A10-9620P vs A10-5800K
Aggregate performance score
A10-5800K outperforms A10-9620P by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-5800K and A10-9620P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1997 | 2107 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.35 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A-Series (Desktop) | Bristol Ridge |
| Power efficiency | 1.77 | 10.09 |
| Architecture codename | Trinity (2012−2013) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $122 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A10-5800K and A10-9620P 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 | 3.8 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 250 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 3100 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on A10-5800K and A10-9620P 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 | no data |
| Socket | FM2 | FP4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 15 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-5800K and A10-9620P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-5800K and A10-9620P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 7660D (800 MHz) | AMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 758 MHz) |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.87 | 1.60 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.32 | 2.44 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 1 January 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 15 Watt |
A10-5800K has a 16.9% higher aggregate performance score.
A10-9620P, on the other hand, has 84.8% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.
The A10-5800K is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-9620P in performance tests.
Note that A10-5800K is a desktop processor while A10-9620P is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-5800K and A10-9620P, 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.
