FX-7500 vs A10-5750M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A10-5750M
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
1.37
FX-7500
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 19 Watt
2.02
+47.4%

FX-7500 outperforms A10-5750M by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A10-5750M and FX-7500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22431927
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD Kaveri
Power efficiency3.7110.07
Architecture codenameRichland (2013−2014)Kaveri (2014−2015)
Release date1 June 2013 (11 years ago)4 June 2014 (10 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A10-5750M and FX-7500 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 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz3.3 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)4096 KB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size246 mm2245 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 million2,410 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A10-5750M and FX-7500 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
SocketFS1r2FP3
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt19 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-5750M and FX-7500. 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, FMA86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC-+
TrueAudio-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
Out-of-band client management-+
VirusProtect-+
HSA-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-5750M and FX-7500 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-5750M and FX-7500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3-1600
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 8650G (533 - 720 MHz)AMD Radeon R7 Graphics
iGPU core countno data6
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A10-5750M and FX-7500 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A10-5750M and FX-7500 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-5750M and FX-7500.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data8

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 1.37
FX-7500 2.02
+47.4%

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.

A10-5750M 2174
FX-7500 3209
+47.6%

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.

A10-5750M 295
FX-7500 315
+6.8%

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.

A10-5750M 660
FX-7500 684
+3.6%

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.

A10-5750M 2579
+25.2%
FX-7500 2060

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.

A10-5750M 6451
+17.7%
FX-7500 5482

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.

A10-5750M 3238
+16.9%
FX-7500 2771

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.

A10-5750M 22.5
+3.6%
FX-7500 23.32

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.

A10-5750M 2
+34.3%
FX-7500 2

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

A10-5750M 209
+36.6%
FX-7500 153

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.

A10-5750M 76
+38.2%
FX-7500 55

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.

A10-5750M 0.85
+30.8%
FX-7500 0.65

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.

A10-5750M 1.5
+36.4%
FX-7500 1.1

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.

A10-5750M 2035
+37.6%
FX-7500 1479

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.  

A10-5750M 15
+7.9%
FX-7500 14

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.  

A10-5750M 76
+10.9%
FX-7500 69

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

A10-5750M 4787
+16.3%
FX-7500 4116

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

A10-5750M 1816
+2.7%
FX-7500 1769

Geekbench 2

A10-5750M 4742
+0.2%
FX-7500 4730

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.37 2.02
Recency 1 June 2013 4 June 2014
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 19 Watt

FX-7500 has a 47.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 84.2% lower power consumption.

The FX-7500 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-5750M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A10-5750M and FX-7500, 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 FX-7500
FX-7500

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.


3.8 252 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 91 vote

Rate FX-7500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A10-5750M or FX-7500, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.