7 253PQE vs A8-3800
Aggregate performance score
Core 7 253PQE outperforms A8-3800 by a whopping 1924% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2655 | 302 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 33.48 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 0.76 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | no data | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Bartlett Lake (2025−2026) |
| Release date | 30 June 2011 (14 years ago) | 9 March 2026 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $409 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of A8-3800 and Core 7 253PQE: 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) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 5.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 33 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on A8-3800 and Core 7 253PQE 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 | FM1 | 1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3800 and Core 7 253PQE. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Security technologies
A8-3800 and Core 7 253PQE technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3800 and Core 7 253PQE are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3800 and Core 7 253PQE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4, DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6550D | Intel UHD Graphics 770 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-3800 and Core 7 253PQE.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 24.08 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.97 | 5.75 |
| Recency | 30 June 2011 | 9 March 2026 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 10 |
| Threads | 4 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 125 Watt |
A8-3800 has 92% lower power consumption.
7 253PQE, on the other hand, has a 1924% higher aggregate performance score, 493% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 14 years, 150% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.
The Intel Core 7 253PQE is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A8-3800 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
