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 A10-5700 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark multi-core score:2755N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.0 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD A10-5700 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 10 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A10-5700
6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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 72% of models
Score components

40%

3.9

Technical score

25%

7.7

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 72% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 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 88% of models
Score components

60%

3.3

Performance

18%

3.4

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 88%
7.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.7/ 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 55% of models

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (10)
6 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 4 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 55%
?

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-a10-5700
  • amd-a10-5700
  • amd-a10-5700
  • amd-a10-5700
  • amd-a10-5700
  • amd-a10-5700
amd-a10-5700
amd-a10-5700
amd-a10-5700
amd-a10-5700
amd-a10-5700
amd-a10-5700
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 A10-5700

Based on 6 · 3

Reviewers like its low power draw, cool running and pairing with a graphics card, but find gaming performance weak.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A10-5700

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 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 88% of models
Score components:

60%

3.3

Performance

18%

3.4

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

3.9
Reviews score
7.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.2
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% 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, CLMUL, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 98.1% 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
4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4 GHz which is lower than that of 62.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 53.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,755
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,755 in PassMark, which is lower than 88.2% 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
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
1,866 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1866 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 86.9% of processors and equal to 0.9% 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.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 7660D
This processor uses the Radeon HD 7660D integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 83.2% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
760 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 760 MHz which is higher than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 49% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% 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 A10-5700 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 28.7 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (71.3 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    71.3 °C vs 100 °C
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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
  • 14.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.7/ 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 55% of models

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (10)
    6 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 4 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.
    7.7 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, CLMUL, 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, CLMUL, 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
  • 2.17x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (760 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    760 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • 14.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.7/ 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 55% of models

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (10)
    6 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 4 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.
    7.7 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, CLMUL, 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, CLMUL, 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 vs 2
  • 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2.17x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (760 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    760 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 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
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 28.7 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (71.3 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    71.3 °C vs 100 °C
  • 76% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,755 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,755 vs 11,469
  • 81.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (979 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    979 vs 5,209
  • 74.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (398 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    398 vs 1,535
  • 44.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,431 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,431 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor, Secure Boot vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor, 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).
    October 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
  • 76% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,755 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,755 vs 11,469
  • 81.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (979 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    979 vs 5,209
  • 74.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (398 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    398 vs 1,535
  • 44.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,431 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,431 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 9.1% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 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
  • 41.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 36.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    29.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,866 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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), MPEG-4 (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), MPEG-4 (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 7660D vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon HD 7660D 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.
  • 28.7 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (71.3 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    71.3 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

5.0
Retro PC Refurbs
≈ estimated
16/04/2023
Benchmark · onboard graphics in popular games
Verdict
AMD A10-5700 struggles with modern games on its onboard graphics, so a dedicated graphics card is recommended.
7.0
VideoTesty
≈ estimated
19/04/2013
Hands-on review · gaming, power and multimedia tests
Verdict
AMD A10-5700 suits multimedia home PCs rather than gaming, and the bundled game is a strong plus.
6.0
Tech-Nerdrome
≈ estimated
05/07/2024
First look · car boot PC cleanup and boot test
Verdict
AMD A10-5700 is a cheap bundle, but the APU only booted after some fiddling, and a swap is planned.
8.0
PCWizKids Tech Talk
≈ estimated
09/12/2012
Hands-on review · power, temperatures and benchmarks
Verdict
AMD A10-5700 is designed for everyday home and office use rather than high-settings gaming, though it is efficient.
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
hardwarezone.com.sg
≈ estimated
27/11/2012
Benchmark review · Desktop APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-5700 is a power-efficient desktop chip that runs close to the A10-5800K in games but trails on CPU-heavy tasks like Cinebench and HandBrake.
10
guru3d.com
✓ explicit
10/01/2013
Benchmark review · Trinity APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-5700 is a four-core chip with much better built-in graphics and a 65W rating, but it is only entry-level to mid-range for demanding desktop work.
7.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
11/04/2013
Benchmark review · Gaming tests
Verdict
The AMD A10-5700 suits home theatre PCs and video encoding, but it is a poor choice for gaming, and its FM2 socket limits upgrades.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
08/02/2013
Lab test · Low-power APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-5700 is a 65W four-core APU that suits office PCs well, but its built-in graphics run recent games only at near-minimum settings.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
27/12/2012
Build review · Home theatre PC
Verdict
The AMD A10-5700 is a 65W chip for home theatre PCs, nearly as fast as the A10-5800K, but it cannot be overclocked and demanding games need medium settings.
9.0
hwlegend.tech
✓ explicit
29/04/2013
Hands-on test · Dual Graphics
Verdict
The AMD A10-5700 is a lower-power desktop APU whose Turbo Core 3.0 and Dual Graphics both gave clear speed gains in this test.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A10-5700

  • Integrated graphics (Radeon HD 7660D) are excellent for an APU, capable of handling 720p gaming and 1080p video playback smoothly.
  • Highly energy-efficient with a 65W TDP, making it significantly quieter and cooler than the 100W K-series models.
  • Strong performance-to-watt ratio, ideal for Home Theatre PCs (HTPCs) and small form factor builds.
  • Good value for money at its release price point, providing a complete system backbone with a quad-core CPU and solid IGP.
  • Includes modern features for its era, such as native USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s support on the FM2 platform.

What customers don't like about AMD A10-5700

  • Locked multiplier prevents manual overclocking, limiting enthusiasts compared to the A10-5800K.
  • Single-threaded CPU performance is relatively weak compared to Intel i3 alternatives from the same generation.
  • Uses the FM2 socket, which at the time limited upgrade paths to heftier non-APU hardware.
  • Gaming performance is heavily dependent on high-speed system memory; using single-channel or slow RAM significantly reduces frame rates.
  • No shared L3 cache, which can bottleneck certain CPU-intensive tasks compared to traditional desktop processors.

Verdict

The AMD A10-5700 is a quad-core Trinity architecture desktop APU featuring a 3.4 GHz base clock speed with a turbo boost up to 4.0 GHz and 4 MB of L2 cache. Operating on the FM2 socket with a 65W TDP, it integrates Radeon HD 7660D graphics with 384 shader cores running at 760 MHz, supporting DirectX 11 and DDR3 memory up to 1866 MHz. Main pros include its energy efficiency for a quad-core part, leading integrated graphics performance for its era that rivals some discrete entry-level cards, and support for AMD Dual Graphics technology. However, it is held back by a locked multiplier that prevents traditional overclocking, a unique socket that limits future high-end upgrade paths, and CPU performance that struggles to keep pace with contemporary Intel Core i5 alternatives in heavy multi-threaded tasks.

Compare AMD A10-5700 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 A10-5700 and other processors

No results found