A8-3520M vs Ryzen 7 1700
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms A8-3520M by a whopping 928% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1045 | 2854 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.30 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | AMD A-Series |
| Power efficiency | 5.48 | 0.99 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 2 March 2017 (8 years ago) | 20 December 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 1700 and A8-3520M 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 30 | no data |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16384 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 1700 and A8-3520M 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | FS1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and A8-3520M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | FMA3 | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| SenseMI | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and A8-3520M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and A8-3520M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | AMD Radeon HD 6620G (444 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and A8-3520M.
| PCIe version | n/a | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | no 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
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.
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.
Geekbench 2
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.43 | 0.82 |
| Recency | 2 March 2017 | 20 December 2011 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Ryzen 7 1700 has a 928% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
A8-3520M, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A8-3520M in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 7 1700 is a desktop processor while A8-3520M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
