OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD A10-4600M review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£20PassMark multi-core score:1950N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.2 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD A10-4600M Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 12 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.7/10

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
Score components

40%

3.5

Technical score

25%

7.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 81% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
3.5

Technical score

Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

3.0

Architecture

10%

3.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 96%
7.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 50% of models

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

8.8

Popularity

Grades by review (12)
9 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 50%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £20
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD A10-4600M

Based on 8 · 3

Reviewers like its strong integrated graphics and decent battery life, though opinions split on raw processor speed and gaming.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A10-4600M

Technical score
Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

3.0

Architecture

10%

3.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated graphics

3.5
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.0
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.2 GHz which is lower than that of 90.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.3 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1950
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1950 in PassMark, which is lower than 94.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
32 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 32 nm process node, which is older than that of 97.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 32 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 32 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L1 cache
192 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.7% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 89.1% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
AMD Radeon HD 7660G
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 7660G
This processor uses the Radeon HD 7660G integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 83.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
496 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 496 MHz which is higher than that of 78.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 56.5% of processors and equal to 1.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD A10-4600M vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (12)
    9 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 12.5x cheaper
    AMD A10-4600M is cheaper than the average processor (£20 vs £250).
    £20 vs £250
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (12)
    9 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • 12.5x cheaper
    AMD A10-4600M is cheaper than the average processor (£20 vs £250).
    £20 vs £250
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 93.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (342 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    342 vs 5,209
  • 83% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1950 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,950 vs 11,469
  • 57.5% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,087 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,087 vs 2,558
  • 77.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (342 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    342 vs 1,535
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Trinity vs Kaby Lake).
    Trinity vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.67x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 2.9% worse value for money
    AMD A10-4600M has worse value for money than the average processor (6.99 vs 7.2).
    6.99 vs 7.2
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 8 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
    May 2012
    2012 vs 2020
  • 93.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (342 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    342 vs 5,209
  • 83% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1950 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,950 vs 11,469
  • 57.5% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,087 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,087 vs 2,558
  • 77.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (342 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    342 vs 1,535
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Trinity vs Kaby Lake).
    Trinity vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.67x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • 39% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (246 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    246 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (192 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    192 KB vs 384 KB
  • 73.7% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.3 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.303 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 50% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 45.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon HD 7660G vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon HD 7660G vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
Geforcefly
≈ estimated
07/07/2020
Hands-on review · older games, CPU tests and emulation
Verdict
AMD A10-4600M works as an upgrade for an old laptop, playable at 720p on low settings in older games, but not modern titles.
5.0
Mr. Crazy rukozhop
≈ estimated
14/07/2016
Benchmark test · Cinebench 15 and graphics test
Verdict
AMD A10-4600M scores poorly in Cinebench 15 and is a weak fit for Cinema 4D rendering.
5.0
Lowyat TV
≈ estimated
29/05/2012
Gaming test · Battlefield 3 at several settings
Verdict
AMD A10-4600M struggles to hold 30 FPS in Battlefield 3 with its integrated graphics, so demanding games are impractical.
6.0
Geforcefly
≈ estimated
15/05/2022
Game tests · 12 titles and emulators
Verdict
AMD A10-4600M runs older and lighter games at low settings, but struggles with demanding titles and PS2 emulation.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
14/05/2012
Benchmark review · Trinity chip
Verdict
The AMD A10-4600M has far stronger integrated graphics than Intel's HD 4000, but its single-core speed still trails Intel's Sandy and Ivy Bridge chips.
8.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
15/05/2012
Hands-on laptop test · Trinity reference laptop
Verdict
The AMD A10-4600M is a major step forward for AMD, with strong gaming and battery life in a laptop, but its processor still trails Intel on raw speed.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
14/05/2012
Lab test · Piledriver chip
Verdict
The AMD A10-4600M is a promising first Piledriver chip with improved CPU and integrated graphics, but its CPU is still weak and battery life is untested.
8.0
legitreviews.com
≈ estimated
18/05/2012
Hands-on test · Reference laptop
Verdict
The AMD A10-4600M is a solid mainstream chip whose graphics lead the field, though its x86 processor falls short for heavy rendering and number crunching.
7.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
15/05/2012
Launch review · Ivy Bridge rival
Verdict
The AMD A10-4600M is AMD's answer to Ivy Bridge laptops, leading on Radeon graphics and gaming but still behind Intel on raw x86 CPU power.
9.0
notebookcheck.com
≈ estimated
15/05/2012
Benchmark review · Trinity test system
Verdict
The AMD A10-4600M's integrated graphics clearly beat Intel's HD Graphics 4000, but its single-core speed still trails Intel's Sandy and Ivy Bridge CPUs.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
11/01/2013
Lab test · 15.6-inch laptop
Verdict
The Samsung NP355V5C is a capable all-rounder with a matte screen and 1TB drive, but its poor colours, weak speakers and noisy fan hold it back.
7.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
21/05/2012
Benchmark review · Gaming focus
Verdict
The AMD A10-4600M suits casual gamers, since its graphics clearly beat Intel's HD Graphics 3000, while everyday tasks are hard to tell apart from Intel.

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD A10-4600M

  • Superior integrated graphics performance (Radeon HD 7660G) capable of handling casual and light mainstream gaming better than Intel's HD 4000.
  • Excellent power efficiency at idle, leading to competitive battery life in many laptop models.
  • Significant 10-25% CPU performance improvement over the previous 'Llano' generation (A8-3520M).
  • Competitive pricing, offering a better value proposition for budget-conscious users compared to equivalent Intel Core i5 systems.
  • Strong multimedia capabilities, including hardware acceleration for video decoding and support for up to four displays.

What we don't like about AMD A10-4600M

  • Weak single-threaded and raw CPU performance that consistently trails behind Intel's Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge Core i5/i7 alternatives.
  • Inadequate graphics power for high-end or modern AAA gaming at high settings.
  • Underperforms in CPU-heavy tasks like file transcoding (e.g., MP3 conversion) and complex productivity benchmarks.
  • Uses an older 32nm manufacturing process, putting it a generation behind Intel's 22nm efficiency at the time of release.
  • Higher power consumption than competitors specifically during streaming video playback.

Verdict

The AMD A10-4600M is a quad-core mobile processor based on the 32nm Trinity architecture, launched in Q2 2012 for use in mid-range to large notebooks. It features a base clock speed of 2.3 GHz with a Turbo Core boost up to 3.2 GHz, 4 MB of L2 cache, and a 35W Thermal Design Power (TDP). Its primary strength lies in the integrated Radeon HD 7660G GPU, which includes 384 shader cores and offers superior performance compared to contemporary integrated solutions like Intel’s HD Graphics 4000, making it suitable for light gaming and daily productivity tasks. However, it suffers from relatively weak per-core CPU performance compared to Intel Core i5/i7 counterparts of its era and exhibited higher power consumption during video playback and shorter battery life under gaming loads than its predecessors.

Compare AMD A10-4600M with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD A10-4600M and other processors

No results found