AMD A10-5800K vs AMD A6-9400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two AMD desktop processors into very different usage profiles. The A6-9400, built on the newer Bristol Ridge design, shows its strength in modern multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench results are consistent across all versions of the test: R15 multicore at 232 points, R20 multicore at 969 points, and R23 multicore at 2309 points. These are the only Cinebench scores in the database for this chip, and they paint a picture of a processor that handles contemporary rendering and encoding tasks with reasonable efficiency.

The A10-5800K takes a completely different path. Its benchmark presence is limited to Geekbench, where it scores 1102 in multicore and 454 in singlecore. There are no Cinebench results recorded for this chip, which suggests its testing history focused on older application suites. The A10-5800K is an end-of-life product with a 2012 release date, so its benchmark coverage reflects that era of software. Its wins, if any, would come from legacy applications that were designed around the Piledriver architecture.

The database shows zero head-to-head benchmark wins for either processor. This is a direct result of the fact that the two chips share no common benchmark tests in the recorded data. The A6-9400 was tested with Cinebench versions R15, R20, and R23, while the A10-5800K was tested with Geekbench multicore and singlecore. Without overlapping tests, direct comparison is impossible from the raw scores alone. The use-case split therefore comes down to which software generation you are targeting.

For modern workloads, the A6-9400 is the clear choice based on the Cinebench evidence. For legacy software that relies on older instruction sets and thread scheduling, the A10-5800K with its four physical cores may hold an advantage, though the lack of overlapping benchmarks means this cannot be confirmed from the database. The A6-9400 remains in active production, making it the more future-proof option for systems assembled today. The A10-5800K is end-of-life, so its relevance is limited to existing platforms or retro builds.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras at AMD. The A6-9400 uses the Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, built on a 28 nm process node at GlobalFoundries. The A10-5800K uses the older Piledriver architecture under the Trinity codename, built on a 32 nm node, also at GlobalFoundries. The newer node gives the A6-9400 a transistor count of 3,100 million, while the A10-5800K has only 1,303 million transistors. Die sizes are surprisingly similar at 250 mm² for the A6-9400 and 246 mm² for the A10-5800K.

Core counts differ significantly. The A6-9400 has 2 cores and 2 threads, while the A10-5800K has 4 cores and 4 threads. This means the older chip has twice the physical core count, which historically helped in multi-threaded scenarios that could scale across cores. However, the newer Excavator cores in the A6-9400 are more efficient per clock, as evidenced by its competitive Cinebench scores despite having half the cores.

Cache configurations also differ. The A6-9400 has 160 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of shared L2 cache. The A10-5800K has 192 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of shared L2 cache. The larger cache pool on the A10-5800K was designed for the older architecture's higher latency memory subsystem. Neither processor has L3 cache available in the database.

Memory support is a major generational split. The A6-9400 supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The A10-5800K supports DDR3 memory, also dual-channel, but with lower bandwidth at 29.9 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage for the newer chip directly benefits memory-intensive workloads. Neither chip supports ECC memory.

PCI Express capability differs as well. The A6-9400 provides Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The A10-5800K provides Gen 2, which is half the bandwidth per lane of Gen 3. This affects expansion card performance and integrated GPU communication. The integrated graphics also differ: Radeon R5 on the A6-9400 versus Radeon HD 7660D on the A10-5800K.

Clock speeds favor the older chip. The A6-9400 runs at 3.40 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The A10-5800K runs at 3.80 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. The A10-5800K also has an unlocked multiplier, while the A6-9400 does not. This makes the older chip more overclocking-friendly, though its higher default clocks already push it ahead in raw frequency. The thermal envelope reflects this: 65 W TDP for the A6-9400 versus 100 W TDP for the A10-5800K.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The A10-5800K has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the A6-9400 has only 2 cores and 2 threads.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The A6-9400 supports DDR4 memory, while the A10-5800K supports DDR3 memory. Both use dual-channel configurations.

Q: Which chip has higher clock speeds?

A: The A10-5800K runs at 3.80 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost, compared to the A6-9400's 3.40 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The A6-9400 is listed as active production, while the A10-5800K is end-of-life.

Q: Can the A10-5800K be overclocked?

A: Yes, it has an unlocked multiplier. The A6-9400 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The A6-9400 has a 65 W TDP, while the A10-5800K has a 100 W TDP.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across most core specifications. The A6-9400 uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process, while the A10-5800K uses Piledriver on a 32 nm process. Transistor count is 3,100 million versus 1,303 million, respectively. Die size is 250 mm² versus 246 mm².

Core and thread counts differ: 2 cores and 2 threads for the A6-9400, 4 cores and 4 threads for the A10-5800K. Clock speeds favor the older chip: 3.40/3.70 GHz for the A6-9400 versus 3.80/4.20 GHz for the A10-5800K. TDP is 65 W versus 100 W.

Cache configurations differ: 160 KB L1 and 1 MB shared L2 for the A6-9400, 192 KB L1 and 4 MB shared L2 for the A10-5800K. Memory support is DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth for the A6-9400, DDR3 with 29.9 GB/s for the A10-5800K. PCIe is Gen 3 with 8 lanes for the A6-9400, Gen 2 for the A10-5800K.

Integrated graphics differ: Radeon R5 for the A6-9400, Radeon HD 7660D for the A10-5800K. Sockets are incompatible: AM4 for the A6-9400, FM2 for the A10-5800K. The A6-9400 has a locked multiplier, while the A10-5800K is unlocked. Release dates are far apart: 2019 for the A6-9400, 2012 for the A10-5800K. Production status is active versus end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database is empty, and the win counts are zero for both processors. This means there is no directly comparable score between the two chips. The A6-9400 has Cinebench R15 multicore at 232, R20 multicore at 969, R20 singlecore at 136, R23 multicore at 2309, and R23 singlecore at 326. The A10-5800K has Geekbench multicore at 1102 and Geekbench singlecore at 454.

Because the benchmark suites do not overlap, the data does not allow a direct score-to-score comparison. What can be inferred comes from the average benchmark scores and percentiles. The A6-9400 has an average benchmark score of 794, while the A10-5800K has an average of 778. The A6-9400 sits in the 21st percentile of all CPUs, and the A10-5800K also sits in the 21st percentile.

The A6-9400's nearest rivals include the AMD A10-5800B with an average score of 794 and a delta of 0.1%, the AMD A10-7850K at 796 with a delta of -0.3%, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G at 797 with a delta of -0.3%, and the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 at 790 with a delta of 0.5%. These close deltas show the A6-9400 performing in a tight cluster around the 794-797 range.

The A10-5800K's nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium G4520 at 778 with a delta of 0%, the AMD Athlon X4 760K at 777 with a delta of 0.2%, the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 at 776 with a delta of 0.3%, and the Intel Core i3-7100 at 781 with a delta of -0.4%. The A10-5800K performs within a narrow band of 776-781.

The average score gap between the two chips is 16 points, which is less than 2.1% of the A10-5800K's average. This is a very small difference in overall performance, despite the architectural gap of seven years between releases. The newer chip achieves this parity with half the cores, which speaks to the efficiency gains of the Excavator architecture over Piledriver. The higher memory bandwidth and PCIe Gen 3 support on the A6-9400 may also contribute to its competitive average score.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on platform and software generation. For anyone building a new system today, the A6-9400 is the only viable choice between these two, as it remains in active production and supports the AM4 socket with DDR4 memory. Its average benchmark score of 794 is higher than the A10-5800K's 778, despite having half the cores. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 2309 and singlecore score of 326 demonstrate that this chip can handle modern rendering tasks, especially given its 28 nm process and 65 W TDP.

The A10-5800K should only be considered by those maintaining an existing FM2 platform or seeking a legacy DDR3 system. Its four cores and higher clock speeds up to 4.20 GHz give it an edge in older software that was optimized for multi-core Piledriver designs. The unlocked multiplier is a bonus for enthusiasts who are comfortable overclocking, though the 100 W TDP requires adequate cooling.

The percentile placement at 21 for both chips indicates they occupy the same overall performance tier in the database. The A6-9400 achieves this with modern efficiency, while the A10-5800K achieves it with raw core count and frequency. Neither chip competes with modern mid-range processors, which is expected given their respective release dates and market positioning.

For software compatibility, the A6-9400 is the safer bet. Its DDR4 support matches current motherboard standards, and its PCIe Gen 3 lanes provide better bandwidth for modern GPUs. The A10-5800K's DDR3 and PCIe Gen 2 are legacy standards that limit its usefulness in current hardware ecosystems.

The integrated graphics difference matters for budget builds without a discrete GPU. The Radeon R5 in the A6-9400 is a newer generation than the Radeon HD 7660D in the A10-5800K, though the database does not provide direct graphics benchmarks to quantify the difference. The A6-9400's lower TDP also means less strain on entry-level power supplies.

In summary, the A6-9400 is the recommended processor for new builds, legacy software compatibility, and energy-efficient systems. The A10-5800K is the choice for FM2 platform owners who need to replace a failed chip or want to maximize an existing DDR3 system with an unlocked multiplier. The 16-point average score difference favors the newer chip, but the lack of overlapping benchmarks means users should select based on platform needs rather than raw score comparisons.