A4-5300B vs A8-3870K
Aggregate performance score
A8-3870K outperforms A4-5300B by an impressive 86% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-3870K and A4-5300B processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2175 | 2635 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.39 | 1.15 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 20 December 2011 (13 years ago) | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A8-3870K and A4-5300B 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 | 3 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on A8-3870K and A4-5300B 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 | FM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3870K and A4-5300B are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3870K and A4-5300B. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 6550D | AMD Radeon HD 7480D |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.47 | 0.79 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.04 | 0.72 |
| Recency | 20 December 2011 | 2 October 2012 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
A8-3870K has a 86.1% higher aggregate performance score, 44.4% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
A4-5300B, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and 53.8% lower power consumption.
The A8-3870K is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-5300B in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3870K and A4-5300B, 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.
