i7-13700F vs A10-4600M
Aggregate performance score
i7-13700F outperforms A10-4600M by a whopping 1899% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-4600M and Core i7-13700F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2286 | 195 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 56.42 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD A-Series | no data |
| Architecture codename | Trinity (2012−2013) | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 15 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $359 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A10-4600M and Core i7-13700F 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 5.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 257 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on A10-4600M and Core i7-13700F 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 | FS1r2 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-4600M and Core i7-13700F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Launched |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
A10-4600M and Core i7-13700F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-4600M and Core i7-13700F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-4600M and Core i7-13700F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 89.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 7660G | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-4600M and Core i7-13700F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.26 | 25.19 |
| Recency | 15 May 2012 | 4 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 24 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
A10-4600M has 85.7% lower power consumption.
i7-13700F, on the other hand, has a 1899.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and 300% more physical cores and 500% more threads.
The Core i7-13700F is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-4600M in performance tests.
Be aware that A10-4600M is a notebook processor while Core i7-13700F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-4600M and Core i7-13700F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
