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 A10-9700 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark multi-core score:3563N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD A10-9700 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 8 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A10-9700
5.1/10

Overall score

Score
5.1/ 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 96% of models
Score components

40%

4.2

Technical score

25%

4.2

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

4.2

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 96% of processors
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
4.2

Technical score

Technical score
4.2/ 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 78% of models
Score components

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 78%
4.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 87% of models

4.2

Mark 6.9 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.5

Average grade

20%

8.5

Popularity

Grades by review (8)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 6 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–¼Worse than 87%
?

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-a10-9700
  • amd-a10-9700
amd-a10-9700
amd-a10-9700
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 A10-9700

Based on 1 · 7

Reviewers like the upgrade-friendly platform and capable graphics, but find the processor slow and everyday use sluggish.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD A10-9700

Based on 149 owners sharing their experience in online comments

29%positive7%mixed64%negative

Owners value integrated graphics for light gaming, but low frame rates, stuttering, and weak modern performance dominate.

What owners dislike

  • Many owners get 15–30 fps in games like GTA V, Fortnite, Apex Legends and Rocket League, even on low settings.44
  • Owners report stutter, sudden lag and frame drops in games like Roblox, Fortnite and FIFA 18, even at 60 fps.28
  • Owners say the CPU bottlenecks even mid-range cards like the GTX 1660 Super, with the GPU often only 30–40% used.12
  • Some owners get no display, or Windows install freezes and restarts; one says a Ryzen chip swap fixed it.12
  • Owners feel it is old technology, slow even in Windows 10, and many plan to replace it with a Ryzen 5 chip.8
  • Owners say real results fall short of the video, such as CS:GO at 45 fps at 720p and Valorant below 70 fps.8
  • Owners report games crashing or freezing after a minute or two, with AMD driver errors, blue screens and freezes.6
  • Owners see around 90 °C in games, with reboots near 91–95 °C, and advise a stronger cooler.5
  • The built-in Radeon R7 runs at about 1 GHz with 0.5 GB VRAM, and some owners cannot raise VRAM above 128 MB.4
  • Owners see the CPU sit at 100% load even when idle or watching a video, while the GPU is underused.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A10-9700

Technical score
Technical score
4.2/ 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 78% of models
Score components:

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

4.2
Reviews score
4.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.5
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
AM4
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 75.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
This processor supports X470, B450, X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 67.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, 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, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 97.4% 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
3.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 50.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,563
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,563 in PassMark, which is lower than 81.6% 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
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
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% 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 Graphics
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
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
?
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 57.2% of processors and equal to 9.1% 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.
cTDP: 45-65 W
Show more

AMD A10-9700 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.
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °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.
  • 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, 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, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 10x cheaper
    AMD A10-9700 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 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
  • 10x cheaper
    AMD A10-9700 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, 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, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 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 Boost 2
    3 vs 2
  • 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 68.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,563 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,563 vs 11,469
  • 37.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    4.2

    Mark 6.9 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 6 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.
    4.2 vs 6.7
  • 36.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,620 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,620 vs 2,558
  • 69.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,572 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,572 vs 5,209
  • 57.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (647 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    647 vs 1,535
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Bristol Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Bristol Ridge 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
  • 37.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    4.2

    Mark 6.9 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 6 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.
    4.2 vs 6.7
  • 41.7% lower sentiment score
    4.2 vs 7.2
  • 11.3% worse value for money
    AMD A10-9700 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.54 vs 7.3).
    6.54 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
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    July 2017
    2017 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
  • 68.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,563 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,563 vs 11,469
  • 36.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,620 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,620 vs 2,558
  • 69.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,572 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,572 vs 5,209
  • 57.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (647 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    647 vs 1,535
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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.
  • 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 (Bristol Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Bristol Ridge 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
  • 41.2% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (250 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    250 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 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
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (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/encode), VP9 (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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

4.0
All Wrestling Madness
≈ estimated
10/03/2025
Hands-on review · performance tests and comparison
Verdict
AMD A10-9700 is probably not worth buying unless you need a cheap AM4 chip; a secondhand Ryzen 3 or 5 is better.
5.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
03/09/2024
Gaming benchmark · HP system with FirePro W5100 GPU
Verdict
AMD A10-9700 pairs a good GPU with a small system, but its four-core processor disappoints in many games.
7.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
02/07/2021
Benchmark test · CPU paired with a budget graphics card
Verdict
AMD A10-9700 gets a big boost from a budget GPU, but the processor still limits demanding games.
7.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
26/04/2021
Benchmark review · older and new games at 1080p
Verdict
AMD A10-9700 is a good budget option with a clear upgrade path, though it struggles in Fortnite.
6.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
02/07/2021
Hands-on benchmark · CPU paired with RX 560 graphics card
Verdict
AMD A10-9700 with an RX 560 gains a lot in older games, but its CPU limits modern titles.
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
heise.de
≈ estimated
23/09/2016
Lab test · Desktop processor
Verdict
The AMD A10-9700 is a desktop chip whose graphics handle moderately demanding games smoothly at medium detail, but its CPU barely improves on older chips.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A10-9700

  • Extremely affordable price, especially for budget-conscious entry-level builds.
  • Integrated Radeon R7 graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU for basic tasks.
  • Supports DDR4 memory, which was a notable feature for its class at launch.
  • Low heat output makes it suitable for compact cases and small form-factor builds.
  • Uses the AM4 socket, providing a potential upgrade path to Ryzen-series CPUs with a compatible motherboard.

What customers don't like about AMD A10-9700

  • Outdated 28nm architecture leads to poor power efficiency compared to modern 5nm-7nm standards.
  • Weak single-threaded performance that lags behind even older Intel competitors.
  • Limited to 4 threads, which is insufficient for modern gaming, streaming, or video rendering.
  • Inadequate for serious gaming; struggles with newer titles even on low settings.
  • Low resale value as newer, significantly faster budget CPUs like the Ryzen 3 1200 or 3200G are widely available.

Verdict

The AMD A10-9700 is a 7th Gen 'Bristol Ridge' APU built on a 28nm process, featuring 4 CPU cores and 4 threads with a 3.5 GHz base and 3.8 GHz turbo clock speed. Operating on the AM4 socket with a 65W TDP, its main characteristics include integrated Radeon R7 graphics (up to 1029 MHz) and support for DDR4-2400 memory. Its primary pros are its affordable entry point into the AM4 ecosystem, allowing for future Ryzen upgrades, and competent performance for home use and light indie gaming without a dedicated GPU. However, its main cons include a dated architecture that lacks an L3 cache, significantly lower single-core performance compared to modern alternatives, and limited viability for demanding 1080p gaming or intensive modern workloads.

Compare AMD A10-9700 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 A10-9700 and other processors

No results found