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 A8-5600K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£9PassMark multi-core score:2857N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.9 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):100 W

AMD A8-5600K Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 9 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A8-5600K
5.7/10

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 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 86% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

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%

3.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 86% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 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 93% of models
Score components

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

5.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 93%
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%

8.0

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. 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
  • amd-a8-5600k
  • amd-a8-5600k
  • amd-a8-5600k
  • amd-a8-5600k
  • amd-a8-5600k
amd-a8-5600k
amd-a8-5600k
amd-a8-5600k
amd-a8-5600k
amd-a8-5600k
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 A8-5600K

Based on 6 · 7

Reviewers praise its integrated graphics and overclocking headroom, but find CPU performance weak and are split on gaming and power use.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD A8-5600K

Based on 65 owners sharing their experience in online comments

35%positive19%mixed46%negative

Owners praise its overclocking flexibility and long service, while weak gaming performance and heat are the biggest frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners get only 20 to 30 fps in games like Fortnite and Arma 3, with stutter and choppy play in CS:GO.18
  • Under heavy load such as Dota 2 or Prime95, owners see temperatures of 80 to 90 °C and clock throttling.8
  • Dual graphics with a discrete card can drop fps sharply or lag, and the option may be missing until the graphics driver is updated.6
  • Owners say 1600 MHz or faster RAM is a must, and 4 GB of memory makes games feel laggy.5
  • Some owners get no display or a black screen in games, and the PC shuts down when opening games.5
  • Owners report the CPU holds back cards like the GTX 1650 Super and RX 550, with GPU use often low.4
  • A few owners switched to Intel after their experience, saying they will not choose AMD again.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A8-5600K

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 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 93% of models
Score components:

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

5.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

3.7
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.0
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H, A55
This processor supports A88X, A85X, A78, A75, A68H, A55 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 63.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
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, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 91.6% 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
3.9 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.9 GHz which is lower than that of 67% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.6 GHz which is higher than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,857
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,857 in PassMark, which is lower than 87.5% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
320 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 320 KB which is smaller than that of 56.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% 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
1,866 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1866 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 86.9% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon HD 7560D
This processor uses the Radeon HD 7560D integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 83.6% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
760 MHz
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), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 49% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
100 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 100 W which is higher than that of 89.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
100 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 100 W which is higher than that of 89.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% 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
What reviewers say

AMD A8-5600K 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
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 26 °C lower CPU temperature
    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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. 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 A8-5600K is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 vs £250
  • 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%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. 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 A8-5600K is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
    £9 vs £250
  • Broader instruction support
    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, ABM, XOP, TBM, 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, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • 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.
  • 2.17x higher GPU clock speed
    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
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 26 °C lower CPU temperature
    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
  • 91.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (425 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    425 vs 5,209
  • 75.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,857 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,857 vs 11,469
  • 72.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (425 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    425 vs 1,535
  • 44.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,429 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,429 vs 2,558
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Trinity vs Kaby Lake).
    Trinity vs Kaby Lake
  • 60.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (193 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    193 vs 490
  • 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
  • 48.6% lower sentiment score
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 3.8% worse value for money
    AMD A8-5600K has worse value for money than the average processor (7.02 vs 7.3).
    7.02 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • 8 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
    October 2012
    2012 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 91.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (425 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    425 vs 5,209
  • 75.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,857 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,857 vs 11,469
  • 72.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (425 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    425 vs 1,535
  • 44.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,429 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,429 vs 2,558
  • 60.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (193 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    193 vs 490
  • 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
  • 11.4% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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.
  • 60.5% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (134.3 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    134.28 vs 340.075
  • 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 (Trinity vs Kaby Lake).
    Trinity 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
  • 39% larger die size
    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
  • 73.7% fewer transistors
    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
    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
  • 41.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 36.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    29.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 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 (DDR3-1866 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
  • 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/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.22x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (100 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    100 W vs 45 W
  • 26 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (74 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    74 °C vs 100 °C
  • 2.22x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (100 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    100 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

8.0
retropcdurham
≈ estimated
11/06/2021
Desktop build review · tests and hardware check
Verdict
AMD A8-5600K is good for desktop use, though gaming is limited and the fan is noisy.
9.0
Nicolas11x12 English
✓ explicit
18/10/2012
Hands-on review · benchmarks, temperatures and memory tests
Verdict
AMD A8-5600K is a very good choice for a tight budget, with strong integrated graphics and low temperatures, though CPU speed could be better.
8.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
01/11/2012
Benchmark review · APU with a discrete card in Dual Graphics
Verdict
AMD A8-5600K is recommended in Dual Graphics if driver updates fix the stuttering in some games.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
02/10/2012
Overclocking test · Desktop APU
Verdict
The AMD A8-5600K overclocks to 4.6GHz on the CPU and 1000MHz on the GPU, but 2400MHz memory would not run properly in these tests.
10
guru3d.com
✓ explicit
04/10/2012
Gaming test · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The AMD A8-5600K's built-in graphics run Resident Evil at 1080p, but serious gamers should add a dedicated graphics card.
6.0
pcmasters.de
≈ estimated
31/10/2012
CPU-only test · Desktop APU
Verdict
The AMD A8-5600K adds Piledriver cores and an unlocked Black Edition multiplier on new FM2 boards, but has no shared L3 cache.
7.0
tech-review.de
≈ estimated
19/10/2012
Benchmark test · Gaming and HTPC
Verdict
The AMD A8-5600K plays HD video without trouble on its built-in graphics, using at most 10% CPU, but it draws about 25W more than an i5 2700K under full load.
7.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
02/10/2012
Lab test · Desktop APU
Verdict
The AMD A8-5600K's built-in graphics beat Intel's HD Graphics 4000, but its 100W rating is far above that of Core i3 chips.
10
nexthardware.com
✓ explicit
02/10/2012
Early look · Desktop APU
Verdict
The AMD A8-5600K brings newer Piledriver cores and VLIW4 graphics, but needs a new FM2 motherboard.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A8-5600K

  • Excellent value for money for budget PC builds
  • Solid integrated graphics (Radeon HD 7560D) for light gaming and HD video
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for easy overclocking
  • Ideal for Home Theatre PCs (HTPC) and daily office tasks
  • Significant performance boost when paired with high-speed (2133MHz) RAM
  • Supports Dual Graphics mode with compatible discrete cards like the HD 6670

What customers don't like about AMD A8-5600K

  • CPU core performance is weak compared to Intel's contemporary offerings
  • High 100W TDP can lead to significant heat output under heavy load
  • Requires a separate FM2 socket motherboard (not backwards compatible with FM1)
  • Limited multi-threaded performance for intensive tasks like video encoding
  • High power draw relative to newer processors
  • Stock cooling may be insufficient or loud during heavy usage

Verdict

The AMD A8-5600K is a 32nm Trinity architecture quad-core APU designed for the FM2 socket, featuring a 3.6 GHz base clock with a 3.9 GHz Turbo speed and a 100W TDP. It includes 4MB of L2 cache and integrated Radeon HD 7560D graphics with 256 shader cores running at 760 MHz. Main pros include an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking, competitive value for budget builds, and integrated graphics that generally outperformed contemporaneous Intel solutions for light gaming and HTPC use. However, notable cons include high power consumption relative to performance, reliance on fast system RAM for GPU efficiency, and weak single-core performance that often bottlenecks modern applications or dedicated high-end graphics cards.

Compare AMD A8-5600K 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 A8-5600K and other processors

No results found