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 A8-3550MX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£9PassMark multi-core score:1687N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.7 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

AMD A8-3550MX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 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 66% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

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 66% of processors
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 54%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 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 68% of models
Score components

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

3.7

Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 68%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £9
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 A8-3550MX

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 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 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

3.7

Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated graphics

4.6
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.4
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
?
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, AVX, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, AVX, AMD-V instruction sets, which is narrower support than 73.9% 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
2.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.7 GHz which is lower than that of 96.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz which is lower than that of 74.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,687
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,687 in PassMark, which is lower than 96.4% 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
?
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
1,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.7% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 89.1% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
AMD Radeon HD 6620G
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), MVC (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MVC (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 51.3% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 11% 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 A8-3550MX 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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 A8-3550MX is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 vs £250
  • 27.78x cheaper
    AMD A8-3550MX 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
  • 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 85.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,687 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,687 vs 11,469
  • 62.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (962 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    962 vs 2,558
  • 38.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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 (NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (NX bit vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    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, SSE4.1, AVX, 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, AVX, 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).
    December 2011
    2011 vs 2020
  • 85.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,687 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,687 vs 11,469
  • 62.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (962 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    962 vs 2,558
  • 38.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.7 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.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    20 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
  • More basic Turbo Core
    This processor has a more basic Turbo Core version than the average processor (1 vs 2).
    Turbo Core
    1 vs 2
  • 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
  • 50% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,600 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
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 87.5% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    8 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x4/x4 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), MVC (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MVC (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 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.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A8-3550MX

  • Strong integrated graphics for its era with the Radeon HD 6620G, often outperforming equivalent Intel HD solutions
  • Efficient quad-core multitasking for budget-friendly laptops
  • Capable of handling high-definition video decoding (H.264, VC-1) via the integrated UVD3 video processor
  • Good value for money at launch, providing a balanced entry-level gaming and productivity experience
  • Supports faster DDR3-1600 memory, providing a performance edge over lower-tier A-series models

What customers don't like about AMD A8-3550MX

  • Significantly lower single-threaded performance compared to contemporary Intel Sandy Bridge processors like the Core i3 or i5
  • High 45W TDP can lead to thermal issues or reduced battery life in smaller laptop chassis
  • Lack of L3 cache limits overall computational throughput compared to newer architectures
  • Locked multiplier limits any potential for overclocking by enthusiast users
  • Now considered obsolete for modern gaming or demanding applications due to its dated 32nm architecture

Verdict

The AMD A8-3550MX is a quad-core mobile processor from the Llano architecture, released in late 2011 on a 32 nm production node. It features a base clock speed of 2.0 GHz, which can boost up to 2.7 GHz via Turbo Core technology, and includes a 4 MB L2 cache (1 MB per core) with a 45W TDP. A key advantage of this APU is its integrated Radeon HD 6620G graphics, which features 400 stream processors and supports DirectX 11, alongside an integrated dual-channel DDR3-1600 memory controller. However, major drawbacks include the lack of an L3 cache, a locked multiplier that restricts overclocking potential, and performance that is now considered entry-level and unsuitable for modern 3D gaming or intensive multitasking.

Compare AMD A8-3550MX 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 A8-3550MX and other processors

No results found