AMD A10-9700E vs AMD A8-9600 Comparison
AMD A10-9700E
A8-9600
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD A10-9700E vs AMD A8-9600
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data is remarkably consistent: the AMD A8-9600 wins every single recorded Cinebench test against the AMD A10-9700E, though by margins that are narrow across the board. The largest recorded advantage comes in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the A8-9600 scores 2797 against the A10-9700E's 2762, a delta of 1.3%. That same test in single-core shows a 1% edge, with scores of 394 and 390 respectively.
The pattern holds in the older Cinebench releases. In R15 multicore, the A8-9600 posts 281 versus 278, a 1.1% lead. In R20, the multicore result is 1174 against 1160 (1.2% delta), and the single-core result is 165 against 163, again a 1.2% delta. The A8-9600 therefore claims all five head-to-head benchmark wins, with no test going to the A10-9700E.
What these deltas mean in practical terms: the A8-9600 is consistently about one percent faster in every workload captured by the database. That is a small but uniform advantage. The average benchmark score tells the same story, with the A8-9600 at 962 and the A10-9700E at 951, a roughly 1.2% gap in the aggregate. Neither processor moves the needle in its percentile ranking, with the A8-9600 sitting at the 26th percentile among all CPUs and the A10-9700E at the 25th percentile. The slight edge in every individual test translates into a slightly higher overall standing, but both parts occupy the same performance tier.
The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce this picture. The A8-9600's closest competitor in the database, the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T, averages 963 with a delta of -0.1%, meaning the A8-9600 is statistically tied with it. The Intel Core i3-4360T also scores 963, again a -0.1% delta. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 trails at 958, putting the A8-9600 ahead by 0.4%. The Intel Celeron N5100 leads slightly at 966, a -0.5% delta against the A8-9600. For the A10-9700E, the Intel Core i7-5500U averages 953 (-0.2%), the Intel Xeon W3570 averages 955 (-0.4%), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U averages 947 (0.4% ahead of the A10-9700E), and the Intel Celeron N5105 averages 955 (-0.4%).
The verdict from the raw numbers is clear: the A8-9600 is the faster chip, but the difference is barely outside measurement noise. Anyone choosing between these two should understand that the performance gap is real but tiny, roughly one percent in every workload the database records.
Architecture Differences
Both processors share the same foundational design. They are built on AMD's Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename, fabricated on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Both integrate 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The cache configuration is identical: 320 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2, and no L3 cache on either part. Memory support matches as well, with dual-channel DDR4 and a measured memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported on either chip. Both use AMD Socket AM4, provide PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, and integrate Radeon R7 graphics. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.
The differences are confined to clock speeds and power envelope. The A8-9600 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, with a TDP of 65 watts. The A10-9700E starts lower at 3.00 GHz base but boosts higher to 3.50 GHz, all while drawing only 35 watts. That is the defining architectural contrast: the A10-9700E trades a slightly lower base clock for a higher boost ceiling and a dramatically lower power draw. The 65-watt versus 35-watt TDP gap means the A10-9700E is designed for thermally constrained systems, while the A8-9600 is allowed to run hotter and consume more power.
Despite the A10-9700E's higher boost clock, the benchmark results show the A8-9600 winning every test. This suggests that the A8-9600 sustains its higher base clock more effectively in the Cinebench workloads, or that the 65-watt power budget allows it to hold performance more consistently. The A10-9700E's 3.50 GHz boost is only a 0.10 GHz advantage over the A8-9600's 3.40 GHz boost, and that appears insufficient to overcome the A8-9600's 0.10 GHz base-clock lead. In single-threaded tests, the A8-9600's 3.10 GHz base clock likely matters more than the A10-9700E's fleeting 3.50 GHz boost.
Both parts launched on the same date, 2017-07-26, and both remain in active production. The part numbers differ, with the A8-9600 carrying AD9600AGABBOXAD9600AGM44AB and the A10-9700E carrying AD9700AHM44AB, but this is a packaging detail rather than an architectural one.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The AMD A8-9600 has an average benchmark score of 962, while the AMD A10-9700E averages 951. That is a gap of roughly 1.2%, consistent with the per-test deltas.
Q: Does the AMD A10-9700E ever win any benchmark in the database?
A: No. The head-to-head data shows 5 wins for the AMD A8-9600 and 0 wins for the AMD A10-9700E across all recorded Cinebench tests.
Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?
A: The AMD A8-9600 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the AMD A10-9700E has a TDP of 35 watts. The A10-9700E consumes nearly half the power despite having the same 4-core, 4-thread configuration.
Q: Do the two processors share the same cache layout?
A: Yes. Both have 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present on either part.
Q: Is there any difference in integrated graphics?
A: No. Both the AMD A8-9600 and the AMD A10-9700E integrate Radeon R7 graphics.
Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?
A: The AMD A10-9700E boosts to 3.50 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the AMD A8-9600's 3.40 GHz boost. The A8-9600 compensates with a 3.10 GHz base clock versus 3.00 GHz on the A10-9700E.
Specification Differences
| Specification | AMD A8-9600 | AMD A10-9700E |
|---|---|---|
| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.00 GHz |
| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.50 GHz |
| TDP | 65 W | 35 W |
| Part Number | AD9600AGABBOXAD9600AGM44AB | AD9700AHM44AB |
| Average Benchmark Score | 962 | 951 |
| Percentile vs All CPUs | 26th | 25th |
All other recorded specifications are identical: 4 cores, 4 threads, 28 nm process, GlobalFoundries foundry, 3,100 million transistors, 250 mm² die, 320 KB L1, 2 MB L2, no L3, DDR4 dual-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC, PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes, Radeon R7 graphics, AMD Socket AM4, Excavator architecture, Bristol Ridge codename, Desktop market segment, Active production status, release date of 2017-07-26, and locked multiplier.
The Verdict
The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD A8-9600 is the faster processor, winning all five head-to-head benchmarks with deltas between 1% and 1.3%. Its average benchmark score of 962 exceeds the A10-9700E's 951, and it ranks one percentile higher at 26th versus 25th. If raw performance is the only criterion, the A8-9600 is the correct choice.
However, the A10-9700E is not without a compelling case. Its 35-watt TDP is nearly half the A8-9600's 65 watts, and it still manages a higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The performance gap is so small that it may be imperceptible in real-world use, while the power difference is substantial. For a system builder prioritizing thermal headroom, silent operation, or low power draw, the A10-9700E offers nearly identical performance at a fraction of the power budget.
The nearest-rival data contextualizes both chips. The A8-9600 trades blows with the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T and Intel Core i3-4360T, both within 0.1% of its average score. The A10-9700E sits similarly close to the Intel Core i7-5500U and Intel Xeon W3570, with deltas of -0.2% and -0.4% respectively. Neither AMD part breaks out of its performance tier, but both are competitive within it.
Where Each One Wins
AMD A8-9600 wins on raw performance. It leads in every recorded Cinebench test, from R15 multicore (281 versus 278) through R23 single-core (394 versus 390). Its higher base clock of 3.10 GHz appears to deliver sustained performance that the A10-9700E cannot match despite its higher boost ceiling. The 65-watt TDP gives it more headroom to maintain clocks under load. For users who prioritize maximum throughput in rendering or CPU-bound tasks, the A8-9600 is the pick.
AMD A10-9700E wins on efficiency. The 35-watt TDP versus 65 watts is the single largest specification gap between the two chips, and it comes at the cost of only about 1% performance. The A10-9700E's 3.50 GHz boost clock is the highest of the pair, offering a brief burst of speed when needed. In a compact desktop, a home-theater PC, or any build where heat and power consumption matter more than a percent or two of benchmark score, the A10-9700E is the more sensible choice. Both chips share identical memory support, cache, graphics, and socket, so the A10-9700E sacrifices nothing else to achieve its lower power draw.
The database suggests a clean split: performance-oriented buyers take the A8-9600, efficiency-oriented buyers take the A10-9700E. The 1% performance delta is real but minor, while the 30-watt TDP delta is significant. Neither chip outclasses the other by a wide margin in any dimension, which makes the decision a matter of power budget versus raw score.