A10-9620P vs FX-8800P

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8800P
2015
4 cores / 4 threads, 12 Watt
1.84
+11.5%

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8800P and A10-9620P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking19131986
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD CarrizoBristol Ridge
Architecture codenameCarrizo (2015−2018)Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date3 June 2015 (9 years ago)1 January 2017 (7 years ago)
Current price$515 $886

Detailed specifications

FX-8800P and A10-9620P 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.1 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.4 GHz3.4 GHz
L2 cache2048 KB2 MB
Chip lithography28 nm28 nm
Die sizeno data250 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C90 °C
Number of transistors3100 Million3100 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on FX-8800P and A10-9620P 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.

SocketFP4FP4
Power consumption (TDP)12-35 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8800P and A10-9620P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsHSA 1.0Dual-Channel DDR3/DDR4-1866 Memory Controller, PCIe 3.0 x8
AES-NI1no data
FMAFMA4no data
AVXAVXno data
FRTC1no data
FreeSync1no data
PowerTune-no data
DualGraphics1no data
TrueAudio+no data
PowerNow+no data
PowerGating+no data
Out-of-band client management+no data
VirusProtect+no data
HSA+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8800P and A10-9620P are enumerated here.

AMD-V1no data
IOMMU 2.0+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8800P and A10-9620P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-2133DDR3, DDR4
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R7 GraphicsAMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge)
iGPU core count8no data
Enduro+no data
Switchable graphics1no data
UVD+no data
VCE+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-8800P and A10-9620P integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+no data
HDMI+no data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-8800P and A10-9620P integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan1no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8800P and A10-9620P.

PCIe version3.0no 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-8800P 1.84
+11.5%
A10-9620P 1.65

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 12% 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-8800P 2851
+11.4%
A10-9620P 2559

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P 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%

FX-8800P 515
+3.2%
A10-9620P 499

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 3% 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-8800P 1196
+8.8%
A10-9620P 1099

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 9% 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%

FX-8800P 2604
+14.4%
A10-9620P 2277

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 14% 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-8800P 7860
+5.9%
A10-9620P 7420

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 6% 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%

FX-8800P 12.02
+19.9%
A10-9620P 14.41

A10-9620P outperforms FX-8800P by 20% 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-8800P 3
+26.3%
A10-9620P 3

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 26% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

FX-8800P 277
+20.4%
A10-9620P 230

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 20% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made 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 (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

FX-8800P 82
+13.9%
A10-9620P 72

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 14% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-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-8800P 0.96
+18.5%
A10-9620P 0.81

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 19% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-8800P 1543
+16.1%
A10-9620P 1329

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 16% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-8800P 21
+29.3%
A10-9620P 16

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 29% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-8800P 94
+22.1%
A10-9620P 77

FX-8800P outperforms A10-9620P by 22% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.84 1.65
Recency 3 June 2015 1 January 2017
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 15 Watt

The FX-8800P is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-9620P in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8800P and A10-9620P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD FX-8800P
FX-8800P
AMD A10-9620P
A10-9620P

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 95 votes

Rate FX-8800P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 284 votes

Rate A10-9620P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8800P or A10-9620P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.