A10-5757M vs A10-5750M

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

A10-5750M
2013
4 cores / 4 threads
1.41

A10-5757M outperforms A10-5750M by 41% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A10-5750M and A10-5757M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking20981822
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD A-Series
Architecture codenameRichland (2013−2014)Richland (2013−2014)
Release date1 June 2013 (10 years ago)1 June 2013 (10 years ago)
Current price$198 $300

Detailed specifications

A10-5750M and A10-5757M 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 speed2.5 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz3.5 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size246 mm2246 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °C71 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on A10-5750M and A10-5757M 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
SocketFS1r2FP2
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-5750M and A10-5757M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA, DDR3-1866 Controller86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA, DDR3-1600 Controller
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-5750M and A10-5757M are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-5750M and A10-5757M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 8650GAMD Radeon HD 8650G

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.

A10-5750M 1.41
A10-5757M 1.99
+41.1%

A10-5757M outperforms A10-5750M by 41% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

A10-5750M 2174
A10-5757M 3084
+41.9%

A10-5757M outperforms A10-5750M by 42% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

A10-5750M 308
A10-5757M 385
+25%

A10-5757M outperforms A10-5750M by 25% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

A10-5750M 690
A10-5757M 950
+37.7%

A10-5757M outperforms A10-5750M by 38% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

A10-5750M 2579
+18.2%
A10-5757M 2182

A10-5750M outperforms A10-5757M by 18% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A10-5750M 6451
+70.9%
A10-5757M 3774

A10-5750M outperforms A10-5757M by 71% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A10-5750M 3238
+8.4%
A10-5757M 2986

A10-5750M outperforms A10-5757M by 8% in 3DMark06 CPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

A10-5750M 22.5
+27.6%
A10-5757M 28.7

A10-5757M outperforms A10-5750M by 28% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

A10-5750M 2
+3.6%
A10-5757M 2

A10-5750M outperforms A10-5757M by 4% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark 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 loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

A10-5750M 0.85
A10-5757M 0.88
+3.5%

A10-5757M outperforms A10-5750M by 4% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A10-5750M 1.5
+36.4%
A10-5757M 1.1

A10-5750M outperforms A10-5757M by 36% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A10-5750M 2035
+60.7%
A10-5757M 1266

A10-5750M outperforms A10-5757M by 61% in WinRAR 4.0.

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.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A10-5750M 76
+93.7%
A10-5757M 39

A10-5750M outperforms A10-5757M by 94% in x264 encoding pass 1.

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.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A10-5750M 15
+96.3%
A10-5757M 8

A10-5750M outperforms A10-5757M by 96% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.41 1.99

The A10-5757M is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-5750M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A10-5750M and A10-5757M, 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 A10-5750M
A10-5750M
AMD A10-5757M
A10-5757M

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.


3.8 244 votes

Rate A10-5750M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 43 votes

Rate A10-5757M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A10-5750M or A10-5757M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.