3020e vs A8-6410
Aggregate performance score
3020e outperforms A8-6410 by a substantial 36% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-6410 and 3020e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2431 | 2163 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A-Series | AMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU) |
| Power efficiency | 7.05 | 23.98 |
| Architecture codename | Beema (2014) | Dali (Zen) (2020) |
| Release date | 1 June 2014 (10 years ago) | 4 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A8-6410 and 3020e 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 | 2 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 930 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on A8-6410 and 3020e 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 | FT3b | FT5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-6410 and 3020e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT | 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 | + | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-6410 and 3020e are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-6410 and 3020e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3L-1866 | DDR4 |
| Max memory channels | 1 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 1000 MHz) |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A8-6410 and 3020e integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A8-6410 and 3020e integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-6410 and 3020e.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
x264 encoding pass 1
x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.11 | 1.51 |
| Recency | 1 June 2014 | 4 August 2020 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 6 Watt |
A8-6410 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
3020e, on the other hand, has a 36% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The 3020e is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-6410 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-6410 and 3020e, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
