Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) vs A10-5750M
Aggregated performance score
Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) outperforms A10-5750M by 16% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-5750M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2098 | 1964 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.93 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD A-Series | no data |
| Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Deneb (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (10 years ago) | November 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Current price | $198 | $88 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A10-5750M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 258 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 758 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on A10-5750M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) 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 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-5750M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W). 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, DDR3-1866 Controller | no data |
| AES-NI | + | no data |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-5750M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-5750M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W). Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 8650G | no 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.
Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) outperforms A10-5750M by 16% 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%
Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) outperforms A10-5750M by 17% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.41 | 1.64 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 125 Watt |
The Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-5750M in performance tests.
Be aware that A10-5750M is a notebook processor while Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-5750M and Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W), 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.
