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 A10-5800K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£35PassMark multi-core score:2967N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):100 W

AMD A10-5800K Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 27 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A10-5800K
6.4/10

Overall score

Score
6.4/ 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 61% of models
Score components

40%

4.0

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

8.4

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 61% of processors
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 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–² Better than 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 60%
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 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 86% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 86%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 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 86% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

9.4

Popularity

Grades by review (27)
15 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 12 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 86%
?

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-a10-5800k
amd-a10-5800k
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 A10-5800K

Based on 10 · 14

Reviewers praise the integrated graphics and low price, but find processor performance weak and are split on gaming.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD A10-5800K

Based on 180 owners sharing their experience in online comments

60%positive17%mixed23%negative

Owners mostly praise its affordable gaming performance and longevity, while weak frame rates and heat are the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say frame rates drop to 20 to 30 fps in demanding newer games, and some games barely run or fail to launch without a dedicated card.20
  • Owners report sudden stutters and brief frame drops, which some traced to Windows 10 and went away on Windows 7 or after adding more RAM.11
  • Owners say the chip feels dated for newer games and modern tasks, and it struggles with productivity work compared to newer processors.10
  • Owners report the chip runs very hot, reaching 90 to 109°C under gaming load, and needs a stronger cooler to avoid throttling.8
  • Owners say it holds back stronger graphics cards in demanding games, such as a GTX 1050 Ti or RX 580, causing noticeable bottlenecks.6
  • Owners report Dual Graphics often fails to work or gives lower frame rates than the graphics card alone, with drivers and setup issues.5
  • Owners say overclocking needs careful voltage tuning and a good cooler, and some report it is not stable at lower voltages.5
  • Owners say a separate graphics card is needed for stronger gaming, since the built-in graphics alone cannot run demanding games well.4

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A10-5800K

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 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 86% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

4.0
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 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–² Better than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.5
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
A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H, A55
This processor supports A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H, A55 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 63.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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
What reviewers say
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
4.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.8 GHz which is higher than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,967
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,967 in PassMark, which is lower than 86.6% 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
1,866 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
800 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 800 MHz which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.3% 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)
100 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 100 W which is higher than that of 89.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
100 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 100 W which is higher than that of 89.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% 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 A10-5800K vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 26 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (74 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    74 °C vs 100 °C
  • 23.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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 86% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (27)
    15 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 12 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.
    8.3 vs 6.7
  • 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
  • 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
  • 23.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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 86% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (27)
    15 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 12 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.
    8.3 vs 6.7
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD A10-5800K is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 16.7% higher sentiment score
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Core
    3 vs 2
  • 10 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (38 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    38 vs 28
  • 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
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2.29x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (800 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    800 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.
  • 26 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (74 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    74 °C vs 100 °C
  • 74.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,967 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,967 vs 11,469
  • 79% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,093 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,093 vs 5,209
  • 70.4% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (454 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    454 vs 1,535
  • 41.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,493 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,493 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
  • 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
  • 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).
    February 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
  • 74.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,967 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,967 vs 11,469
  • 79% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,093 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,093 vs 5,209
  • 70.4% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (454 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    454 vs 1,535
  • 41.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,493 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,493 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 60.5% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (134.3 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    134.28 vs 340.075
  • 4.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.4 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 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.
  • 2.22x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (100 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    100 W vs 45 W
  • 26 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (74 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    74 °C vs 100 °C
  • 2.22x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (100 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    100 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

6.0
Adrian The Greatest
≈ estimated
11/08/2020
Performance test · Rainbow Six Siege with streaming
Verdict
AMD A10-5800K gives playable fps in Rainbow Six Siege without recording, but its CPU bottlenecks the RX 570, so a CPU upgrade is the next step.
7.0
PhilsComputerLab
≈ estimated
13/03/2020
Hands-on review · retro gaming, power and Windows tests
Verdict
AMD A10-5800K isn't recommended for modern games, but it handles retro gaming well and draws very little power at idle.
9.0
ThoughT
≈ estimated
29/07/2013
Hands-on review · home theater gaming PC build
Verdict
AMD A10-5800K runs demanding games smoothly on a TV, making it a strong budget pick for a home theater PC.
8.0
GGF Events
≈ estimated
10/01/2013
Hands-on review · gaming, power draw and multi-screen tests
Verdict
AMD A10-5800K is capable at multi-screen desktop work and light gaming, but it needs an aftermarket cooler for sustained use.
9.0
Nicolas11x12 English
✓ explicit
15/10/2012
Hands-on review · benchmarks, integrated graphics and overclocking
Verdict
AMD A10-5800K offers good price-performance for budget builds with strong integrated graphics, though its CPU trails the Intel Core i3.
6.0
Welcome to Ron's World
≈ estimated
13/12/2021
Hands-on experience · reasons for switching processors
Verdict
AMD A10-5800K is good for media tasks, but sputtering in programs and limited multitasking led to replacing it.
7.0
Erik Davidson
≈ estimated
11/04/2013
Performance test · benchmarks, game frame rates, boot and shutdown
Verdict
AMD A10-5800K is average overall, but its integrated GPU runs nearly any game, sometimes at reduced settings.
7.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
08/11/2012
Comparison · CPU benchmarks, integrated graphics, power use
Verdict
AMD A10-5800K is the best choice if you need integrated graphics, though it draws much more power than its rival.
8.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
29/10/2012
Short review · dual graphics test with HD 6670
Verdict
AMD A10-5800K paired with an HD 6670 in dual graphics is worth it, though some games stutter until drivers improve.
8.0
PCWizKids Tech Talk
≈ estimated
16/10/2012
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming and home use
Verdict
AMD A10-5800K is recommended only for office, home theater and light gaming, and it offers good performance for the price.
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
10/10/2012
Benchmark review · Media PC use
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K is a decent four-core chip for media PCs with fast built-in graphics, but gaming is mediocre and it needs a new FM2 motherboard.
8.0
legitreviews.com
≈ estimated
01/10/2012
Lab test · Desktop APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K pairs a quad-core Piledriver CPU with a stronger Radeon HD 7660D, but it needs new FM2 boards and rarely holds its 4.2GHz turbo.
9.0
overclockers.com
≈ estimated
02/10/2012
Overclocking test · Gaming benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K overclocks easily and has strong built-in graphics that beat Intel's HD 4000 by a wide margin, but its floating-point math trails the older A8-3850.
10
expertreviews.co.uk
✓ explicit
02/10/2012
Lab test · Mid-range PC
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K is a good base for a mid-range PC, handling Dirt Showdown at 1280x720 high detail, but Full HD games need an extra graphics card.
8.0
wsgf.org
≈ estimated
03/10/2012
Gaming test · Multi-monitor tests
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K is a solid choice for 1080p gaming at 30 fps with reduced settings and multi-monitor desktop work, though Intel's i7-2600k leads in games.
10
guru3d.com
✓ explicit
02/10/2012
Hands-on test · Desktop APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K suits everyday PCs and light gaming thanks to the fastest built-in graphics yet in an APU, but its CPU speed trails competing chips.
8.5
bit-tech.net
✓ explicit
03/10/2012
Benchmark review · Desktop APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K suits a budget gaming PC that plays games at half-decent settings, but Intel's chips still lead outside games.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
02/10/2012
Lab test · Power and gaming
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K offers better built-in graphics than the older Llano, but its CPU holds back mid-range cards and draws up to 167W under load.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
02/10/2012
Full review · Virgo platform
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K is a quad-core that edges out a Core i3 and has notably stronger integrated graphics, though it can't match a Core i5.
9.0
elchapuzasinformatico.com
≈ estimated
26/10/2012
Hands-on review · A85X motherboard
Verdict
The Gigabyte F2A85X-UP4 is a well-equipped ATX board for the AMD A10-5800K, with strong power delivery and many ports, though its Windows tuning tool made the system unstable.
9.5
profesionalreview.com
≈ estimated
09/10/2012
Hands-on test · Overclocking and gaming
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K with Gigabyte F2A85X-UP4 is a good casual gaming pairing, with strong overclocking and Radeon graphics, though demanding games like Crysis struggle.
10
nexthardware.com
✓ explicit
02/10/2012
Launch review · Piledriver chip
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K brings Piledriver cores and stronger graphics, but needs a new FM2 motherboard and its claimed edge over Intel is still unproven.
10
nexthardware.com
✓ explicit
02/10/2012
Lab test · Graphics comparison
Verdict
The AMD A10-5800K is tested mainly for graphics against Intel HD Graphics 3000 and 4000 and entry-level Radeon cards, at medium or low detail.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A10-5800K

  • Unmatched integrated graphics performance for its time (Radeon HD 7660D)
  • Excellent value for budget-conscious gaming builds and HTPCs
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for easy overclocking
  • Strong multi-threaded performance in applications that utilize all four cores
  • Low idle power consumption and generally cool operation under normal loads
  • Support for modern instruction sets like AVX, AES, and FMA3

What customers don't like about AMD A10-5800K

  • Weak single-threaded CPU performance compared to Intel i3/i5 alternatives
  • Requires a new FM2 socket motherboard, offering no upgrade path for FM1 owners
  • Noticeably higher power consumption than Intel competitors when under heavy load
  • Overclocking doesn't always translate into significant real-world performance gains
  • Lacks L3 cache, which can limit efficiency in certain processing tasks
  • Performance in older applications (using x87 instructions) can lag behind previous generations

Verdict

The AMD A10-5800K is a second-generation 'Trinity' series Accelerated Processing Unit (APU) featuring 4 'Piledriver' CPU cores with a base clock of 3.8 GHz and a max turbo frequency of 4.2 GHz. Built on a 32nm process for the FM2 socket, it integrates Radeon HD 7660D graphics with 384 shader cores running at 800 MHz and includes 4MB of L2 cache with support for DDR3-1866 memory. Its primary strengths are an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking, strong integrated graphics performance for its era, and the ability to pair with select discrete GPUs in Dual Graphics mode. However, it is hindered by a high 100W TDP, the absence of an L3 cache, and aging architecture that struggles with modern content creation and high-resolution gaming.

Compare AMD A10-5800K 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 A10-5800K and other processors

No results found