3020e vs A8-6410

VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-6410
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.11
3020e
2020
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
1.52
+36.9%

3020e outperforms A8-6410 by a substantial 37% 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 ranking24152144
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU)
Power efficiency7.0524.14
Architecture codenameBeema (2014)Dali (Zen) (2020)
Release date1 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz2.6 GHz
L1 cacheno data192 KB
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB
L3 cacheno data4 MB
Chip lithography28 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature90 °C105 °C
Number of transistors930 Millionno 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.

SocketFT3bFT5
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt6 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 extensionsMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VTMMX, 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++
FMAFMA4+
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 typesDDR3L-1866DDR4
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 GraphicsAMD 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.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-6410 and 3020e.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

A8-6410 1.11
3020e 1.52
+36.9%

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.

A8-6410 1770
3020e 2432
+37.4%

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.

A8-6410 224
3020e 661
+195%

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.

A8-6410 592
3020e 1078
+82.1%

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.

A8-6410 24.3
+19.3%
3020e 29

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

A8-6410 165
3020e 196
+18.8%

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.

A8-6410 49
3020e 92
+87.8%

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.  

A8-6410 12
3020e 13
+8.5%

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.  

A8-6410 54
3020e 65
+20%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.11 1.52
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 36.9% 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.

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 A8-6410
A8-6410
AMD 3020e
3020e

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

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


3.6 324 votes

Rate A8-6410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 817 votes

Rate 3020e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A8-6410 or 3020e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.