AMD A10-6800K vs AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD A10-6800K and AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G occupy adjacent positions in the database’s overall performance ranking, with the A10-6800K at the 22nd percentile and the R1606G at the 21st percentile. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the A10-6800K posts an average of 809, while the R1606G records 797, a difference of only 1.5% in favor of the older desktop part. This near-parity is reflected in their nearest rival lists, where both are bracketed by comparable chips within a half-percent band.

The A10-6800K’s strongest recorded results come from Geekbench. It scores 1,140 in Geekbench multicore and 478 in Geekbench singlecore. These are the only benchmark entries available for this processor in the database. The R1606G, by contrast, has no Geekbench entries; its recorded tests are from Cinebench. In Cinebench R15, the R1606G scores 317 multicore and 139 singlecore. In Cinebench R23, it scores 1,842 multicore and 888 singlecore. Because the two chips were tested under different suites, direct cross-suite comparisons are not possible from the recorded data. Still, the average scores place them within a fraction of each other, indicating that in the database’s aggregate metric, neither holds a meaningful overall edge.

The nearest rivals for the A10-6800K include the Intel Core i7-870S at an identical average score of 809 (0% delta), the AMD Athlon X4 850 at 806 (0.4% ahead), and the Intel Xeon X5482 at 805 (0.4% ahead). The Intel Core i7-5550U trails by 0.5% with an average of 813. For the R1606G, the closest competitor is the AMD A10-7850K at 796 (0.1% ahead of the R1606G), followed by the AMD A6-9400 and AMD A10-5800B, both at 794 (0.3% ahead). The Intel Pentium Silver J5040 leads the R1606G by 0.5% with an average of 801. These tight margins reinforce the conclusion that the two processors are effectively matched in the database’s composite scoring.

The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, meaning there are no shared test results that allow a direct comparison on identical workloads. The A10-6800K wins zero recorded head-to-head tests, and the R1606G also wins zero. The database therefore provides no single benchmark where both chips were measured under the same conditions. The analysis must rely on their respective individual scores and the aggregate averages.

Where Each One Wins

The A10-6800K wins on raw multi-threaded desktop workload in the Geekbench suite, where its 1,140 multicore score reflects its four physical cores and four threads. Its 4.10 GHz base clock and 4.40 GHz boost clock are the highest clock figures in this comparison, and those frequencies likely contribute to its Geekbench singlecore result of 478. The processor also carries a larger L2 cache at 4 MB total, compared to the R1606G’s 512 KB per core (which totals 1 MB for two cores), though the R1606G adds a shared 4 MB L3 cache that the A10-6800K lacks entirely.

The R1606G wins on efficiency and architecture generation. Its 25 watt TDP is one-quarter of the A10-6800K’s 100 watt TDP. It uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process, while the A10-6800K uses the older Piledriver architecture on a 32 nm process. The R1606G also supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, versus DDR3 at 34.1 GB/s for the A10-6800K. The R1606G’s PCIe implementation is Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, whereas the A10-6800K uses PCIe Gen 2. The R1606G’s integrated graphics is Radeon Vega 3, a newer generation than the Radeon HD 8670D in the A10-6800K.

In Cinebench R23, the R1606G’s singlecore score of 888 is substantially higher than its R15 singlecore score of 139, reflecting the different workload scaling between the two Cinebench versions. The R1606G’s multicore R23 score of 1,842 is about 5.8 times its R15 multicore score of 317, which is consistent with the heavier multi-threaded load of R23. These internal relationships suggest the R1606G handles both lightly and heavily threaded workloads proportionally well for a dual-core part with simultaneous multi-threading.

The A10-6800K has no Cinebench entries, so its performance in that suite is not recorded. The R1606G has no Geekbench entries, so its performance in that suite is not recorded. The database therefore assigns each processor a win only in the suites where it was measured, but the aggregate average score is the only common metric. In that metric, the A10-6800K leads by 1.5%, a margin that falls within the noise of the nearest rival deltas.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two processors with nearly identical aggregate performance but very different design priorities. The A10-6800K, released in 2013, is a desktop part with a 100 watt TDP, four cores at 4.10 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost, and a 32 nm Piledriver architecture. It achieves an average benchmark score of 809, placing it at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its Geekbench multicore score of 1,140 and singlecore score of 478 are the only recorded test results.

The R1606G, released in 2020, is a mobile/embedded part with a 25 watt TDP, two cores and four threads at 2.60 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost, and a 14 nm Zen architecture. It achieves an average benchmark score of 797, placing it at the 21st percentile. Its Cinebench scores are recorded across two versions, with R15 multicore at 317 and singlecore at 139, and R23 multicore at 1,842 and singlecore at 888.

For a user prioritizing multi-threaded desktop applications as measured by Geekbench, the A10-6800K holds the advantage, offering 1,140 points in multicore and 478 in singlecore. For a user prioritizing power efficiency, memory bandwidth, and a modern architecture, the R1606G is the clear choice, with a 75% lower TDP, DDR4 support, and PCIe Gen 3. The R1606G is also an active production part, while the A10-6800K is end-of-life.

The A10-6800K has a launch MSRP of $142 and an unlocked multiplier, making it a flexible desktop option. The R1606G has no launch MSRP recorded and a locked multiplier, reflecting its embedded focus. The database does not indicate a clear winner on performance alone; the two chips are separated by only 12 points in average score, a 1.5% gap that is smaller than the deltas between either chip and its nearest rivals.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two processors?

A: The A10-6800K has an average benchmark score of 809, while the R1606G has an average of 797, a difference of 12 points, or approximately 1.5% in favor of the A10-6800K.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The A10-6800K has a TDP of 100 watts, while the R1606G has a TDP of 25 watts. The R1606G consumes one-quarter the power of the A10-6800K.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the A10-6800K and the R1606G have ECC memory support set to false in the database.

Q: What are the recorded benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The A10-6800K has Geekbench multicore score of 1,140 and Geekbench singlecore score of 478. The R1606G has Cinebench R15 multicore score of 317, R15 singlecore score of 139, R23 multicore score of 1,842, and R23 singlecore score of 888.

Q: Which processor uses a newer PCIe standard?

A: The R1606G uses PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, while the A10-6800K uses PCIe Gen 2. The R1606G’s PCIe implementation is newer and provides higher bandwidth per lane.

Q: What are the cache configurations?

A: The A10-6800K has 192 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache. The R1606G has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The A10-6800K and R1606G differ across nearly every architectural dimension. The A10-6800K uses the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Richland, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It integrates 1,303 million transistors on a die size of 246 mm². The R1606G uses the Zen architecture, also from GlobalFoundries, built on a 14 nm process. It integrates 3,500 million transistors on a smaller die size of 148 mm². The R1606G’s transistor count is 2.7 times higher despite a 40% smaller die, reflecting the denser 14 nm process.

The core counts differ significantly. The A10-6800K has four cores and four threads, while the R1606G has two cores and four threads. The A10-6800K’s base clock of 4.10 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz are higher than the R1606G’s 2.60 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The A10-6800K’s clocks are higher by 1.50 GHz at base and 0.90 GHz at boost. The R1606G compensates with a newer architecture that delivers higher instructions per clock, as suggested by its Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 888 relative to its lower clock speed.

The cache hierarchy is also distinct. The A10-6800K has 192 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3. The R1606G has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, plus a shared 4 MB L3 cache. For a two-core part, the R1606G’s total L2 is 1 MB, less than the A10-6800K’s 4 MB, but the R1606G gains a 4 MB L3 that the A10-6800K lacks entirely.

Memory support diverges as well. The A10-6800K supports DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 34.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The R1606G supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The R1606G provides 12.6% more memory bandwidth, which can benefit memory-intensive workloads. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The integrated graphics differ in generation. The A10-6800K uses Radeon HD 8670D, while the R1606G uses Radeon Vega 3. The R1606G’s Vega architecture is newer, but the database does not include graphics benchmarks to quantify the difference. The A10-6800K is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier and a part number of AD680KWOHLBOXAD680KWOA44HL. The R1606G is a mobile/embedded part with a locked multiplier and a part number of YE1606C4T2OFG. The production status also differs: the A10-6800K is end-of-life, while the R1606G is active. The A10-6800K was released in 2013 and had a launch MSRP of $142; the R1606G was released in 2020 with no launch MSRP recorded.