A8-7600 vs Athlon II X4 651
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II X4 651 outperforms A8-7600 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 651 and A8-7600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1712 | 1799 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | 3.18 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Kaveri (2014−2015) |
| Release date | 14 November 2011 (12 years ago) | 31 July 2014 (9 years ago) |
| Current price | $234 | $59 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
A8-7600 has 1123% better value for money than Athlon II X4 651.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 651 and A8-7600 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 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 4096 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 245 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 2,411 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 651 and A8-7600 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 |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 651 and A8-7600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| FRTC | no data | 1 |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| DualGraphics | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | + |
| PowerNow | no data | + |
| PowerGating | no data | + |
| Out-of-band client management | no data | + |
| VirusProtect | no data | + |
| HSA | no data | 1 |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 651 and A8-7600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 651 and A8-7600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-2133 |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics |
| iGPU core count | no data | 6 |
| Number of pipelines | no data | 384 |
| Enduro | no data | + |
| Switchable graphics | no data | 1 |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Athlon II X4 651 and A8-7600 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Athlon II X4 651 and A8-7600 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 651 and A8-7600.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
Athlon II X4 651 outperforms A8-7600 by 12% 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%
Athlon II X4 651 outperforms A8-7600 by 11% 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%
A8-7600 outperforms Athlon II X4 651 by 30% 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%
Athlon II X4 651 outperforms A8-7600 by 5% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.30 | 2.06 |
| Recency | 14 November 2011 | 31 July 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Athlon II X4 651 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-7600 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 651 and A8-7600, 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.
