A8-7680 vs GX-210JA
Primary details
Comparing GX-210JA and A8-7680 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1804 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 15.78 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD | AMD A8 |
| Architecture codename | Temash (2013) | Excavator (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 26 October 2018 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $56 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
GX-210JA and A8-7680 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 38 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | no data | 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 GX-210JA and A8-7680 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 | FT3 BGA | FM2+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by GX-210JA and A8-7680. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by GX-210JA and A8-7680 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by GX-210JA and A8-7680. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 14.936 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Radeon R7 Series |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 26 October 2018 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 45 Watt |
GX-210JA has 650% lower power consumption.
A8-7680, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
We couldn't decide between GX-210JA and A8-7680. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GX-210JA is a notebook processor while A8-7680 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between GX-210JA and A8-7680, 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.
