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 A10-7890K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:3538N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:FP6TDP (Thermal design power):95 W

AMD A10-7890K Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 11 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A10-7890K
6.0/10

Overall score

Score
6.0/ 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 75% of models
Score components

40%

4.4

Technical score

25%

7.6

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

4.4

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 75% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
4.4

Technical score

Technical score
4.4/ 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 73% of models
Score components

60%

4.2

Performance

18%

3.3

Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 73%
7.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.6/ 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 50% of models

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (11)
7 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 50%
?

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-a10-7890k
amd-a10-7890k
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 A10-7890K

Based on 4 · 5

Reviewers like its cool running and capable integrated graphics, but split on gaming and CPU speed, and dislike the dead-end upgrade path.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD A10-7890K

Based on 49 owners sharing their experience in online comments

45%positive33%mixed22%negative

Owners value its affordable, capable gaming performance, while low frame rates, graphics card bottlenecks, and cooling trouble hold it back.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report low frame rates in GTA V, PUBG and Valorant, and some blame missing driver updates, overheating or a CPU bottleneck with stronger graphics cards.12
  • Several owners say their DDR3 RAM would not run at its rated 2400 MHz and stalled at around 1300 to 2113 MHz, even after BIOS updates.4
  • Owners report freezes or stutters in PUBG and during video recording, and some say the CPU cannot keep up with the graphics card.4
  • Owners report the chip runs very hot, reaching around 90°C with the stock cooler, and some say it is hard to cool without a better aftermarket cooler.3
  • Owners with GTX 1060 or RX 480 cards report the CPU holds back the graphics card in demanding games, with some games dropping below 30 fps.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A10-7890K

Technical score
Technical score
4.4/ 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 73% of models
Score components:

60%

4.2

Performance

18%

3.3

Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

4.4
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.2
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
FP6
This processor uses the FP6 CPU socket, which is older than that of 54.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Chipset
A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H
This processor supports A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 64.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% 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
4.3 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.3 GHz which is lower than that of 51.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 4.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x4.1 GHz which is higher than that of 56.8% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,538
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,538 in PassMark, which is lower than 81.8% 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
448 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 448 KB which is larger than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
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)
?
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
866 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 866 MHz which is higher than that of 93.5% 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), MVC (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MVC (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 51.5% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
95 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 95 W which is higher than that of 87.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
95 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 95 W which is higher than that of 87.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% 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 A10-7890K 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.
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 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 50% of models

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (11)
    7 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 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, 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, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 2.47x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (866 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    866 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 2.78x cheaper
    AMD A10-7890K is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 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 50% of models

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (11)
    7 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • 2.78x cheaper
    AMD A10-7890K is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 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, 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, 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.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x4.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x4.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 13 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (41 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    41 vs 28
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2.47x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (866 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    866 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
  • 85.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (750 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    750 vs 5,209
  • 69.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,538 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,538 vs 11,469
  • 38% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,587 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,587 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 38.9% lower sentiment score
    4.4 vs 7.2
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor 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).
    March 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
  • 85.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (750 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    750 vs 5,209
  • 69.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,538 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,538 vs 11,469
  • 38% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,587 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,587 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.
  • 2.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.3 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 (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
  • 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, 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), MVC (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), MVC (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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.11x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • 2.11x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

5.0
WccftechTV
≈ estimated
19/05/2017
Hands-on test · Prey frame rates at different settings
Verdict
The AMD A10-7890K is playable only with heavy compromises, reaching about 30 fps at 900p or 720p on low settings.
6.0
YogertPC
≈ estimated
22/12/2016
Benchmark review · gaming tests and overclocking
Verdict
AMD A10-7890K is fine for light use or without a graphics card, but not for serious gaming.
9.0
craftchest
≈ estimated
09/06/2016
Gameplay test · H1Z1 on the APU build
Verdict
AMD A10-7890K delivers strong gaming performance for its price, with smooth play in the games tested so far.
9.0
craftchest
≈ estimated
23/04/2016
Hands-on review · gaming and live streaming tests
Verdict
AMD A10-7890K is strongly recommended for a budget gaming PC, despite software and Crossfire shortcomings.
8.0
Booredatwork.com
≈ estimated
29/05/2016
Gameplay review · integrated and discrete GPU tests
Verdict
The AMD A10-7890K is a solid chip for HTPCs or budget gaming, playable on integrated graphics at low settings and runs better with a discrete GPU.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
31/05/2016
Lab review · APU benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD A10-7890K suits compact builds that need built-in graphics, though the A10-7860K comes close at lower power.
9.0
relaxedtech.com
≈ estimated
09/06/2016
Hands-on test · Gaming benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD A10-7890K suits entry-level gaming, holding over 60 FPS in DOTA 2 at 1080p medium, but its CPU is weak next to Intel's Core i3.
9.0
realhardwarereviews.com
≈ estimated
01/09/2016
Lab review · Gaming and cooling
Verdict
The AMD A10-7890K's built-in graphics handle moderate gaming well, while its CPU sits between Intel's Core i3 and i5 and uses more power.
6.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
27/04/2016
Lab test · Flagship APU
Verdict
The AMD A10-7890K is the strongest APU tested here for compact PCs, but its graphics match the A10-7870K and it draws 95 watts.
8.0
realhardwarereviews.com
≈ estimated
01/09/2016
Lab review · Power and cooling
Verdict
The AMD A10-7890K's built-in graphics beat Intel's integrated chips for moderate gaming, while its CPU lands between the Core i3 and i5.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A10-7890K

  • Integrated Radeon R7 graphics provide strong performance for entry-level and eSports gaming like CS:GO and Dota 2
  • Bundled with the high-quality Wraith cooler which is exceptionally quiet and efficient for a stock solution
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for easy overclocking of both the CPU and GPU cores
  • Compatible with legacy FM2+ motherboards, making it a viable upgrade for older systems
  • Excellent value for budget-conscious builds where a dedicated graphics card is not an option

What customers don't like about AMD A10-7890K

  • CPU processing performance significantly lags behind Intel competitors of the same era
  • High 95W TDP and older 28nm architecture make it less energy-efficient than newer alternatives
  • The FM2+ socket is at the end of its life cycle, limiting future upgrade paths
  • Price-to-performance ratio is considered poor compared to slightly cheaper models like the A10-7870K
  • Single-core performance is weak, causing bottlenecks in certain gaming and productivity applications

Verdict

The AMD A10-7890K is a flagship Godavari APU for the FM2+ socket, featuring 4 CPU cores with a 4.1 GHz base clock and 4.3 GHz turbo boost, paired with integrated Radeon R7 graphics (512 stream processors) at 866 MHz. Built on a 28nm process with a 95W TDP, its main strengths include an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking, competitive entry-level eSports gaming performance without a discrete GPU, and a bundled high-performance Wraith cooler that ensures quiet operation. However, its primary drawbacks are its aging architecture that lacks an L3 cache, a platform that is now considered 'end-of-life,' and CPU performance that often lags behind its contemporary Intel competitors in non-graphical workloads.

Compare AMD A10-7890K 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 A10-7890K and other processors

No results found