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 A8 5500 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark benchmark result:2618N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.7 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD A8 5500 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.2

Overall score

Score
4.2/ 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 83% of models
Score components

90%

3.8

Technical score

10%

8.1

User score

â–¼Worse than 83% of processors
3.8

Technical score

Technical score
3.8/ 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 91% of models
Score components

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

3.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 91% of processors
8.1

User score

User score
8.1/ 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 81% of models
Score components

70%

8.8

User ratings

30%

6.5

Number of reviews

Based on 67 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 81% of processors
  • amd-a8-5500
amd-a8-5500

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 A8 5500

Technical score
Technical score
3.8/ 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 91% of models
Score components:

60%

3.1

Performance

18%

3.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

3.8
User score
User score
8.1/ 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 81% of models
Score components

70%

8.8

User ratings

30%

6.5

Number of reviews

Based on 67 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.
8.1
Popularity
Popularity
6.5/ 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 82% of models
Popularity:
AMD A8 5500 has a popularity score of 6.5 points, which is higher than that of 81.9% of products in this category.
6.5
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%

4.2

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, 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
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% 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
3.7 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.7 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.7 GHz which is lower than that of 72.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.2 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.2 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.2 GHz which is lower than that of 55.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% 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
4 MB
L2 cache
4 MB
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L1 cache
192 KB
L1 cache
192 KB
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% 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
1,866 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.4% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1866 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1866 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to 0.8% of processors.
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 7560D
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 7560D
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor uses the Radeon HD 7560D integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 86.1% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
4
Integrated GPU execution units
4
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 4 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 90.4% of processors and equal to 2.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
760 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
760 MHz
â–² Better than 86% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 760 MHz which is higher than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 58.1% of processors and equal to 1.3% 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 A8 5500 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    24
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 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.
  • 26 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    74 °C
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (74 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    74 °C vs 100 °C
  • 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
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ, RSA/PKA
    ★ Better than 100% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 6.53x more popular
    AMD A8 5500 is more popular than the average processor (6.53 vs 1).
    6.53 vs 1
  • 1.5% higher user score
    User score
    8.1/ 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 A8 5500
    the average processor
    AMD A8 5500 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.12 vs 8.000).
    8.12 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.
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 6.53x more popular
    AMD A8 5500 is more popular than the average processor (6.53 vs 1).
    6.53 vs 1
  • 1.5% higher user score
    User score
    8.1/ 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 A8 5500
    the average processor
    AMD A8 5500 has a higher user score than the average processor (8.12 vs 8.000).
    8.12 vs 8
  • 2.78x cheaper
    AMD A8 5500 is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • 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
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ, RSA/PKA
    ★ Better than 100% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ, RSA/PKA vs 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.
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 60% larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    4 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    24
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 2.17x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    760 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 (760 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    760 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 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.
  • 26 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    74 °C
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (74 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    74 °C vs 100 °C
  • 92.2% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    378
    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 (378 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    378 vs 4,829
  • 75.2% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,618
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,618 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,618 vs 10,572.5
  • 74.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    378
    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 (378 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    378 vs 1,471
  • 46.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,340
    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 (1,340 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,340 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
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 14% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.7 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 10.3% worse value for money
    AMD A8 5500 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.95 vs 6.6).
    5.95 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).
    February 2012
    2012 vs 2020
  • 92.2% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    378
    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 (378 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    378 vs 4,829
  • 75.2% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    2,618
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,618 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,618 vs 10,572.5
  • 74.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    378
    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 (378 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    378 vs 1,471
  • 46.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,340
    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 (1,340 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,340 vs 2,500
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 14% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.7 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    192 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (192 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    192 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 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
  • 34.7% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    29.9 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.9 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    29.9 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 36.4% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,866 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1866 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR3-1866 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,866 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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, x8/x8
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 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)
    â–¼ Worse than 58% 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) 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) 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 7560D
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon HD 7560D vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon HD 7560D vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24
  • 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.
  • 28.7 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    71.3 °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 (71.3 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    71.3 °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

O
openbenchmarking.org
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD A8-5500 APU Performance on OpenBenchmarking.org
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD A8-5500 APU - CPU Benchmarks
T
tomshardware.com
26/09/2012
Summary of the review
AMD Trinity On The Desktop: A10, A8, And A6 Get Piledriver
B
bild.de
10/08/2012
Summary of the review
CPU Benchmarks: The fastest processors tested
(Translated)Show original
C
cpubenchmark.net
20/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD A8-5500B APU CPU Performance Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
C
cpubenchmark.net
01/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD A8-5500 APU - CPU Performance Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
N
nexthardware.com
02/10/2012
Summary of the review
AMD A10-5800K and A8-5600K APUs: Trinity is here! (Includes comparative performance data for the A8-5500)
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshw.it
18/06/2012
Summary of the review
AMD Trinity: A10, A8 and A6 Desktop APU Preview Performance Tests
(Translated)Show original
H
hwupgrade.it
04/10/2012
Summary of the review
AMD Trinity: The New A-Series Desktop APUs
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
02/10/2012
Summary of the review
AMD A10-5800K / A8-5600K review: AMD's latest desktop APUs
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
02/10/2012
Summary of the review
AMD A10-5800K / A8-5600K Review: AMD's Latest Desktop APUs (Including A8-5500 Data)
(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
H
htforum.nl
20/05/2013
Summary of the review
HTPC Review and User Experience: AMD A8-5500
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 67 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about AMD A8 5500

  • Cost-effective solution for basic office tasks, web browsing, and email
  • Low 65W TDP makes it more energy-efficient and cooler than higher-end models like the A8-5600K
  • Integrated Radeon HD 7560D graphics provide a decent entry-level GPU for older or very light eSports titles without needing a dedicated card
  • Reliable performance for non-Windows environments like Linux for everyday media consumption
  • Supports hardware virtualization and Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) for improved VM and calculation performance

What we don't like about AMD A8 5500

  • Significantly outdated architecture that struggles with modern multitasking and current operating systems
  • Unplayable performance in modern AAA games, often experiencing severe stuttering and low frame rates (under 30 FPS)
  • Limited upgrade path as it uses the obsolete FM2 socket and DDR3 RAM, requiring a full motherboard and RAM replacement for any meaningful boost
  • Locked multiplier prevents easy overclocking to gain additional performance
  • Lacks L3 cache, which heavily impacts gaming performance compared to newer Ryzen alternatives

Verdict

The AMD A8-5500 is a quad-core desktop APU based on the 32nm Trinity architecture, designed for the Socket FM2 platform with a 65W TDP. It features a base clock speed of 3.2 GHz with a turbo boost up to 3.7 GHz, supported by 4 MB of L2 cache and integrated Radeon HD 7560D graphics operating at 760 MHz. Main pros include its energy efficiency for its era, reliable multitasking for general office work, and a decent integrated GPU that handles 1080p video playback and light legacy gaming without a dedicated card. However, significant cons include its outdated performance by modern standards, lack of support for DDR4 memory or PCIe 3.0, and a dead-end upgrade path limited to the aging FM2 socket.

Compare AMD A8 5500 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 5500 and other processors

No results found