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 A8-7600 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£70PassMark multi-core score:3206N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD A8-7600 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 16 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A8-7600
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 82% of models
Score components

40%

4.0

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.0

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 82% 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 66% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 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 84% of models
Score components

60%

3.3

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 84%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 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 66% of models

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

9.0

Popularity

Grades by review (16)
9 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 7 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 66%
?

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-a8-7600
  • amd-a8-7600
  • amd-a8-7600
  • amd-a8-7600
amd-a8-7600
amd-a8-7600
amd-a8-7600
amd-a8-7600
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 A8-7600

Based on 7 · 5

Reviewers like its low power use, but are split on gaming, and many find the integrated graphics underwhelming.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD A8-7600

Based on 162 owners sharing their experience in online comments

34%positive12%mixed54%negative

Owners value its low-cost gaming, but weak frame rates, instability, and crashes are common frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Frame rates in demanding games often fall to 20 to 40 fps, and some owners report only 11 to 30 fps in titles like Dota 2 and GTA 5.53
  • Games stutter and drop frames, and some owners say the GPU usage falls to around 4 to 20 percent during play, causing choppy motion.13
  • Some owners report PC crashes, freezes or restarts during play in games like Dota 2, GTA V and Valorant, especially after adding a graphics card.11
  • With only one RAM stick or 4GB of memory, owners see the integrated graphics run at half bandwidth and games lose 10 fps or more.10
  • Some owners cannot run certain games, such as PES 2016 or Valorant, and report black screens, loading freezes or installation errors.9
  • Owners say it struggles with CPU-heavy tasks because it has only two physical cores with four threads, so it is slow for demanding work.7
  • Owners report high temperatures, with CPU idle near 60C and gaming near 90C, and a need for a good cooler to avoid overheating.5
  • Adding a dedicated GPU such as a GTX 950 or GT 730 often brings no gain, because the processor becomes the bottleneck in demanding games.4
  • Dual graphics mode is unreliable, with some owners reporting that it causes incompatibility after game updates or pushes CPU usage to 100 percent.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #292 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A8-7600

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 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 84% of models
Score components:

60%

3.3

Performance

18%

3.5

Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

4.0
Reviews score
7.9
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 66% 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
?
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, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% 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
3.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.1 GHz which is lower than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,206
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,206 in PassMark, which is lower than 84.4% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
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
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
2,133 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 76.4% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-2133 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-2133 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.3% of processors and equal to 1.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
2,133 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is higher than that of 87.9% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
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
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Radeon R7 Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R7
This processor uses the Radeon R7 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 80.2% of processors and equal to that in 1.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
6
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
720 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 720 MHz which is higher than that of 85.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 59.3% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% 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.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD A8-7600 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 28.7 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (71.3 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    71.3 °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.
  • 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
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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 66% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (16)
    9 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 7 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 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, BMI1, 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, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 3.57x cheaper
    AMD A8-7600 is cheaper than the average processor (£70 vs £250).
    £70 vs £250
  • 2.06x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (720 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    720 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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 66% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (16)
    9 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 7 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 3.57x cheaper
    AMD A8-7600 is cheaper than the average processor (£70 vs £250).
    £70 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, BMI1, 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, BMI1, ABM, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2.06x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (720 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    720 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 28.7 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (71.3 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    71.3 °C vs 100 °C
  • 79.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,047 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,047 vs 5,209
  • 72% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,206 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,206 vs 11,469
  • 72.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (429 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    429 vs 1,535
  • 43.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,438 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,438 vs 2,558
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Kaveri vs Kaby Lake).
    Kaveri 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
  • 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
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 44.4% lower sentiment score
    4.0 vs 7.2
  • 3.1% worse value for money
    AMD A8-7600 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.98 vs 7.2).
    6.98 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 6 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2014 vs 2020).
    July 2014
    2014 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
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 79.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,047 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,047 vs 5,209
  • 72% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,206 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,206 vs 11,469
  • 72.1% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (429 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    429 vs 1,535
  • 43.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,438 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,438 vs 2,558
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 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 (4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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 (Kaveri vs Kaby Lake).
    Kaveri 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
  • 38.4% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (245 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    245 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 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
  • 51.3% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (2.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    2.411 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 33.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 27.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-2133 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-2,133 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), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon R7 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon R7 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (6 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    6 vs 24
  • 28.7 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (71.3 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    71.3 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher base power
    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
    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

6.0
Gonam Tech
≈ estimated
16/02/2022
Hands-on review · game tests and office use
Verdict
AMD A8-7600 is a mixed bag, worth buying only with an existing FM2 board and modest expectations.
8.0
BestRice
≈ estimated
24/09/2017
Hands-on test · gaming benchmarks on a budget PC build
Verdict
AMD A8-7600 is a solid budget build for getting into PC gaming, though it needs low settings and 720p.
7.0
Sean J.R. Russel
≈ estimated
29/12/2016
Game test · The Witcher 3 at 720p lowest settings
Verdict
AMD A8-7600 plays The Witcher 3 at low settings and 720p, but a dedicated graphics card is recommended.
8.0
Sean J.R. Russel
≈ estimated
17/03/2016
Gaming test · Dirt Rally at three graphics settings
Verdict
AMD A8-7600 ran Dirt Rally at frame rates from the high 20s to the mid 50s, which the creator called amazing.
7.0
Sean J.R. Russel
≈ estimated
13/03/2016
Gaming test · The Crew frame rates at 720p and 1080p
Verdict
AMD A8-7600 delivers good 720p results in The Crew, given the game's optimization, though 1080p is far from playable.
7.0
Sean J.R. Russel
≈ estimated
11/03/2016
Gaming test · GTA V at different resolutions and settings
Verdict
AMD A8-7600 is playable in GTA V at low settings and near-HD resolution, but Full HD is too slow.
9.0
PC Perspective
≈ estimated
14/01/2014
Launch review · benchmarks against Intel and earlier AMD chips
Verdict
AMD A8-7600 offers strong value and efficiency for small form factor builds, though it trails Intel in single-threaded work.
9.0
Austin Evans
≈ estimated
17/01/2014
Short review · gaming tests in Minecraft, Battlefield 4 and others
Verdict
AMD A8-7600 is a solid step forward for gaming and the pick for a budget gaming build.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
digitalfoundry.net
≈ estimated
08/02/2014
Gaming test · Memory speed
Verdict
The AMD A8-7600 runs 720p games well, but most tested titles are out of reach at 1080p and performance depends heavily on fast DDR3 memory.
8.0
expertreviews.co.uk
✓ explicit
14/01/2014
Benchmark test · Real-world games
Verdict
The AMD A8-7600 handles everyday desktop work and 720p Dirt Showdown well, but struggles with demanding games like Crysis 3.
8.0
techspot.com
✓ explicit
23/01/2014
Architecture overview · Launch preview
Verdict
The AMD A8-7600 brings new Steamroller cores and shared memory for the CPU and graphics on an FM2+ board, but its graphics clock is lower than Richland's.
7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
21/01/2014
Benchmark test · Intel comparison
Verdict
The AMD A8-7600 has the best graphics performance at 45W, but Intel's Core i3-4330 wins most CPU-heavy tasks.
6.5
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
14/01/2014
Launch overview · Feature breakdown
Verdict
The AMD A8-7600 is one of the first chips with a shared CPU and graphics memory pool, but its top CPU clock is held back at high power settings.
9.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
17/01/2014
Benchmark test · Richland comparison
Verdict
The AMD A8-7600 beats its Richland predecessor in CPU and graphics performance, but draws more power under full load and struggles at full HD.
4.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
17/01/2014
Lab test · Power and gaming
Verdict
The AMD A8-7600 is a modest update with low idle power, but its CPU trails rivals and its graphics barely beat the A10-6800K.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A8-7600

  • Strong integrated GPU performance compared to similarly priced Intel chips of its era
  • Configurable TDP allows switching between 45W and 65W for better efficiency or power
  • Excellent value for budget-conscious home theater PCs (HTPCs) and office builds
  • Supports HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture) for improved compute-heavy task efficiency
  • Performs roughly on par with higher-tier previous-generation A10 APUs at much lower power

What customers don't like about AMD A8-7600

  • Weak single-threaded and raw CPU performance compared to Intel Core i3 and i5 competitors
  • Highly dependent on fast, dual-channel RAM; single-stick configurations significantly bottleneck speed
  • Struggles with modern, high-demand games, often requiring 720p or low settings for playability
  • Limited upgrade path due to the older FM2+ socket architecture
  • Locked multiplier prevents easy overclocking compared to 'K' series AMD variants

Verdict

The AMD A8-7600 is a 28nm 'Kaveri' architecture quad-core APU designed for the FM2+ socket, featuring a base clock of 3.1GHz and a turbo frequency up to 3.8GHz. It integrates Radeon R7 graphics with 6 GPU cores (384 shaders) clocked at 720MHz and supports DDR3 memory up to 2133MHz. A standout characteristic is its configurable TDP, allowing users to toggle between a 65W performance mode and a power-efficient 45W mode. Its main pros include strong integrated graphics performance for its class, making it ideal for HTPCs or budget small-form-factor builds, and its efficient performance-per-watt compared to previous generations. However, it suffers from a lack of an unlocked multiplier for traditional overclocking, relies heavily on expensive high-speed dual-channel RAM to avoid bottlenecks, and has relatively weak single-threaded CPU performance compared to contemporary Intel i3 competitors.

Compare AMD A8-7600 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 A8-7600 and other processors

No results found