FX-9830P vs A8-6600K
Aggregate performance score
FX-9830P outperforms A8-6600K by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A8-6600K and FX-9830P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1866 | 1788 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.47 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD A-Series (Desktop) | AMD Bristol Ridge |
| Architecture codename | Richland (2013−2014) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $142 | no data |
| Current price | $67 (0.5x MSRP) | $749 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A8-6600K and FX-9830P 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 | 3.9 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 250 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 74 °C | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 3100 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on A8-6600K and FX-9830P 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 | no data |
| Socket | FM2 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 25-45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-6600K and FX-9830P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Dual-Channel DDR3/DDR4-1866 Memory Controller, PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| AES-NI | 1 | no data |
| FMA | FMA4 | no data |
| AVX | AVX | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| PowerNow | + | no data |
| PowerGating | + | no data |
| Out-of-band client management | - | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-6600K and FX-9830P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| IOMMU 2.0 | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-6600K and FX-9830P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 8570D | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) |
| Number of pipelines | 256 | no data |
| Enduro | + | no data |
| Switchable graphics | 1 | no data |
| UVD | + | no data |
| VCE | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A8-6600K and FX-9830P integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A8-6600K and FX-9830P integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-6600K and FX-9830P.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
FX-9830P outperforms A8-6600K by 10% based on our aggregate 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%
FX-9830P outperforms A8-6600K by 10% 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%
FX-9830P outperforms A8-6600K by 33% 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%
FX-9830P outperforms A8-6600K by 38% 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%
A8-6600K outperforms FX-9830P by 6% 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%
FX-9830P outperforms A8-6600K by 22% 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%
A8-6600K outperforms FX-9830P by 74% 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%
FX-9830P outperforms A8-6600K by 7% 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%
FX-9830P outperforms A8-6600K by 15% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
FX-9830P outperforms A8-6600K by 5% in TrueCrypt AES.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.95 | 2.14 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.15 | 1.95 |
| Recency | 1 June 2013 | 1 June 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 25 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A8-6600K and FX-9830P.
Note that A8-6600K is a desktop processor while FX-9830P is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-6600K and FX-9830P, 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.
