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 A10-8700P review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£620PassMark multi-core score:2240N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.2 GHzCPU socket:FP4TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD A10-8700P Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 74% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

7.8

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

▼Worse than 74% of processors
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

7.2

Price

▼Worse than 91%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

3.9

Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

5.9

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 93%
7.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 61% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 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.
▲Better than 61%
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £620
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 A10-8700P

Based on 3 · 2

Reviewers mostly agree that frame rates in games are disappointing.
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A10-8700P

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

3.9

Architecture

10%

3.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

5.9

Integrated graphics

3.7
Reviews score
7.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components:

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

7.2

Price

6.4
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FP4
This processor uses the FP4 CPU socket, which is older than that of 62.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 99.5% 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
3.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.2 GHz which is lower than that of 90.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.8 GHz which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,240
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,240 in PassMark, which is lower than 92.8% of processors.
Show more
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
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
512 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 512 KB which is larger than that of 62.8% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% 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
16 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 92.2% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R6
This processor uses the Radeon R6 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 81.5% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
6
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
200 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 200 MHz which is lower than that of 96.8% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 78.4% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
?
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 12-35 W
Show more

AMD A10-8700P vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 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.
    7.8 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 29.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (125 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    125 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 33.3% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (512 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    512 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 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.
    7.8 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Core
    3 vs 2
  • 29.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (125 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    125 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 33.3% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (512 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    512 KB vs 384 KB
  • 80.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,240 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,240 vs 11,469
  • 54.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,161 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,161 vs 2,558
  • 79.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,076 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,076 vs 5,209
  • 68.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (487 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    487 vs 1,535
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Carrizo vs Kaby Lake).
    Carrizo 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
  • 2.48x more expensive
    AMD A10-8700P is more expensive than the average processor (£620 vs £250).
    £620 vs £250
  • 14% worse value for money
    AMD A10-8700P has worse value for money than the average processor (6.39 vs 7.3).
    6.39 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 5 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
    June 2015
    2015 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
  • 80.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,240 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,240 vs 11,469
  • 54.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,161 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,161 vs 2,558
  • 79.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,076 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,076 vs 5,209
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 68.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (487 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    487 vs 1,535
  • 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.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 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 (Carrizo vs Kaby Lake).
    Carrizo 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
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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
  • 37.4% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (3.1 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    3.1 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
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 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
  • 75% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon R6 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon R6 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (6 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    6 vs 24
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), 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), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), 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)
  • 10 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

4.0
Marcus Adams (Gerowen)
≈ estimated
09/03/2017
Hands-on test · Battlefield 1 frame rates
Verdict
AMD A10-8700P cannot run Battlefield 1 smoothly and is not suited to newer AAA games; buy a better machine.
8.0
Marcus Adams (Gerowen)
≈ estimated
27/09/2016
Gameplay test · Titanfall frame rates on the APU
Verdict
AMD A10-8700P is very playable for a budget APU, which shows that low-cost PC gaming is practical.
9.0
Red Five
≈ estimated
04/10/2015
Hands-on laptop review · build, keyboard and battery
Verdict
AMD A10-8700P laptop is good value for the money, with a touchscreen, full HD display and plenty of memory.
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
laptopmedia.com
≈ estimated
15/03/2016
Lab test · Laptop processor
Verdict
The AMD A10-8700P is a graphics-strong 15W laptop chip that matches Core i3 chips but can't keep up with Core i5 and Core i7.
8.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
07/08/2015
Benchmark test · Laptop graphics
Verdict
The AMD A10-8700P is a graphics-focused laptop chip that beats Intel HD 5500 graphics in some games, but drops to about 8 fps at full HD high settings.
9.0
notebookcheck.com
≈ estimated
29/07/2015
Benchmark test · Laptop graphics
Verdict
The AMD A10-8700P is a graphics-focused laptop chip that beats Intel HD 5500 graphics in some games, but drops to about 8 fps at full HD high settings.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A10-8700P

  • Integrated Radeon R6 graphics perform exceptionally well for its class, especially when paired with dual-channel memory.
  • Offers a significant performance leap over the previous 'Kaveri' generation APUs.
  • Competitive CPU performance compared to Intel Core i3 processors of its era.
  • Hardware-level support for HEVC/H.265 video decoding through the UVD 6 engine.
  • Excellent value for money in budget-oriented laptops.

What customers don't like about AMD A10-8700P

  • CPU performance is notably weaker than contemporary Intel Core i5 and i7 counterparts.
  • Aggressive thermal throttling occurs during heavy combined CPU/GPU loads (like gaming), reducing clock speeds significantly.
  • Power efficiency is lower than competing Intel processors despite architectural improvements.
  • Poor performance in modern AAA gaming titles, often resulting in unplayable frame rates.
  • Actual performance is highly dependent on the laptop manufacturer's TDP configuration (12W–35W) and cooling design.

Verdict

The AMD A10-8700P is a mid-range Carrizo-based accelerated processing unit (APU) launched in 2015 for mainstream laptops, built on a 28nm manufacturing process. It features four CPU cores (two Excavator modules) with a base clock speed of 1.8 GHz and a turbo boost up to 3.2 GHz, alongside an integrated Radeon R6 GPU with 384 shader cores. Major pros include a highly efficient configurable TDP (typically 15W to 35W) that balances performance and power, support for HSA 1.0, and integrated DirectX 12 graphics capable of handling daily multitasking and light multimedia tasks. However, it suffers from aging 28nm architecture which leads to higher heat output and lower power efficiency compared to Intel's contemporary 14nm chips, and its single-core performance and integrated graphics struggle with modern, demanding AAA gaming titles.

Compare AMD A10-8700P 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 A10-8700P and other processors

No results found