A8-3800 vs Phenom X3 8650

Place in the ranking	2635	2271
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Market segment	Desktop processor	Desktop processor
Power efficiency	0.76	1.87
Architecture codename	Toliman (2008)	Llano (2011−2012)
Release date	April 2008 (16 years ago)	30 June 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Phenom X3 8650 and A8-3800 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	3 (Tri-Core)	4 (Quad-Core)
Threads	3	4
Base clock speed	no data	2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed	2.3 GHz	2.7 GHz
L1 cache	128 KB (per core)	128 KB (per core)
L2 cache	512 KB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
L3 cache	2 MB (shared)	0 KB
Chip lithography	65 nm	32 nm
Die size	285 mm²	228 mm²
Number of transistors	450 million	1,178 million
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on Phenom X3 8650 and A8-3800 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	1	1
Socket	AM2+	FM1
Power consumption (TDP)	95 Watt	65 Watt

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom X3 8650 and A8-3800 are enumerated here.

AMD-V

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom X3 8650 and A8-3800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types

no data

DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card

no data

AMD Radeon HD 6550D

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.

Phenom X3 8650 0.77

A8-3800 1.29
+67.5%

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.

Phenom X3 8650 1218

A8-3800 2049
+68.2%

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.

Phenom X3 8650 252

A8-3800 291
+15.5%

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.

Phenom X3 8650 619

A8-3800 889
+43.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.77	1.29
Physical cores	3	4
Threads	3	4
Chip lithography	65 nm	32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	95 Watt	65 Watt

A8-3800 has a 67.5% higher aggregate performance score, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The A8-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom X3 8650 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom X3 8650 and A8-3800, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.