A8-7410 vs A4-6300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A4-6300
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.90
A8-7410
2015
4 cores / 4 threads, 12 Watt
1.73
+92.2%

A8-7410 outperforms A4-6300 by an impressive 92% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A4-6300 and A8-7410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25502045
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD A-Series
Power efficiency1.316.54
Architecture codenameRichland (2013−2014)Carrizo-L (2015)
Release date1 June 2013 (11 years ago)7 May 2015 (9 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A4-6300 and A8-7410 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed3.7 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz2.5 GHz
L1 cache96 KBno data
L2 cache1024 KB2048 KB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size246 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature70 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)70 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 million930 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A4-6300 and A8-7410 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 configuration1no data
SocketFM2FP4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt12 - 25 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-6300 and A8-7410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT, AMD-V
AES-NI++
FMAFMA4FMA4
AVXAVX+
PowerNow++
PowerGating++
VirusProtect++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-6300 and A8-7410 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-6300 and A8-7410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1600DDR3L-1866
Max memory channels21

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon™ HD 8370DAMD Radeon R5 Graphics
จำนวนพาธไลน์128no data
Enduro++
Switchable graphics++
UVD++
VCE++

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A4-6300 and A8-7410 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort++
HDMI++

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A4-6300 and A8-7410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 11DirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-6300 and A8-7410.

PCIe version2.02.0

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.

A4-6300 0.90
A8-7410 1.73
+92.2%

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.

A4-6300 1428
A8-7410 2741
+91.9%

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.

A4-6300 396
+64.3%
A8-7410 241

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.

A4-6300 563
A8-7410 627
+11.4%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.90 1.73
Recency 1 June 2013 7 May 2015
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 12 Watt

A8-7410 has a 92.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 441.7% lower power consumption.

The A8-7410 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-6300 in performance tests.

Note that A4-6300 is a desktop processor while A8-7410 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-6300 and A8-7410, 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 A4-6300
A4-6300
AMD A8-7410
A8-7410

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.


3.1 285 votes

Rate A4-6300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 706 votes

Rate A8-7410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A4-6300 or A8-7410, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.