AMD A10-7870K vs AMD Athlon X4 840 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity about the performance hierarchy between these two AMD Socket FM2+ processors. The AMD A10-7870K wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all five tests with a consistent margin between 4.5% and 4.8%. The Athlon X4 840 does not record a single victory in any of the five Cinebench tests.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the A10-7870K scores 299 against the Athlon X4 840's 285, a delta of -4.7% when viewed from the Athlon's perspective. That translates to roughly 14 points of separation, a modest but real gap. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the spread widens slightly in percentage terms: the A10-7870K posts 1249 while the Athlon X4 840 manages 1189, a 4.8% difference. The single-core results follow the same pattern—the A10-7870K delivers 176 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 168 for the Athlon X4 840, a 4.5% edge.

The newer Cinebench R23 tests reinforce the trend. In multi-core, the A10-7870K scores 2975 against 2833 for the Athlon X4 840, again a 4.8% gap. In single-core, the A10-7870K's 420 beats the Athlon X4 840's 400 by 4.8%. The consistency of these margins across different Cinebench versions suggests a stable performance differential rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

It is notably both processors sit at the same average benchmark score of 975 overall, and both occupy the 26th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Their nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-4130 and Intel Core i3-4150T, both with an average score of 975 and a 0% delta, as well as the Intel Core i5-5257U with an average score of 976 and a -0.1% delta. The head-to-head data, however, shows that within this pair, the A10-7870K holds a clear, if narrow, advantage across all measured Cinebench workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The A10-7870K is the winner in every benchmark category present in the data. There are no tests where the Athlon X4 840 comes out ahead. This makes the use-case split straightforward: for any workload represented by Cinebench R15, R20, or R23—whether single-threaded or multi-threaded—the A10-7870K delivers the higher score.

The A10-7870K also benefits from having integrated Radeon R7 graphics, a feature entirely absent from the Athlon X4 840, which has no integrated graphics listed. While the benchmark data does not include GPU-specific tests, the presence of integrated graphics in the A10-7870K means it can handle display output and basic graphics tasks without a discrete GPU, something the Athlon X4 840 cannot do.

The Athlon X4 840 does not win any benchmark. Its only potential advantage lies outside the performance data: it carries a lower TDP of 65 watts compared to the A10-7870K's 95 watts. This means the Athlon X4 840 will draw less power under load, which could be relevant for systems with limited cooling or power delivery, though no thermal or power consumption benchmarks are included in the data to quantify this difference.

For multi-core rendering tasks, the A10-7870K's lead is consistent at roughly 4.8% across R20 and R23 multi-core tests. For single-core tasks, the margin is similar at 4.5% to 4.8%. The data does not show any scenario where the Athlon X4 840's lower clock speeds or missing integrated graphics translate into a performance win.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD A10-7870K is the faster processor in this pairing. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with margins ranging from 4.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core to 4.8% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The Cinebench R15 multi-core margin sits at 4.7%.

Users who prioritize raw CPU performance in Cinebench workloads should select the A10-7870K. Its higher base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.10 GHz, compared to the Athlon X4 840's 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, align with the observed performance advantage. The A10-7870K also includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, making it a more complete package for systems that do not plan to use a discrete GPU.

The Athlon X4 840, however, is not without a rationale. Its 65-watt TDP is substantially lower than the A10-7870K's 95 watts, which could matter in compact or thermally constrained builds. Both processors share the same average benchmark score of 975 and the same 26th percentile ranking, so in the broader context of all CPUs, they are peers. The choice between them hinges on whether the A10-7870K's consistent benchmark lead and integrated graphics justify its higher power draw.

For anyone building a Socket FM2+ system and choosing between these two, the benchmark data recommends the A10-7870K unless power consumption is the overriding concern. The performance gap is real but modest—roughly 5%—so the Athlon X4 840 remains a viable alternative for users who prioritize lower TDP over the small but consistent performance edge.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD A10-7870K wins all five head-to-head benchmarks. It records victories in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core.

Q: What is the largest performance margin between the two processors?

A: The largest margin is 4.8%, observed in three tests: Cinebench R20 multi-core, Cinebench R23 multi-core, and Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: Do both processors have the same average benchmark score?

A: Yes, both the AMD Athlon X4 840 and the AMD A10-7870K have an average benchmark score of 975.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The AMD A10-7870K includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The AMD Athlon X4 840 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: What is the difference in TDP between the two processors?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 840 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the AMD A10-7870K has a TDP of 95 watts.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD A10-7870K has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The AMD Athlon X4 840 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share a common architectural foundation. They are built on the Steamroller architecture, with the Athlon X4 840 using the Kaveri codename and the A10-7870K using the Godaveri codename. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process node at GlobalFoundries, with identical transistor counts of 2,411 million and die sizes of 245 mm².

The cache configurations are identical between the two. Each has 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache listed for either. Memory support is also the same: both support DDR3 memory in dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory.

Both processors use the AMD Socket FM2+ and support PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Both have unlocked multipliers and are classified in the desktop market segment. Both are marked as end-of-life production status.

The key architectural difference lies in the integrated graphics. The A10-7870K includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics, while the Athlon X4 840 has none. This is the only functional difference in their feature sets beyond clock speeds and TDP. The codename difference—Kaveri versus Godaveri—reflects the A10-7870K's later release, but the underlying architecture and manufacturing details are the same.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields. The most obvious is clock speed: the Athlon X4 840 runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, while the A10-7870K runs at 3.90 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost. This gives the A10-7870K a 0.80 GHz advantage at base clock and a 0.30 GHz advantage at boost clock.

TDP is another differentiator. The Athlon X4 840 is rated at 65 watts, while the A10-7870K is rated at 95 watts. This 30-watt difference represents a significant power consumption gap.

The integrated graphics field differs as well: the A10-7870K includes Radeon R7, while the Athlon X4 840 has no integrated graphics listed. The release dates also differ, with the Athlon X4 840 released on 2014-08-11 and the A10-7870K released on 2015-05-27.

The part numbers are distinct, reflecting the different product SKUs. All other major specifications—cores, threads, socket, architecture, process node, foundry, transistors, die size, cache, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe configuration, market segment, production status, and multiplier unlock status—are identical between the two.