A10-5700 vs FX-4130
Aggregated performance score
A10-5700 outperforms FX-4130 by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
Comparing FX-4130 and A10-5700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1915 | 1902 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.26 | 0.48 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Zambezi (2011−2012) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 27 August 2012 (11 years ago) | 2 October 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $39 | $48 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
A10-5700 has 85% better value for money than FX-4130.
Detailed Specifications
FX-4130 and A10-5700 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 | 3.8 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 4 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.2875 V - Max: 1.4125 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-4130 and A10-5700 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 | AM3+ | FM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4130 and A10-5700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | no data |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4130 and A10-5700 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4130 and A10-5700. 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 | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | AMD Radeon HD 7660D |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4130 and A10-5700.
| PCIe version | n/a | 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.
A10-5700 outperforms FX-4130 by 2% 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%
A10-5700 outperforms FX-4130 by 2% 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-4130 outperforms A10-5700 by 11% 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-4130 outperforms A10-5700 by 11% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 1.74 | 1.77 |
| Recency | 27 August 2012 | 2 October 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 65 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between FX-4130 and A10-5700.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4130 and A10-5700, 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.
