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 A8-3500M review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£9PassMark multi-core score:1387N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.4 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD A8-3500M Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 4 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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 73% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

8.1

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

â–¼Worse than 73% of processors
7.2

Value for money

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

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 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 94% of models
Score components

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

3.6

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

6.8

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 94%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 78% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
4 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 78%
?

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
*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 A8-3500M

Based on 3

Reviewers mostly agree the integrated graphics are a pleasant surprise, capable for their class with only minor doubts.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A8-3500M

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 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 94% of models
Score components:

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

3.6

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

6.8

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

3.6
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.2
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
?
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, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, AMD-V instruction sets, which is narrower support than 81.8% 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
2.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.4 GHz which is lower than that of 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.5 GHz which is lower than that of 84.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,387
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,387 in PassMark, which is lower than 97.8% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
32 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 32 nm process node, which is older than that of 97.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 32 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 32 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L1 cache
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
1,333 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.6% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1333 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1333 MHz, which is lower than that of 98.5% 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 HD 6620G
This processor uses the Radeon HD 6620G integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 84.2% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
444 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 444 MHz which is higher than that of 76.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 58.1% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD A8-3500M vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 78% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 27.78x cheaper
    AMD A8-3500M is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 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
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 78% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • 27.78x cheaper
    AMD A8-3500M is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 vs £250
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 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
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 87.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,387 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,387 vs 11,469
  • 88.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (620 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    620 vs 5,209
  • 69% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (794 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    794 vs 2,558
  • 45.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 85% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (231 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    231 vs 1,535
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Llano vs Kaby Lake).
    Llano vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.67x larger process node
    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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, 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, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 9 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2011 vs 2020).
    June 2011
    2011 vs 2020
  • 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
  • 87.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,387 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,387 vs 11,469
  • 88.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (620 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    620 vs 5,209
  • 69% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (794 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    794 vs 2,558
  • 45.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 85% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (231 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    231 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 13 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (15 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    15 vs 28
  • 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 (Llano vs Kaby Lake).
    Llano vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.67x larger process node
    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
  • 28.8% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (228 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    228 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 76.2% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.178 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    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
  • 58.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,333 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 45.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1333 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,333 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (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), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (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 HD 6620G vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon HD 6620G vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.

Video reviews

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

Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
14/06/2011
Platform overview · Laptop chip
Verdict
The AMD A8-3500M pairs four Stars cores with a 400-core Radeon GPU in one chip, aimed at midrange and high-end laptops.
9.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
13/06/2011
Laptop test · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The AMD A8-3500M strikes a good balance of power efficiency and speed, with strong built-in graphics, though its CPU is only adequate.
9.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
15/06/2011
Lab test · Laptop APU
Verdict
The AMD A8-3500M plays games well for a laptop chip, but the Core i5-2520M is faster at encoding, encryption and video editing.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A8-3500M

  • Integrated Radeon HD 6620G graphics significantly outperformed contemporary Intel HD 3000 graphics in 3D gaming benchmarks.
  • Supports 'Dual Graphics' (CrossFireX), allowing the integrated GPU to work in tandem with a compatible discrete AMD GPU for up to a 75% performance boost in ideal scenarios.
  • Highly power-efficient for its time, featuring an idle power draw as low as 10 Watts and a 35W TDP that extended laptop battery life.
  • Reliable long-term performance reported by long-term users, with some units remaining functional for basic tasks like video streaming over a decade later.
  • Native support for DirectX 11 and UVD3 video decoding provided better media compatibility than competing integrated solutions of that era.
  • Offered a cost-effective alternative for mainstream multimedia laptops compared to higher-priced Intel Sandy Bridge options.

What customers don't like about AMD A8-3500M

  • CPU processing power trailed significantly behind Intel’s Sandy Bridge architecture (Core i5/i7) in pure computational tasks and multithreaded benchmarks.
  • Low base clock speed of 1.5 GHz often limited performance in CPU-intensive applications and newer software.
  • Poor thermal headroom when both the CPU and GPU were under full load, sometimes preventing the Turbo Core from reaching its 2.4 GHz maximum frequency.
  • The switchable graphics implementation was noted to be less seamless than NVIDIA's Optimus, often taking several seconds to switch between power-saving and high-performance modes.
  • Not compatible with modern operating systems like Windows 11 due to hardware limitations and lack of driver support for newer architecture.
  • Prone to extreme overheating and loud fan noise if the thermal paste was not maintained or replaced over time.

Verdict

The AMD A8-3500M is a mobile quad-core Accelerated Processing Unit (APU) based on the 32nm Llano architecture, featuring a base clock speed of 1.5 GHz and a Turbo Core frequency of up to 2.4 GHz. It integrates a Radeon HD 6620G graphics engine with 400 shader cores and a 444 MHz clock, while supporting up to 32 GB of dual-channel DDR3-1600 memory with a 35W TDP. Main pros include its surprisingly capable integrated graphics for its era, support for DirectX 11, and the 'Dual Graphics' feature which allows the APU to work in CrossFire with a discrete GPU for improved gaming performance. Major cons involve its relatively weak per-core CPU performance compared to Intel's Sandy Bridge rivals and a low base frequency that can bottleneck intensive tasks.

Compare AMD A8-3500M 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 A8-3500M and other processors

No results found