FX-4350 vs A10-9700
Aggregated performance score
A10-9700 outperforms FX-4350 by a small 7% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-9700 and FX-4350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1706 | 1762 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.64 | 0.73 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Vishera (2012−2015) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (6 years ago) | 29 April 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $90 | no data |
| Current price | $75 (0.8x MSRP) | $92 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
A10-9700 has 399% better value for money than FX-4350.
Detailed specifications
A10-9700 and FX-4350 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 | 3.5 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 4096 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 315 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 61 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
| P0 Vcore voltage | no data | Min: 1.275 V - Max: 1.4 V |
Compatibility
Information on A10-9700 and FX-4350 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 | AM4 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-9700 and FX-4350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| FRTC | 1 | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| PowerTune | + | no data |
| TrueAudio | + | no data |
| PowerNow | + | no data |
| PowerGating | + | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-9700 and FX-4350 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-9700 and FX-4350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR3 |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| iGPU core count | 6 | no data |
| Enduro | + | no data |
| UVD | + | no data |
| VCE | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A10-9700 and FX-4350 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A10-9700 and FX-4350 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-9700 and FX-4350.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | n/a |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | 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.
A10-9700 outperforms FX-4350 by 7% 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%
A10-9700 outperforms FX-4350 by 7% 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%
A10-9700 outperforms FX-4350 by 37% 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%
A10-9700 outperforms FX-4350 by 30% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.29 | 2.14 |
| Recency | 27 July 2017 | 29 April 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 125 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A10-9700 and FX-4350.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-9700 and FX-4350, 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.
