FX-8100 vs A10-9620P
Aggregate performance score
FX-8100 outperforms A10-9620P by an impressive 60% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-9620P and FX-8100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2088 | 1730 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Bristol Ridge | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.09 | 2.54 |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Zambezi (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 1 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 12 October 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A10-9620P and FX-8100 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 | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 315 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on A10-9620P and FX-8100 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 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-9620P and FX-8100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-9620P and FX-8100 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-9620P and FX-8100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-9620P and FX-8100.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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 | 1.66 | 2.65 |
| Recency | 1 January 2017 | 12 October 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 95 Watt |
A10-9620P has an age advantage of 5 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.
FX-8100, on the other hand, has a 59.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
The FX-8100 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-9620P in performance tests.
Be aware that A10-9620P is a notebook processor while FX-8100 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-9620P and FX-8100, 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.
