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 A10-4655M review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£35PassMark multi-core score:1652N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.8 GHzCPU socket:FP2TDP (Thermal design power):25 W

AMD A10-4655M Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A10-4655M
5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 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 84% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

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 84% of processors
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 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%

5.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 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 95% of models
Score components

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

3.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 95%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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
  • amd-a10-4655m
amd-a10-4655m
Where to buy
    N/A~ £35
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A10-4655M

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 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 95% of models
Score components:

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

3.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated graphics

3.6
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 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%

5.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.1
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
FP2
This processor uses the FP2 CPU socket, which is older than that of 62.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Chipset
A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H
This processor supports A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 64.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
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, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 91.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% 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
2.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.8 GHz which is lower than that of 95.2% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz which is lower than that of 74.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,652
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,652 in PassMark, which is lower than 96.6% of processors.
Show more
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
320 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 320 KB which is smaller than that of 56.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% 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
1,333 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.6% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1333 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 1.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 7620G
This processor uses the Radeon HD 7620G integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 83.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
360 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 360 MHz which is higher than that of 68.2% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
25 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 25 W which is lower than that of 75.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
25 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 25 W which is lower than that of 74.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% 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

AMD A10-4655M vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 44.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • 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, 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, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD A10-4655M is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 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
  • 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
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD A10-4655M is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 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, 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, 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
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 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
  • 44.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • 85.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,652 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,652 vs 11,469
  • 88.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (609 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    609 vs 5,209
  • 65.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (888 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    888 vs 2,558
  • 36.4% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 82.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (275 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    275 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 3% worse value for money
    AMD A10-4655M has worse value for money than the average processor (7.07 vs 7.3).
    7.07 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Boot vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Boot 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
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 85.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,652 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,652 vs 11,469
  • 88.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (609 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    609 vs 5,209
  • 65.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (888 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    888 vs 2,558
  • 36.4% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 82.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (275 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    275 vs 1,535
  • 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 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    20 vs 28
  • 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
  • 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
  • 58.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 54.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (21.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    21.3 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1333 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,333 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • 75% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon HD 7620G vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon HD 7620G 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

Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A10-4655M

  • Affordable APU that provides good value for budget-conscious users
  • Integrated Radeon HD 7620G graphics are relatively fast for its class, outperforming some older Intel integrated solutions
  • Low power consumption (25W TDP) leads to decent battery life in well-designed laptops
  • Reliable and consistent performance for daily office tasks, web browsing, and light media playback
  • Includes support for hardware virtualization and modern instruction sets like AVX and AES

What customers don't like about AMD A10-4655M

  • Integrated GPU is often bottlenecked by reliance on system memory rather than dedicated VRAM
  • Single-core performance is notably weak compared to competing Intel Core i3 and i5 processors of its era
  • Prone to thermal throttling and overheating in laptop chassis not specifically designed for AMD heat dispersion
  • Architecture is significantly outdated (released 2012) and struggles with modern games or intensive 2016+ software
  • Performance is easily surpassed by newer, similarly priced modern alternatives

Verdict

The AMD A10-4655M is a 32nm 'Trinity' quad-core APU designed for thin laptops, featuring a base clock of 2.0 GHz that can boost up to 2.8 GHz via Turbo Core. Built on the Piledriver architecture, it includes 4 MB of L2 cache, a 25W TDP, and integrated Radeon HD 7620G graphics with 384 shader cores. Its main pros include strong multi-threaded performance for its class, support for modern instruction sets like AVX and AES, and integrated graphics that generally outperform contemporary Intel HD 4000 solutions. However, it suffers from weak single-threaded performance compared to Intel Core i3 and i5 alternatives, lacks an L3 cache, and can be prone to thermal throttling in laptops with poor cooling designs.

Compare AMD A10-4655M 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 A10-4655M and other processors

No results found