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 Athlon X4 880K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£80PassMark multi-core score:3632N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):95 W

AMD Athlon X4 880K 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 Athlon X4 880K
6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

4.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 67% of processors
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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 51% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 51%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 68%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 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 72% of models

80%

7.9

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 72%
?

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-athlon-x4-880k
amd-athlon-x4-880k
Where to buy
    N/A~ £80
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 Athlon X4 880K

Based on 5 · 4

Reviewers love its overclocking and gaming performance, but the missing integrated graphics and dead-end platform are clear drawbacks.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Athlon X4 880K

Based on 26 owners sharing their experience in online comments

42%positive8%mixed50%negative

Owners praise smooth gaming and overclocking, but low frame rates, GPU bottlenecks, and cooling trouble hold it back.

What owners dislike

  • The stock cooler runs very loud and hot, reaching around 60°C idle and near 97°C under gaming load, sometimes causing restarts.4
  • In games the GPU sits at only 12–30% usage while the CPU hits 100%, so the processor bottlenecks the graphics card.3
  • Owners with a GTX 950 or 1050 Ti report only about 15–40 FPS in demanding games, well below what they expected.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Athlon X4 880K

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

4.6
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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 51% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.3
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, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, XOP, TBM
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, XOP, TBM instruction sets, which is broader support than 54% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
4.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 4.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x4.0 GHz which is higher than that of 55.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,632
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,632 in PassMark, which is lower than 81% 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
?
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)
?
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
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
95 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 95 W which is higher than that of 87.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
95 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 95 W which is higher than that of 87.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% 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 Athlon X4 880K vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 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.
  • 27.6 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (72.4 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    72.4 °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.
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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 72% of models

    80%

    7.9

    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.
    8.0 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
  • 3.13x cheaper
    AMD Athlon X4 880K is cheaper than the average processor (£80 vs £250).
    £80 vs £250
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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 72% of models

    80%

    7.9

    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.
    8.0 vs 6.7
  • 3.13x cheaper
    AMD Athlon X4 880K is cheaper than the average processor (£80 vs £250).
    £80 vs £250
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 12 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (40 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    40 vs 28
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x4.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 27.6 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (72.4 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    72.4 °C vs 100 °C
  • 75.7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,266 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,266 vs 5,209
  • 68.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,632 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,632 vs 11,469
  • 36.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,621 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,621 vs 2,558
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Godavari vs Kaby Lake).
    Godavari 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
  • 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 36.1% lower sentiment score
    4.6 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
  • 5 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
    December 2015
    2015 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, XOP, TBM 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, AVX, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, XOP, TBM vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 75.7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,266 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,266 vs 5,209
  • 68.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,632 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,632 vs 11,469
  • 36.6% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,621 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,621 vs 2,558
  • 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.
  • 4.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.4 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 (Godavari vs Kaby Lake).
    Godavari 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 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
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.11x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W
  • 27.6 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (72.4 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    72.4 °C vs 100 °C
  • 2.11x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

5.0
GECID Benchmarks
≈ estimated
16/06/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and cooler tests
Verdict
AMD Athlon X4 880K has no special edge over rivals and is only a cheap upgrade for existing FM2+ boards.
9.0
TheFullSetup
≈ estimated
08/05/2016
Build tour and review · gaming performance and benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Athlon X4 880K is a good budget gaming chip, especially for overclocking enthusiasts and people upgrading from older APUs.
7.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
19/04/2016
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and overclocking
Verdict
AMD Athlon X4 880K is a solid mid-range pick for builds with a discrete GPU, but the cheaper 860K is the better buy for most.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
17/03/2016
Benchmark review · Overclocking test
Verdict
The Athlon X4 880K is a quiet, overclockable quad-core for budget gamers who add a separate graphics card, but its FM2+ socket leaves little room to upgrade.
9.0
relaxedtech.com
≈ estimated
14/07/2016
Head-to-head test · Pentium G4400
Verdict
The AMD Athlon X4 880K is an unlocked quad-core chip that suits demanding games better than the Pentium G4400, though single-core speed trails.
9.0
goldfries.com
≈ estimated
15/05/2016
Lab test · Video conversion
Verdict
The AMD Athlon X4 880K is a four-core chip that nearly matches a Core i3 in video conversion and is best paired with a separate graphics card.
8.0
uk.pcmag.com
≈ estimated
29/06/2016
Lab test · Gaming and multimedia
Verdict
The AMD Athlon X4 880K is a solid four-core chip that handles 1080p and 1440p gaming and overclocks to 4.5GHz, though video editing is a weak point.
8.4
ginjfo.com
✓ explicit
22/04/2016
Hands-on test · Gaming build
Verdict
The AMD Athlon X4 880K is a four-core chip whose unlocked multiplier suits overclocking, but it needs a separate graphics card for gaming.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
22/05/2016
Lab test · Overclock and cooling
Verdict
The AMD Athlon X4 880K is a four-core chip that overclocks easily to 4.4GHz and suits builders who pair it with a discrete graphics card.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Athlon X4 880K

  • Excellent value for budget-conscious gamers pairing it with a discrete GPU
  • Comes with a high-quality, 'near-silent' 125W stock cooler that handles heat well
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for easy overclocking (frequently hitting 4.5GHz)
  • Quad-core design meets the minimum requirements for many modern titles that fail to run on dual-core CPUs
  • Higher stock and turbo clock speeds (4.0GHz / 4.2GHz) compared to previous Athlon models

What customers don't like about AMD Athlon X4 880K

  • Lacks integrated graphics, requiring the additional purchase of a dedicated video card
  • Dead-end FM2+ socket offers no viable future upgrade path to newer architectures like Ryzen
  • High power consumption (95W TDP) and high operating temperatures, especially when overclocked
  • Weak single-threaded performance compared to Intel competitors like the Core i3-6100
  • Relies on older DDR3 memory rather than faster, more modern DDR4

Verdict

The AMD Athlon X4 880K is a quad-core desktop processor built on the 28nm Steamroller architecture for the FM2+ socket, featuring a base clock speed of 4.0 GHz and a turbo frequency up to 4.2 GHz. As a 'Godavari' series chip, it includes 4 MB of L2 cache, supports DDR3-2133 memory, and operates at a 95W TDP. Main pros include its unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking (reaching up to 4.5 GHz), the inclusion of a high-quality 'Near Silent' 125W stock cooler, and excellent value for budget gaming builds that utilize a discrete graphics card. However, significant cons include the lack of integrated graphics, aging single-core performance compared to modern standards, and high power consumption that can lead to thermal throttling under heavy loads.

Compare AMD Athlon X4 880K 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 Athlon X4 880K and other processors

No results found