Apple M1 vs A10-9620P

Place in the ranking	2106	1207
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Series	Bristol Ridge	Apple Apple M-Series
Power efficiency	10.09	no data
Architecture codename	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	no data
Release date	1 January 2017 (7 years ago)	10 November 2020 (4 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A10-9620P and Apple M1 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)	8 (Octa-Core)
Threads	4	8
Base clock speed	2.5 GHz	2.064 GHz
Boost clock speed	3.4 GHz	3.2 GHz
L1 cache	no data	2 MB
L2 cache	2 MB	16 MB
L3 cache	no data	16 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	5 nm
Die size	250 mm²	no data
Maximum core temperature	90 °C	no data
Number of transistors	3100 Million	16000 Million
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on A10-9620P and Apple M1 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.

Socket	FP4	no data
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-9620P and Apple M1. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types

DDR3, DDR4

no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare

AMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 758 MHz)

Apple M1 8-Core GPU

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.

A10-9620P 1.60

Apple M1 5.17
+223%

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.

A10-9620P 2538

Apple M1 8207
+223%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

A10-9620P 230

Apple M1 1072
+366%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

A10-9620P 72

Apple M1 208
+189%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.60	5.17
Integrated graphics card	2.44	14.49
Recency	1 January 2017	10 November 2020
Physical cores	4	8
Threads	4	8
Chip lithography	28 nm	5 nm

Apple M1 has a 223.1% higher aggregate performance score, 493.9% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Apple M1 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-9620P in performance tests.

Should you still have questions on choice between A10-9620P and Apple M1, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.