 June 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A10-8700P and A4-3310MX 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 | 1.8 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A10-8700P and A4-3310MX 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | FP4 | FS1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 - 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-8700P and A4-3310MX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | HSA 1.0 | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480G |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | FMA4 | - |
| AVX | AVX | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| Out-of-band client management | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| HSA | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-8700P and A4-3310MX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-8700P and A4-3310MX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-2133 | DDR3 |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R6 Graphics | AMD Radeon HD 6480G (444 MHz) |
| iGPU core count | 6 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A10-8700P and A4-3310MX integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A10-8700P and A4-3310MX integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-8700P and A4-3310MX.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
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.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.41 | 0.49 |
| Recency | 3 June 2015 | 14 June 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 35 Watt |
A10-8700P has a 187.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 191.7% lower power consumption.
The A10-8700P is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3310MX in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-8700P and A4-3310MX, 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.
