C-60 vs A10-9620P
Primary details
Comparing A10-9620P and C-60 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1986 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Bristol Ridge | AMD C-Series |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Ontario (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 1 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 22 August 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $886 | $189 |
Detailed specifications
A10-9620P and C-60 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 1.33 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on A10-9620P and C-60 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | FP4 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 9 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-9620P and C-60. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Dual-Channel DDR3/DDR4-1866 Memory Controller, PCIe 3.0 x8 | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V, Radeon HD 6290 (276-400 MHz) |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-9620P and C-60 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-9620P and C-60. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR3 Single-channel |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) | AMD Radeon HD 6290 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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%
A10-9620P outperforms C-60 by 720% 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%
A10-9620P outperforms C-60 by 557% 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%
A10-9620P outperforms C-60 by 696% 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%
A10-9620P outperforms C-60 by 197% 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%
A10-9620P outperforms C-60 by 400% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
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%
C-60 outperforms A10-9620P by 498% 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%
A10-9620P outperforms C-60 by 505% 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%
A10-9620P outperforms C-60 by 286% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 January 2017 | 22 August 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 9 Watt |
We couldn't decide between A10-9620P and C-60. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-9620P and C-60, 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.
