A10-6700 vs FX-4320
Aggregated performance score
A10-6700 outperforms FX-4320 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
Comparing FX-4320 and A10-6700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1803 | 1797 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 4.00 | 0.52 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Richland (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (11 years ago) | 1 June 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Current price | $53 | $50 |
Value for money
Performance per price, higher is better.
FX-4320 has 669% better value for money than A10-6700.
Technical specs
FX-4320 and A10-6700 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 | 4 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 4096 KB |
| L3 cache | 4096 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 71 °C |
| 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 | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on FX-4320 and A10-6700 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) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4320 and A10-6700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | 1 |
| FMA | + | FMA4 |
| AVX | + | AVX |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| PowerNow | no data | + |
| PowerGating | no data | + |
| Out-of-band client management | no data | - |
| VirusProtect | no data | + |
| RAID | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4320 and A10-6700 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4320 and A10-6700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | AMD Radeon HD 8670D |
| 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 FX-4320 and A10-6700 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by FX-4320 and A10-6700 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 11 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4320 and A10-6700.
| PCIe version | Not Listed | 2.0 |
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.
A10-6700 outperforms FX-4320 by 1% 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%
A10-6700 outperforms FX-4320 by 1% in Passmark.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 2.00 | 2.02 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 1 June 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
We couldn't decide between FX-4320 and A10-6700. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4320 and A10-6700, 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.
