A6-7470K vs A8-3800

VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-3800
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
1.34
+13.6%

A8-3800 outperforms A6-7470K by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-3800 and A6-7470K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22672377
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.881.66
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Godaveri (2014−2016)
Release date30 June 2011 (13 years ago)2 February 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A8-3800 and A6-7470K 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed2.7 GHz4 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)256 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1024 KB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size228 mm2245 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data71 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million2,411 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on A8-3800 and A6-7470K 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 configuration11
SocketFM1FM2+
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3800 and A6-7470K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+
PowerTune-+
TrueAudio-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3800 and A6-7470K are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3800 and A6-7470K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3-2133
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6550DAMD Radeon R5 Graphics
iGPU core countno data4
Number of pipelinesno data256
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A8-3800 and A6-7470K integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A8-3800 and A6-7470K integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-3800 and A6-7470K.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

A8-3800 1.34
+13.6%
A6-7470K 1.18

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.

A8-3800 2049
+13.9%
A6-7470K 1799

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.34 1.18
Recency 30 June 2011 2 February 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm

A8-3800 has a 13.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

A6-7470K, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

The A8-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-7470K in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3800 and A6-7470K, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A8-3800
A8-3800
AMD A6-7470K
A6-7470K

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 69 votes

Rate A8-3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 4 votes

Rate A6-7470K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A8-3800 or A6-7470K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.