OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD A10 5750M Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark benchmark result:2044N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.5 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD A10 5750M Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.3

Overall score

Score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

90%

3.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 98% of processors
3.3

Technical score

Technical score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

3.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 98% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A10 5750M

Technical score
Technical score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

3.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

3.3
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD A10 5750M has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.3/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

60%

3.3

Overall score

40%

10

Price

5.3
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.5 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 80.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.5 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.5 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.5 GHz which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
32 nm
Semiconductor size
32 nm
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 32 nm process node, which is older than that of 97.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 32 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 32 nm
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 32 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 98.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
L3 cache
0 MB
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
L2 cache
4 MB
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L1 cache
192 KB
L1 cache
192 KB
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 13.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.4% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1866 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1866 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to 0.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 8650G
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 8650G
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor uses the Radeon HD 8650G integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 85.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
533 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
533 MHz
â–² Better than 79% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 533 MHz which is higher than that of 79.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 51.2% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 51.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Base power (PL1)
35 W
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 15% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

AMD A10 5750M vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.51x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    2,135.6
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (2,135.6 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    2,135.6 vs 387.66
  • 2x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    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).
    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
  • 10x cheaper
    AMD A10 5750M is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    4 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 22.2% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    35 W
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 10x cheaper
    AMD A10 5750M is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    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).
    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
  • 5.51x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    2,135.6
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (2,135.6 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    2,135.6 vs 387.66
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 2x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    4 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 22.2% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    35 W
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 80.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2044
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2044 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,044 vs 10,572.5
  • 86.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    660
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (660 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    660 vs 4,829
  • 78.7% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    314
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (314 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    314 vs 1,471
  • 53.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,156
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,156 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,156 vs 2,500
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Richland
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Richland vs Kaby Lake).
    Richland vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    163
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (163 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    163 vs 489
  • 18.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.5 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 2.67x larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    32 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 23.1% worse value for money
    AMD A10 5750M has worse value for money than the average processor (5.33 vs 6.6).
    5.33 vs 6.56
  • 7 years older release date
    Release date
    2013
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2013 vs 2020).
    March 2013
    2013 vs 2020
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 80.7% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2044
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2044 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,044 vs 10,572.5
  • 86.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    660
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (660 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    660 vs 4,829
  • 78.7% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    314
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (314 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    314 vs 1,471
  • 53.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,156
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,156 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,156 vs 2,500
  • 66.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    163
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (163 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    163 vs 489
  • 18.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.5 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    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
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.5 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 36.9% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    210.89
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (210.9 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    210.89 vs 334.1
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
    Microarchitecture codename
    Richland
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Richland vs Kaby Lake).
    Richland vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.67x larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    32 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
    Die size
    246 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
    L1 cache
    192 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 76.2% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.178 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.178 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    GlobalFoundries 32 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    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
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Older PCIe version
    PCIe version
    2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • 34.7% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    29.9 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.9 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    29.9 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 36.4% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,866 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1866 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR3-1866 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    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
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    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)).
    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)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon HD 8650G
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon HD 8650G vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon HD 8650G vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 29 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    71 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (71 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    71 °C vs 100 °C
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
23/10/2026
Summary of the review
AMD A10-5750M APU - CPU UserBenchmarks
B
browser.geekbench.com
23/10/2026
Summary of the review
AMD A10-5750M Benchmarks - Geekbench
C
cpubenchmark.net
Q2 2013
Summary of the review
AMD A10-5750M APU - CPU Benchmarks
H
hardware.fr
23/05/2013
Summary of the review
AMD launches Kabini, the first Jaguar (Analysis of ranges including the A10-5750M)
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD A10 5750M

  • Integrated Radeon HD 8650G graphics offer solid performance for its class, comparable to some dedicated GPUs when paired with fast RAM.
  • Significant 10-20% performance boost over the previous generation (Trinity/A10-4600M).
  • Capable of handling light gaming, such as 'The Sims 4' or 'Skyrim' on lower settings.
  • Good value for money in budget-friendly laptop configurations.
  • Stronger multi-threaded performance compared to some contemporary dual-core Intel competitors.

What we don't like about AMD A10 5750M

  • Lower single-core performance compared to Intel's Ivy Bridge or Haswell architectures.
  • Highly dependent on dual-channel memory; single-channel configurations significantly bottleneck performance.
  • Prone to high operating temperatures under heavy workloads, sometimes reaching over 90°C in poorly ventilated laptops.
  • Higher power consumption compared to modern Ultra-Low Voltage (ULV) processors.
  • Now considered an obsolete architecture for modern gaming or high-demand professional applications.

Verdict

The AMD A10-5750M is a quad-core mobile APU based on the Richland architecture, featuring a base clock speed of 2.5 GHz that can turbo boost up to 3.5 GHz and a 35W TDP. It includes an integrated Radeon HD 8650G GPU with 384 shading units and 4 MB of L2 cache, supporting DDR3-1866 memory. Main pros include its relatively strong integrated graphics for its time, which outperform many contemporary Intel alternatives, and improved CPU efficiency over the previous Trinity generation. However, it suffers from dated performance compared to modern standards, lacks a dedicated L3 cache, and no longer receives official driver updates.

Compare AMD A10 5750M 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 5750M and other processors

No results found