A10-5700 vs FX-9830P

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-9830P
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
2.18
+21.8%

FX-9830P outperforms A10-5700 by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-9830P and A10-5700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18672028
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Bristol Ridgeno data
Power efficiency5.682.51
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Trinity (2012−2013)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)2 October 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-9830P and A10-5700 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed3 GHz3.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz4 GHz
L1 cache320 KB128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per module)1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size250 mm2246 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data71 °C
Number of transistors3,100 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on FX-9830P and A10-5700 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
SocketFP4FM2
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9830P and A10-5700. 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 FX-9830P and A10-5700 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9830P and A10-5700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)AMD Radeon HD 7660D

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9830P and A10-5700.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes8no 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.

FX-9830P 2.18
+21.8%
A10-5700 1.79

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.

FX-9830P 3332
+21.6%
A10-5700 2741

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.

FX-9830P 591
+49.2%
A10-5700 396

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.

FX-9830P 1438
+43.8%
A10-5700 1000

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.18 1.79
Integrated graphics card 1.95 1.30
Recency 31 May 2016 2 October 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 65 Watt

FX-9830P has a 21.8% higher aggregate performance score, 50% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 3 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

The FX-9830P is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-5700 in performance tests.

Be aware that FX-9830P is a notebook processor while A10-5700 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9830P and A10-5700, 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 FX-9830P
FX-9830P
AMD A10-5700
A10-5700

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.


3.6 113 votes

Rate FX-9830P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 167 votes

Rate A10-5700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-9830P or A10-5700, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.