OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD A4 5300 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark benchmark result:1364N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD A4 5300 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.0

Overall score

Score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

90%

3.5

Technical score

10%

8.3

User score

â–¼Worse than 89% of processors
3.5

Technical score

Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

2.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 96% of processors
8.3

User score

User score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 83% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

User ratings

30%

8.0

Number of reviews

Based on 213 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
â–²Better than 83% of processors
  • amd-a4-5300
amd-a4-5300

Best prices

*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A4 5300

Technical score
Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

2.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated Graphics

3.5
User score
User score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 83% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

User ratings

30%

8.0

Number of reviews

Based on 213 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
8.3
Popularity
Popularity
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 86% of models
Popularity:
AMD A4 5300 has a popularity score of 8 points, which is higher than that of 86.4% of products in this category.
8.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.8/ 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 83% of models
Score components:

60%

4.0

Overall score

40%

10

Price

5.8
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H, A55
Chipset
A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H, A55
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
This processor supports A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H, A55 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 64.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
2
CPU threads
2
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94% of processors and equal to 5.9% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.6 GHz which is lower than that of 76.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.4 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.4 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 79% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
32 nm
Semiconductor size
32 nm
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 32 nm process node, which is older than that of 97.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 32 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 32 nm
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 32 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 98.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
L3 cache
0 MB
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
96 KB
L1 cache
96 KB
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 96 KB which is smaller than that of 98.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 13.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.2% of processors and equal to 11.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 7480D
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 7480D
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor uses the Radeon HD 7480D integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 86.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
723 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
723 MHz
â–² Better than 86% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 723 MHz which is higher than that of 85.7% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 51.2% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 69.9% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Base power (PL1)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 70.1% of processors and equal to that of 16.7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

AMD A4 5300 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 30 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    70 °C
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (70 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    70 °C vs 100 °C
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    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).
    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
  • 8.03x more popular
    AMD A4 5300 is more popular than the average processor (8.03 vs 1).
    8.03 vs 1
  • 10x cheaper
    AMD A4 5300 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 3.6% higher user score
    User score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    AMD A4 5300
    the average processor
    AMD A4 5300 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.29 vs 8.000).
    8.29 vs 8
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Turbo CORE
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 8.03x more popular
    AMD A4 5300 is more popular than the average processor (8.03 vs 1).
    8.03 vs 1
  • 10x cheaper
    AMD A4 5300 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 3.6% higher user score
    User score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    AMD A4 5300
    the average processor
    AMD A4 5300 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.29 vs 8.000).
    8.29 vs 8
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    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).
    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
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Turbo CORE
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2.07x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    723 MHz
    â–² Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (723 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    723 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 30 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    70 °C
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (70 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    70 °C vs 100 °C
  • 92.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    371
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (371 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    371 vs 4,829
  • 87.1% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,364
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,364 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,364 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 74.8% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    371
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (371 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    371 vs 1,471
  • 46.7% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,332
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,332 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,332 vs 2,500
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Trinity
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Trinity vs Kaby Lake).
    Trinity vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.67x larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    32 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • 16.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 13.7% worse value for money
    AMD A4 5300 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.77 vs 6.6).
    5.77 vs 6.56
  • 8 years older release date
    Release date
    2012
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
    October 2012
    2012 vs 2020
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 92.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    371
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (371 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    371 vs 4,829
  • 87.1% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,364
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,364 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,364 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 74.8% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    371
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (371 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    371 vs 1,471
  • 46.7% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,332
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,332 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,332 vs 2,500
  • 16.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 3.4 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 32.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5.4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    5.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 32.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5.4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Trinity
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Trinity vs Kaby Lake).
    Trinity vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.67x larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    32 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • 75% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    96 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (96 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    96 KB vs 384 KB
  • 39% larger die size
    Die size
    246 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (246 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    246 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 73.7% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.303 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.3 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.303 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    GlobalFoundries 32 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 44.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    25.6 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 45.4% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,600 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1600 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Older PCIe version
    PCIe version
    2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x16
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    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)).
    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)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon HD 7480D
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon HD 7480D vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon HD 7480D vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 30 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    70 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (70 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    70 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD A4-5300 APU - CPU Benchmarks
C
cpubenchmark.net
N/A
Summary of the review
AMD A4-5300B APU - CPU Performance Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
02/10/2012
Summary of the review
AMD A4-5300 Processor - Hardware Information
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
22/12/2012
Summary of the review
Origen AE S14V with AMD A4-5300 Product Review
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
28/05/2013
Summary of the review
Review of 45 Processors: iGPU Benchmarks and Tech Arp x264 HD 5.0.1 Pass 2
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
29/01/2013
Summary of the review
Desktop Best Buy Guide: January 2013 Edition
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
28/05/2013
Summary of the review
45 processors reviewed: from Intel Celeron to Core i7, from AMD A4 to FX
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 213 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about AMD A4 5300

  • Excellent value for money for entry-level budget builds
  • Strong integrated Radeon HD 7480D graphics for its class and era
  • Capable of handling basic tasks like office work, web browsing, and emails
  • Operates at relatively low temperatures during standard use
  • Includes hardware virtualization support to improve VM performance
  • Supports AVX instructions, boosting performance in specific calculation-heavy apps

What we don't like about AMD A4 5300

  • Weak overall CPU performance that easily bottlenecks discrete GPUs
  • Struggles with modern operating systems like Windows 10/11
  • Highly unsuitable for modern 3D gaming or intensive video editing
  • Limited to the aging FM2 socket, restricting future upgrade paths
  • Poor power efficiency compared to higher-tier A-series models
  • Locked multiplier limits potential for significant overclocking

Verdict

The AMD A4-5300 is a dual-core desktop Accelerated Processing Unit (APU) based on the 32nm Trinity architecture and Piledriver microarchitecture, released in late 2012 for the FM2 socket. It operates at a base clock speed of 3.4 GHz with a turbo boost up to 3.6 GHz and features 1 MB of L2 cache alongside a 65W Thermal Design Power (TDP). Its primary strength lies in its integrated Radeon HD 7480D graphics, which offer superior performance compared to contemporary Intel integrated solutions for light multimedia and legacy gaming, and it supports up to DDR3-1600 memory. However, the processor is held back by its aging two-core, two-thread design, which struggles with modern multitasking and Windows 10/11 performance, and its FM2 socket offers a limited upgrade path compared to newer platforms.

Compare AMD A4 5300 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 A4 5300 and other processors

No results found