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 A10-7860K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£55PassMark multi-core score:3202N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.0 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD A10-7860K Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 15 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A10-7860K
5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 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 79% of models
Score components

40%

4.1

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

4.1

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 79% of processors
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 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 81% of models
Score components

60%

3.5

Performance

18%

3.6

Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 81%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 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 66% of models

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

9.0

Popularity

Grades by review (15)
6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 9 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 66%
?

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-a10-7860k
amd-a10-7860k
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 A10-7860K

Based on 4 · 10

Reviewers like the bundled cooler, low power draw and overclocking headroom, but gaming is hit-and-miss and rival chips often look better.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD A10-7860K

Based on 156 owners sharing their experience in online comments

28%positive18%mixed54%negative

Owners appreciate playable gaming with the right setup, but weak frame rates, stuttering, and CPU bottlenecks dominate.

What owners dislike

  • Many owners get only 20 to 40 fps in GTA V and other demanding games, and they say slow 1600 MHz RAM and the CPU hold it back.52
  • Owners report frame rate drops to 25 or 30 fps, and stutters during play, with a GTX 1050 Ti or similar card.22
  • Owners say the CPU bottlenecks cards like the GTX 960, GTX 1050 Ti and GTX 1060, so the GPU runs at only 20 to 50 percent.16
  • Owners say the stock cooler lets it reach 80 to 93 °C under load, and the fan and case get loud and hot.6
  • Some owners say their system detects only two cores instead of four, and they could not fix it.4
  • Some owners report black screens after about an hour of play, or no video and failed boots after building the PC.4
  • Some owners report games closing unexpectedly and bluescreens in Windows.4
  • Some owners report the CPU clock drops to about half its speed after a reinstall, and overclocks can stop the PC from booting.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A10-7860K

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 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 81% of models
Score components:

60%

3.5

Performance

18%

3.6

Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated graphics

4.1
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.1
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
This processor supports A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 64.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, 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 3.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.6 GHz which is higher than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,202
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,202 in PassMark, which is lower than 84.4% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
28 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 28 nm process node, which is older than that of 94.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 28 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 94.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% 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
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% 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
2,133 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 76.4% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-2133 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-2133 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.3% of processors and equal to 1.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Radeon R7
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R7
This processor uses the Radeon R7 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 80.2% of processors and equal to that in 1.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
8
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 8 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 73.9% of processors and equal to 7.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
757 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 757 MHz which is higher than that of 85.8% 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
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD A10-7860K vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 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.
  • 27.6 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (72.4 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    72.4 °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
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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 66% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 9 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.
    7.9 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
  • 4.55x cheaper
    AMD A10-7860K is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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 66% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 9 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 4.55x cheaper
    AMD A10-7860K is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, 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
  • 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).
    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.
  • 2.16x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (757 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    757 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 27.6 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (72.4 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    72.4 °C vs 100 °C
  • 79.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,091 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,091 vs 5,209
  • 72.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,202 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,202 vs 11,469
  • 71.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (442 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    442 vs 1,535
  • 43.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,448 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,448 vs 2,558
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Godavari vs Kaby Lake).
    Godavari vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (28 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    28 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
  • 43.1% lower sentiment score
    4.1 vs 7.2
  • 1.9% worse value for money
    AMD A10-7860K has worse value for money than the average processor (7.15 vs 7.3).
    7.15 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • 4 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
    February 2016
    2016 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
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 79.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,091 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,091 vs 5,209
  • 72.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,202 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,202 vs 11,469
  • 71.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (442 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    442 vs 1,535
  • 43.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,448 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,448 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.
  • 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 (Godavari vs Kaby Lake).
    Godavari vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (28 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    28 nm vs 12 nm
  • 38.4% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (245 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    245 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 28 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 28 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 51.3% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (2.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    2.411 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 33.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 27.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-2133 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-2,133 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
  • 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 R7 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon R7 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • 27.6 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (72.4 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    72.4 °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

7.0
The Jimmini Show
≈ estimated
23/09/2019
Retro test · benchmarks and everyday use in 2019
Verdict
AMD A10-7860K is still fine for web browsing, but games need a discrete graphics card.
8.0
TechteamGB
✓ explicit
08/06/2016
Hands-on review · gaming tests and value assessment
Verdict
AMD A10-7860K offers good value for light gaming and budget builds, but it is not impressive and lacks modern features.
9.0
Booredatwork.com
≈ estimated
14/05/2016
Long-term review · gaming tests with and without a GPU
Verdict
AMD A10-7860K is a solid starter processor, especially if you pair it with a dedicated GPU for gaming.
8.0
InsideTheGeeks
≈ estimated
10/05/2016
Unboxing and review · cooler installation and noise test
Verdict
AMD A10-7860K's bundled cooler is quiet and strong enough that most builds don't need a custom cooler.
9.0
Toasty Bros
≈ estimated
29/03/2016
Hands-on benchmarks · gaming and Cinebench tests
Verdict
AMD A10-7860K is a capable budget chip whose integrated graphics handle light gaming well, especially with faster RAM.
4.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
02/03/2016
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and CPU comparison
Verdict
AMD A10-7860K throttles too heavily for gaming, so a cheap CPU with a discrete graphics card is the better buy.
7.0
Lon.TV
≈ estimated
12/06/2016
Hands-on test · Plex server and video playback
Verdict
AMD A10-7860K is passable as a one- or two-user Plex server and is good for Blu-ray and HEVC playback.
9.0
WccftechTV
≈ estimated
01/03/2016
Quick look · gaming performance results
Verdict
AMD A10-7860K is a capable APU that loses little performance at 65W, probably the sweet spot among APUs.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
02/05/2016
Hands-on review · 65W APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-7860K is a low-power chip with a near-silent cooler, aimed at quiet PCs rather than raw speed.
7.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
31/05/2016
Benchmark review · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The AMD A10-7860K is a good upgrade for an existing FM2+ PC, with strong integrated graphics but weaker general processing than Intel.
7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
20/03/2016
Lab test · Low-power APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-7860K is a low-power chip whose graphics beat the Core i3-6100, but it falls behind Intel in CPU-heavy tasks like Photoshop.
9.0
relaxedtech.com
≈ estimated
14/08/2016
Benchmark review · Low-power APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-7860K is a low-power chip whose graphics beat Intel's HD 530 in every game tested, but its processor is slower than the Core i3-6100.
8.0
pc-gaming.it
≈ estimated
26/04/2016
Hands-on review · Gaming APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-7860K is a good compromise for simple gaming PCs, handling light games well but struggling with demanding titles and heavy settings.
6.0
tweakers.net
≈ estimated
03/05/2016
Benchmark review · Low-power APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-7860K is a quiet, 65W chip that matches the A10-7850K in most tests, but it runs on two-year-old technology.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A10-7860K

  • Strong integrated graphics performance for its class, outperforming many contemporary entry-level Intel processors
  • Excellent value for budget-conscious builds and small form factor (HTPC) systems
  • Includes a high-quality 'near-silent' stock cooler rated for 95W, providing good thermal headroom for the 65W chip
  • Unlocked multiplier allowing for both CPU and GPU overclocking to squeeze out extra performance
  • Low 65W TDP makes it energy efficient and easier to cool in compact cases
  • Supports Dual Graphics, allowing it to be paired with specific low-end Radeon discrete cards for a performance boost

What customers don't like about AMD A10-7860K

  • Weak single-core and general CPU processing performance compared to competing Intel Core i3 models
  • Utilizes the aging FM2+ socket, which offers no significant forward upgrade path
  • Relies on older DDR3 memory, missing out on the speed and efficiency benefits of DDR4
  • Bottlenecks high-end discrete graphics cards, limiting its usefulness in powerful gaming rigs
  • Struggles with modern AAA games, typically requiring very low settings or 720p resolution for playable frame rates

Verdict

The AMD A10-7860K is a 'Godavari' architecture quad-core APU designed for the FM2+ socket, featuring a 3.6 GHz base clock and a 4.0 GHz maximum turbo frequency. Built on a 28nm process with a 65W TDP, it integrates Radeon R7 graphics with 8 GPU cores (512 shaders) clocked at 757 MHz and supports dual-channel DDR3-2133 memory. Main pros include its unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking, strong integrated graphics performance for entry-level 1080p gaming compared to contemporary Intel i3 models, and the inclusion of a capable 95W 'near-silent' thermal solution. However, its primary cons are weak single-core CPU performance, a lack of an upgrade path on the now-obsolete FM2+ platform, and dependency on fast system RAM for optimal graphics output.

Compare AMD A10-7860K 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 A10-7860K and other processors

No results found