AMD A10-9700 vs AMD PRO A10-8770 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unusually one-sided in this pairing. The AMD PRO A10-8770 wins all five recorded Cinebench comparisons, while the AMD A10-9700 does not secure a single victory in the head-to-head results. The performance gap is consistent, though narrow, across every workload category.

In multi-core workloads, the PRO A10-8770 demonstrates a small but repeatable advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the PRO part scoring 306 against 302 for the A10-9700, a 1.3% edge. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows the same pattern: 1276 versus 1261, a 1.2% difference. The R23 multi-core test shows 3040 against 3004, again 1.2% in favor of the PRO chip. These results indicate that for heavily threaded rendering tasks, the PRO A10-8770 maintains a slight but consistent lead.

Single-core performance tells a similar story. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 180 for the PRO A10-8770 versus 178 for the A10-9700, a 1.1% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 429 versus 424, a 1.2% edge. The single-core deltas are nearly identical to the multi-core deltas, suggesting that the advantage is not tied to core scaling but rather to a fundamental per-thread efficiency difference.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this picture. The PRO A10-8770 records an average benchmark score of 1046, while the A10-9700 sits at 1034. The PRO part also ranks at the 29th percentile among all CPUs, one point higher than the A10-9700's 28th percentile. Neither chip is positioned as a high-performance part; both sit in the lower third of the overall CPU distribution.

The nearest rivals for each chip confirm they are closely grouped. The PRO A10-8770's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-6350HQ at an identical average score of 1046, followed by the AMD Athlon X4 950 at 1047 (0.1% ahead), and the AMD PRO A10-9700 itself at 1045 (0.1% behind). The A10-9700's nearest rivals are the AMD A10-7890K at 1035 (0.1% ahead), the AMD A12-9800E at 1033 (0.1% behind), and the AMD A8-7680 at 1036 (0.2% ahead). These tight margins show that all these parts are effectively interchangeable in aggregate performance, though the PRO A10-8770 holds a measurable edge over its direct counterpart.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture. They share the Excavator design, a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, a die size of 250 mm², and a transistor count of 3,100 million. Both have 4 cores and 4 threads, so there is no hyper-threading or equivalent on either chip. The base clock is identical at 3.50 GHz, and the boost clock is also identical at 3.80 GHz. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a supported feature on either part.

The cache hierarchy is identical as well. Both feature 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present. Memory support is DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Neither chip supports ECC memory. Both integrate a Radeon R7 graphics solution, and both use the AMD Socket AM4.

The primary architectural distinction lies in the codename and generation designation. The PRO A10-8770 is listed under the Carrizo codename with the generation label "A10 (Carrizo)", while the A10-9700 uses the Bristol Ridge codename with the generation label "A10 (Bristol Ridge)". The database does not provide performance characteristics that differ based on this codename, and the measured benchmarks show only minor differences. The production status also differs: the PRO A10-8770 is marked as Active, while the A10-9700 is marked as End-of-life.

One notable difference appears in the PCIe specification. The PRO A10-8770 is listed with "Gen 3" support, while the A10-9700 is listed with "Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only)". This suggests a difference in PCIe lane configuration, though the database does not provide benchmark results that isolate this effect. The part numbers differ as well: AD877BAGM44AB for the PRO chip and AD9700AGM44AB for the A10-9700.

The release date is only recorded for the A10-9700, which entered the market on 2017-07-26. The PRO A10-8770's release date is not recorded in the database. Both parts carry the same TDP of 65 W, which positions them as efficient desktop processors rather than high-power parts.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD PRO A10-8770 is the faster processor in every measured benchmark. The margins are small, ranging from 1.1% to 1.3%, but they are consistent across all five Cinebench tests. For users selecting between these two specific parts, the PRO A10-8770 offers a measurable, if modest, performance advantage.

The PRO A10-8770 also has the advantage of active production status, while the A10-9700 is end-of-life. This means the PRO part is more likely to be available for new system builds or replacements. The average benchmark score of 1046 versus 1034 further supports the PRO chip's position.

However, the practical significance of the performance difference should be kept in perspective. A 1.2% to 1.3% delta in Cinebench scores is unlikely to be perceptible in real-world usage. Both chips deliver nearly identical results, and the nearest rival data shows that both parts are surrounded by similarly performing CPUs from both AMD and Intel. The Intel Pentium Gold G5620 matches the PRO A10-8770's average score exactly at 1045, and the Intel Pentium G4560 trails the A10-9700 by only 0.3% at 1031.

For users who already own an A10-9700, the upgrade to a PRO A10-8770 is not justified by the benchmark data alone. The performance gain is too small to warrant a hardware change. For users building a new system and choosing between these two specific parts, the PRO A10-8770 is the better pick based on its consistent benchmark wins and active production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 wins all multi-core tests. It scores 306 versus 302 in Cinebench R15, 1276 versus 1261 in R20, and 3040 versus 3004 in R23.

Q: Is there a difference in single-core performance?

A: Yes, the PRO A10-8770 leads in both single-core tests. It scores 180 versus 178 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 429 versus 424 in R23 single-core.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither chip supports additional threads beyond the physical core count.

Q: What are the clock speeds of these two parts?

A: Both have a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The clocks are identical between the two processors.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: Yes, both use AMD Socket AM4. They also share the same 28 nm process node and Excavator architecture.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The PRO A10-8770 has an average score of 1046, while the A10-9700 has an average score of 1034. The PRO part also ranks at the 29th percentile versus the 28th percentile for the A10-9700.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform: the AMD PRO A10-8770 wins every single comparison. The narrowest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the PRO part scores 180 against 178, a 1.1% advantage. The widest margin is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where 306 beats 302 by 1.3%.

Cinebench R15 multi-core is the largest delta in favor of the PRO A10-8770. A score of 306 against 302 represents a 1.3% improvement, which is the biggest gap recorded across all five tests. This test is more representative of older rendering workloads and shows that the PRO chip's advantage is not confined to the latest benchmark versions.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1276 versus 1261, a 1.2% difference. This test scales the rendering workload more aggressively and often exposes thermal or power limitations. The consistent margin here suggests the PRO A10-8770 maintains its efficiency under load.

Cinebench R23 multi-core follows with 3040 against 3004, again 1.2% in favor of the PRO chip. This is the heaviest multi-core workload in the dataset, and the PRO part still holds its edge. The absolute scores are the highest among the multi-core tests, reflecting the longer render duration in R23.

Single-core results are nearly identical in relative terms. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 180 versus 178, a 1.1% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 429 versus 424, a 1.2% gap. The single-core margins closely mirror the multi-core margins, indicating that the PRO A10-8770's advantage is per-thread rather than a result of better multi-core scaling.

The aggregate data confirms the trend. The PRO A10-8770 holds 5 wins and 0 losses in the head-to-head table. Its average benchmark score of 1046 is 12 points higher than the A10-9700's 1034. The percentile ranking also favors the PRO part: 29th versus 28th among all CPUs.

The nearest rival data places both chips in a tight competitive cluster. The PRO A10-8770 matches the Intel Core i5-6350HQ exactly at 1046, sits within 0.1% of the AMD Athlon X4 950 at 1047, and leads the AMD PRO A10-9700 by 0.1% at 1045. The A10-9700 trails the AMD A10-7890K by 0.1% at 1035, leads the AMD A12-9800E by 0.1% at 1033, and trails the AMD A8-7680 by 0.2% at 1036. These margins are all within the noise of typical benchmark variance, yet the head-to-head results consistently favor the PRO A10-8770.

For users seeking the highest Cinebench scores between these two exact parts, the choice is clear. Every recorded test lands in favor of the AMD PRO A10-8770, with deltas between 1.1% and 1.3%. The A10-9700 does not win a single workload category, making it the weaker option in this direct comparison.