CPU Comparison

The AMD A8-7680 and AMD A10-9700 are two quad-core desktop processors that appear nearly identical on paper, yet benchmark results reveal a consistent, albeit narrow, edge for the A8-7680 across every tested workload. Both chips share the same Excavator architecture, 28 nm process node, and identical clock speeds, but the data shows the A8-7680 winning all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from a dead heat to a 0.3% advantage. The A10-9700, meanwhile, remains a statistical mirror image, separated by fractions of a point in average benchmark score, making this comparison a study in platform differences rather than raw performance deltas.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark distribution is unusually lopsided: the AMD A8-7680 secures all five head-to-head victories, while the AMD A10-9700 claims zero outright wins. However, the practical significance of these wins is minimal, as the largest margin is a 0.3% difference in Cinebench R15 multicore (303 vs 302). In single-core tests, the two are essentially tied, Cinebench R20 single-core shows identical scores of 178 for both, and Cinebench R23 single-core differs by a single point (425 vs 424). This suggests that for single-threaded applications, neither processor has a meaningful advantage; the data indicates users would be hard-pressed to notice any difference in everyday tasks like web browsing or office productivity.

For multi-threaded workloads, the A8-7680 maintains a slight lead across all three Cinebench multi-core tests. The R20 multicore result (1264 vs 1261) and R23 multicore result (3011 vs 3004) both favor the A8-7680 by 0.2%, while the R15 multicore gap is the largest at 0.3%. These margins are within the noise of typical benchmarking variance, yet the consistency of the A8-7680’s wins across five separate tests points to a small but repeatable performance advantage. The A10-9700’s only consolation is that its average benchmark score (1034) sits just 0.2% behind the A8-7680’s 1036, with nearest rival AMD A12-9800E at 1033 and AMD A10-7890K at 1035, all clustered within a 0.3% band.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Excavator architecture, but they belong to different families and target different platforms. The A8-7680 uses the Carrizo codename and fits the AMD Socket FM2+, while the A10-9700 uses Bristol Ridge and requires AMD Socket AM4. This is the most consequential difference: the A8-7680 is limited to DDR3 memory with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the A10-9700 supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The A10-9700’s memory subsystem offers 12.6% more theoretical bandwidth, yet this does not translate into benchmark wins, a curious outcome that suggests the CPU cores are the bottleneck, not memory throughput.

The silicon itself is identical in several regards: both use 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, pack 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, and share 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 cache with no L3. Integrated graphics are also the same Radeon R7 on both chips. The A10-9700 carries a 65 W TDP versus 45 W for the A8-7680, a 44% higher power envelope that might suggest better sustained performance, yet the data does not support this. PCIe support differs slightly: the A8-7680 lists Gen 3 without lane specification, while the A10-9700 specifies Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), but neither chip’s benchmark results reflect any PCIe-related advantage. Production status also diverges: the A8-7680 remains active, while the A10-9700 is end-of-life.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD A8-7680 is the marginally faster processor, winning every head-to-head benchmark and posting a higher average score (1036 vs 1034). Its 45 W TDP also makes it the more power-efficient choice on paper. However, the performance delta is so small, never exceeding 0.3%, that real-world application differences are effectively zero. The A10-9700’s advantage lies entirely in its platform: DDR4 memory support and the AM4 socket, which offers greater longevity and upgrade paths compared to the FM2+ socket of the A8-7680. Users with an existing FM2+ motherboard would see the A8-7680 as the sensible drop-in upgrade, while those building fresh should favor the A10-9700 for its modern memory standard, despite its end-of-life status. Neither chip is a clear winner on raw compute; the decision hinges on socket compatibility and memory preference rather than benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD A8-7680 leads with an average benchmark score of 1036, while the AMD A10-9700 trails at 1034, a difference of 0.2%.

Q: Do the two processors differ in memory support?

A: Yes. The A8-7680 supports DDR3 with dual-channel memory and 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the A10-9700 supports DDR4 with dual-channel memory and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The A8-7680 has a 45 W TDP, while the A10-9700 has a 65 W TDP, a 20 W difference in favor of the A8-7680.

Q: Are the core and thread counts identical?

A: Yes, both processors feature 4 cores and 4 threads, with the same 3.50 GHz base clock and 3.80 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: Neither, both have identical cache configurations: 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, with no L3 cache.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The A8-7680 is listed as active, while the A10-9700 is marked as end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multicore test delivers the largest spread between the two chips. The A8-7680 scores 303 against the A10-9700’s 302, a 0.3% margin that marks the biggest single-benchmark win in this comparison. This test, which stresses all cores simultaneously, shows the A8-7680 edging ahead despite the A10-9700’s higher memory bandwidth, a sign that the additional DDR4 throughput does not compensate for whatever architectural or platform factors limit the A10-9700.

In Cinebench R20 multicore, the A8-7680 repeats its victory with 1264 versus 1261, a 0.2% lead. The A10-9700’s closest moment comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where both chips score exactly 178, resulting in a tie that the data awards to the A8-7680 by a delta of 0%. Single-threaded performance is effectively identical, as confirmed by the R23 single-core test: 425 for the A8-7680 and 424 for the A10-9700, another 0.2% gap. The R23 multicore test follows the same pattern, with 3011 versus 3004, again favoring the A8-7680 by 0.2%.

The cumulative picture is one of relentless, if tiny, A8-7680 superiority. Across five benchmarks, the A8-7680 wins all five, while the A10-9700 wins none. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: 1036 for the A8-7680 versus 1034 for the A10-9700, with both sitting at the 28th percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rival data places the A10-9700 within 0.3% of the Intel Pentium G4560 (1031), while the A8-7680 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-4558U (1038), positioning both AMD chips in a tight performance cluster where any single point swing could reorder the rankings.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD A8-7680 | AMD A10-9700 |

|---|---|---|

| Socket | AMD Socket FM2+ | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Codename | Carrizo | Bristol Ridge |

| Generation | A8 (Carrizo) | A10 (Bristol Ridge) |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2018-10-25 | 2017-07-26 |

| Part Number | AD7680ACABBOX, AD7680ACABCBX | AD9700AGM44AB |

The two chips share identical core counts, clock speeds, cache sizes, process node, die size, transistor count, and integrated graphics, making the table above the complete set of distinguishing features. The A8-7680 was released over a year later and remains in production, while the A10-9700 has been discontinued. The most impactful difference for buyers is the socket and memory type: FM2+ with DDR3 on the A8-7680 versus AM4 with DDR4 on the A10-9700. The 65 W TDP of the A10-9700 is notably higher, yet it does not yield any benchmark advantage, the data consistently shows the lower-power A8-7680 winning. This suggests the A10-9700’s extra power budget is consumed by its memory controller or platform overhead rather than by CPU performance gains.