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 A8-7410 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£520PassMark multi-core score:1814N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:2.5 GHzCPU socket:FP4TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD A8-7410 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.9/10

Overall score

Score
4.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

3.6

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

▼Worse than 97% of processors
5.8

Value for money

Value for money
5.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

70%

4.9

Overall score

30%

7.8

Price

▼Worse than 98%
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

3.3

Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 94%
3.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 97% of models

3.6

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, 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.
▼Worse than 97%
?

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~ £520
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 A8-7410

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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

3.3

Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated graphics

3.6
Reviews score
3.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

4.9

Overall score

30%

7.8

Price

5.8
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
FP4
This processor uses the FP4 CPU socket, which is older than that of 62.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
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, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES, BMI1, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES, BMI1, AMD-V instruction sets, which is narrower support than 51% 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
2.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.5 GHz which is lower than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.2 GHz which is lower than that of 72% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,814
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,814 in PassMark, which is lower than 95.8% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
28 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 28 nm process node, which is older than that of 94.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 28 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 94.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% 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
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% 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
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.
Radeon R5
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R5
This processor uses the Radeon R5 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 81.8% of processors and equal to that in 0.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.5% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
847 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 847 MHz which is higher than that of 93% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode), MPEG-4 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 78.4% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 12-25 W
Show more

AMD A8-7410 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 29.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (125 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    125 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 2.42x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (847 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    847 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • 29.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (125 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    125 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2.42x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (847 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    847 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 84.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,814 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,814 vs 11,469
  • 46.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, 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.
    3.6 vs 6.7
  • 87.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (636 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    636 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
  • 43.2% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 84.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (242 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    242 vs 1,535
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Carrizo vs Kaby Lake).
    Carrizo vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (28 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    28 nm vs 12 nm
  • 46.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, 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.
    3.6 vs 6.7
  • 25.8% worse value for money
    AMD A8-7410 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.79 vs 7.3).
    5.79 vs 7.29
  • 2.08x more expensive
    AMD A8-7410 is more expensive than the average processor (£520 vs £250).
    £520 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Processor, SKINIT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, Secure Processor, SKINIT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 5 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
    May 2015
    2015 vs 2020
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES, BMI1, 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, AES, BMI1, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 84.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,814 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,814 vs 11,469
  • 87.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (636 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    636 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
  • 43.2% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    2.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 84.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (242 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    242 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
  • 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 (4x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 6 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    22 vs 28
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Carrizo vs Kaby Lake).
    Carrizo vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (28 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    28 nm vs 12 nm
  • 81.2% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (0.9 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    0.93 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 28 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 28 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 72.7% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (12.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    12.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    1 vs 2
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon R5 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon R5 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), 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), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), 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)
  • 10 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A8-7410

  • Good for basic daily tasks like web browsing and office usage
  • Excellent value for money in budget-friendly laptop categories
  • Integrated Radeon R5 graphics generally outperform comparable Intel integrated solutions from the same era
  • Low power consumption (15W TDP) makes it energy-efficient for laptop use
  • Capable of running older or less demanding games (e.g., FIFA 15, GTA V) at low to medium settings

What customers don't like about AMD A8-7410

  • Poor performance in modern AAA games and heavy 3D rendering
  • Significantly outclassed by contemporaneous Intel Core i3 and i5 processors in raw CPU speed
  • Prone to high operating temperatures (up to 90°C+) and thermal throttling under heavy load
  • Struggles with multitasking and modern high-demand workloads
  • Single-channel memory controller limits potential graphics and system performance

Verdict

The AMD A8-7410 is an entry-level quad-core mobile SoC from the Carrizo-L family, featuring four Puma+ cores with a base clock of 2.2 GHz and a boost speed of up to 2.5 GHz. Built on a 28nm process, it integrates a Radeon R5 GPU with 128 shaders clocked up to 850 MHz and includes a single-channel DDR3L-1866 memory controller. Its main pros include a configurable TDP ranging from 12W to 25W for power efficiency in subnotebooks and an integrated GPU that typically outperforms contemporary entry-level Intel counterparts in light gaming. However, its primary cons are its limited single-core performance compared to Intel Core i3 or i5 models and its general inadequacy for modern, demanding multitasking or high-end gaming.

Compare AMD A8-7410 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 A8-7410 and other processors

No results found