A10-5757M vs FX-9800P
Aggregate performance score
A10-5757M outperforms FX-9800P by a significant 21% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-9800P and A10-5757M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1977 | 1838 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | AMD A-Series |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Richland (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $926 | $300 |
Detailed specifications
FX-9800P and A10-5757M 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 | 2.7 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on FX-9800P and A10-5757M 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FP2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9800P and A10-5757M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Dual-Channel DDR3/DDR4-1866 Memory Controller, PCIe 3.0 x8 | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA, DDR3-1600 Controller |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-9800P and A10-5757M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9800P and A10-5757M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) | AMD Radeon HD 8650G |
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.
A10-5757M outperforms FX-9800P by 21% 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%
A10-5757M outperforms FX-9800P by 21% 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-9800P outperforms A10-5757M by 29% 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-9800P outperforms A10-5757M by 17% in GeekBench 5 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%
A10-5757M outperforms FX-9800P by 99% 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-9800P outperforms A10-5757M by 28% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-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-9800P outperforms A10-5757M by 3% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.65 | 1.99 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.95 | 1.36 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 1 June 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
The A10-5757M is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9800P in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9800P and A10-5757M, 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.
