Core 2 Duo E8135 vs Pro A10-8700B

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Pro A10-8700B
2015
4 cores / 4 threads, 2 Watt
1.23
+112%

Pro A10-8700B outperforms Core 2 Duo E8135 by a whopping 112% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25243059
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Carrizono data
Power efficiencyno data1.41
DesignerAMDIntel
Manufacturerno dataIntel
Architecture codenameCarrizo (2015−2018)Penryn (2008−2011)
Release date3 June 2015 (10 years ago)3 March 2009 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Pro A10-8700B and Core 2 Duo E8135 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.8 GHz2.667 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz0.67 GHz
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data107 mm2
Number of transistors3100 Million410 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Pro A10-8700B and Core 2 Duo E8135 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 configurationno data1
SocketFP4P
Power consumption (TDP)2 MB44 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pro A10-8700B and Core 2 Duo E8135. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsHSA 1.0no data
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA4-
AVXAVX-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
TrueAudio+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
Out-of-band client management+-
VirusProtect+-
RAID+-
HSA+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pro A10-8700B and Core 2 Duo E8135 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data+
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pro A10-8700B and Core 2 Duo E8135. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3/DDR3L-2133DDR2, DDR3
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R6 GraphicsOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)
iGPU core count6no data
จำนวนพาธไลน์384no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Pro A10-8700B and Core 2 Duo E8135 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Pro A10-8700B and Core 2 Duo E8135 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Pro A10-8700B and Core 2 Duo E8135.

PCIe version3.0no data

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

Pro A10-8700B 1.23
+112%
Core 2 Duo E8135 0.58

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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.

Pro A10-8700B 2170
+113%
Samples: 165
Core 2 Duo E8135 1020
Samples: 23

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.

Pro A10-8700B 456
+38.2%
Core 2 Duo E8135 330

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.

Pro A10-8700B 991
+80.5%
Core 2 Duo E8135 549

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.23 0.58
Recency 3 June 2015 3 March 2009
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 2 Watt 44 Watt

Pro A10-8700B has a 112.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 60.7% more advanced lithography process, and 2100% lower power consumption.

The AMD Pro A10-8700B is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Core 2 Duo E8135 in performance tests.

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 Pro A10-8700B
Pro A10-8700B
Intel Core 2 Duo E8135
Core 2 Duo E8135

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

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


3.6 60 votes

Rate Pro A10-8700B on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 2 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo E8135 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Pro A10-8700B and Core 2 Duo E8135, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.