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 A6 7480 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark benchmark result:1760N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD A6 7480 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.3

Overall score

Score
4.3/ 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 81% of models
Score components

90%

4.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 81% of processors
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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 76% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

3.0

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 76% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 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–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £25

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 A6 7480

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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 76% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

3.0

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

4.3
User score
User score
8.0/ 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–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 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–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD A6 7480 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 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 76% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Overall score

40%

10

Price

6.0
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, A78, A68H, A55
Chipset
A88X, A78, A68H, A55
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports A88X, A78, A68H, A55 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 66.1% 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
3.8 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 68.5% of processors and equal to that of 4.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.5 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.5 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 77.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
28 nm
Semiconductor size
28 nm
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
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 3% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
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 2.9% of processors.
L3 cache
1 MB
L3 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 93.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% 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
160 KB
L1 cache
160 KB
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 160 KB which is smaller than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% 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
2,133 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 75.5% of processors and equal to 8.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-2133 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-2133 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-2133 MHz, which is lower than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% 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.
AMD Radeon R5
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R5
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R5
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
This processor uses the Radeon R5 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 84.2% of processors and equal to that in 0.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
6
Integrated GPU execution units
6
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.8% of processors and equal to 6.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,000 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,000 MHz
★ Better than 94% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,000 MHz which is higher than that of 93.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 70% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 69.8% 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
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

AMD A6 7480 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.
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    90 °C
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
    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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    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, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 63.3% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    633
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (633 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    633 vs 387.66
  • 10x cheaper
    AMD A6 7480 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 2.86x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    1,000 MHz
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1000 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,000 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 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.
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 10x cheaper
    AMD A6 7480 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    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, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 63.3% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    633
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (633 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    633 vs 387.66
  • 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.
    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.
  • 2.86x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    1,000 MHz
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1000 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,000 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.
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    90 °C
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • 83.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,760
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,760 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,760 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
  • 88.1% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    332
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (332 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    332 vs 2,791
  • 39.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,512
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,512 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,512 vs 2,500
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Carrizo
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Carrizo vs Kaby Lake).
    Carrizo vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    28 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 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
  • 11.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.8 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 9% worse value for money
    AMD A6 7480 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.02 vs 6.6).
    6.02 vs 6.56
  • 2 years older release date
    Release date
    2018
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    December 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 83.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    1,760
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,760 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,760 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
  • 88.1% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    332
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (332 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    332 vs 2,791
  • 39.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,512
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,512 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,512 vs 2,500
  • 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
  • 11.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.8 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 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 3.5 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x3.5 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
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
    Microarchitecture codename
    Carrizo
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Carrizo vs Kaby Lake).
    Carrizo vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    28 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
    Die size
    250 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • 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
  • 87.5% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    1 MB vs 8 MB
  • 58.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    160 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (160 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    160 KB vs 384 KB
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    GlobalFoundries 28 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    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
    N. of transistors
    3.1 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    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
    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
  • 25.5% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    34.1 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34.1 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    34.1 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 27.3% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,133 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2133 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR3-2133 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    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
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon R5
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon R5 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon R5 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    6
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 70% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (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), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 10 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    90 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    90 °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
01/02/2019
Summary of the review
AMD A6-7480 - CPU Benchmarks

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD A6 7480

  • Very affordable price for budget-conscious entry-level builds
  • Comes with integrated Radeon R5 graphics capable of handling light or older games (e.g., GTA V on low settings)
  • Adequate performance for basic home and office tasks like web browsing and online classes
  • Low power consumption compared to some older Intel alternatives
  • Typically includes a stock cooler in the package
  • Capable of alocalizing up to 2GB of system RAM for video memory

What we don't like about AMD A6 7480

  • Extremely limited multitasking due to having only 2 cores and 2 threads
  • Uses the outdated FM2+ socket, offering no modern upgrade path for RAM or CPU
  • Bottlenecks performance significantly when paired with mid-to-high range dedicated graphics cards
  • Prone to high operating temperatures and may require improved cooling for sustained performance
  • Lacks support for modern software requirements like 4K video playback
  • Driver compatibility issues reported with some newer Radeon software versions
  • Fragile physical design; pins are easily damaged during installation

Verdict

The AMD A6-7480 is a budget-oriented dual-core desktop APU from the Carrizo architecture, designed for the Socket FM2+ platform. It features 2 cores and 2 threads with a base clock frequency of 3.5 GHz and a maximum boost clock of 3.8 GHz, supported by 1 MB of L2 cache and a 65W TDP. Main characteristics include integrated Radeon R5 graphics with 8 compute cores (2 CPU + 6 GPU), a 28nm manufacturing process, and support for dual-channel DDR3 memory up to 2133 MT/s. Its primary pros are its cost-effectiveness for basic office tasks, inclusion of a stock cooler, and integrated graphics capable of handling 720p HD video and light e-sports titles. However, notable cons include its outdated architecture that lacks a path to modern DDR4 or DDR5 memory, a locked multiplier that prevents overclocking, and significantly poor multitasking performance compared to newer Ryzen-based alternatives.

Compare AMD A6 7480 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 A6 7480 and other processors

No results found