A10-5800K vs i9-10900E
Aggregate performance score
Core i9-10900E outperforms A10-5800K by a whopping 556% 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 | 788 | 2237 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.86 | 0.35 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD A-Series (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 7.20 | 0.71 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | Intel | no data |
| Architecture codename | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 30 April 2020 (5 years ago) | 2 October 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $488 | $122 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i9-10900E has 3003% better value for money than A10-5800K.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Core i9-10900E and A10-5800K 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 | 10 (Deca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 20 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.7 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 20 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 206 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i9-10900E and A10-5800K 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 | 1200 | FM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 100 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-10900E and A10-5800K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
Security technologies
Core i9-10900E and A10-5800K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-10900E and A10-5800K 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 Core i9-10900E and A10-5800K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | AMD Radeon HD 7660D (800 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-10900E and A10-5800K.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no data |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.08 | 1.69 |
| Integrated graphics card | 2.70 | 1.16 |
| Recency | 30 April 2020 | 2 October 2012 |
| Physical cores | 10 | 4 |
| Threads | 20 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 100 Watt |
i9-10900E has a 555.6% higher aggregate performance score, 132.8% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 7 years, 150% more physical cores and 400% more threads, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 53.8% lower power consumption.
The Intel Core i9-10900E is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A10-5800K 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.
