AMD A10 PRO-7850B vs AMD FX-8800P Comparison

The AMD FX-8800P and the AMD A10 PRO-7850B are two takes on the same 28 nm philosophy, and the recorded data tells a story of efficiency versus brute clock speed. Both chips sit in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, both carry an average benchmark score in the low-to-mid 800s, and yet the mobile FX-8800P walks away with every head-to-head benchmark the two share. That a 15-watt Carrizo part outscores a 95-watt Kaveri desktop raises an obvious question: how much of Kaveri's power budget actually translated into performance? The measurements suggest not much.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The FX-8800P wins both shared tests. It takes Geekbench multi-core with a score of 1234 against 1194, a 3.4 percent lead, and Geekbench single-core with 524 against 462, a 13.4 percent lead.

Q: How do their overall database standings compare?

A: They are effectively tied. Both sit in the 22nd percentile versus all CPUs. The FX-8800P has an average benchmark score of 843 while the A10 PRO-7850B records 828, a gap small enough that their rival lists barely overlap in performance tier.

Q: Do they differ in core count or threading?

A: No. Both are 4-core, 4-thread processors. Neither supports simultaneous multi-threading, so the differences in results come from architecture, clocks, and cache rather than thread count.

Q: Which CPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The A10 PRO-7850B, by a wide margin. It runs a 3.70 base clock and boosts to 4.00, against the FX-8800P's 2.10 base and 3.40 boost. Despite those clocks, it loses every shared benchmark.

Q: What integrated graphics does each carry?

A: The FX-8800P pairs a Radeon R7 with 8 compute units. The A10 PRO-7850B also carries a Radeon R7, but the recorded data does not specify its compute unit count.

Q: Are either of these still in production?

A: No. Both are flagged as end-of-life in the database. The A10 PRO-7850B launched first, in 2014, and the FX-8800P followed in 2015.

Architecture Differences

The most meaningful divide here is architectural generation. The FX-8800P is an Excavator design, codenamed Carrizo, while the A10 PRO-7850B is a Steamroller design, codenamed Kaveri. Excavator is the newer of the two cores, and the head-to-head numbers bear that out: the newer architecture wins both shared benchmarks despite operating at substantially lower clock speeds.

Both parts were fabbed by GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm process, so node shrink does not explain the gap. Die sizes are nearly identical, 250 mm² for Carrizo versus 245 mm² for Kaveri, but transistor counts diverge: the FX-8800P packs 3,100 million transistors into its die while the A10 PRO-7850B carries 2,411 million. That is a sizable density improvement for a same-node part, consistent with Excavator's redesigned cores making fuller use of the silicon.

Cache tells a split story. The FX-8800P holds 320 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per module; the A10 PRO-7850B pairs a smaller 256 KB of L1 with a larger 4 MB of L2. Neither chip carries any L3 cache. The database does not break down how many modules each CPU uses, so the per-module L2 figure for Carrizo cannot be converted into a total, but the raw fields suggest Kaveri leaned on more last-level cache while Carrizo prioritized a bigger L1 and higher per-clock efficiency.

Memory support is identical: DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth, and no ECC on either. PCIe differs, with the FX-8800P offering Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU and the A10 PRO-7850B offering Gen 3 with 16 lanes, a meaningful edge for the desktop part if a wider GPU or storage link was the goal. Sockets are obviously different, FP4 for the soldered mobile chip and FM2+ for the socketed desktop one, and both parts ship with locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark set is small, two Geekbench tests, but it is decisive. In Geekbench multi-core the FX-8800P scores 1234 to the A10 PRO-7850B's 1194, a 3.4 percent win for the mobile chip. Given that both CPUs have four cores and four threads, this is a clean per-core efficiency comparison, and the Excavator design edges it while drawing a fraction of the power budget.

The single-core result is where the data gets striking. The FX-8800P posts 524 against 462, a 13.4 percent lead. Consider what that implies: the A10 PRO-7850B was boosting to 4.00, six hundred megahertz above the FX-8800P's 3.40 ceiling, and still lost single-threaded work by double digits. Excavator's IPC gains over Steamroller must be substantial to overcome that clock deficit so thoroughly.

The database also holds a broader Cinebench history for the FX-8800P that has no counterpart for the A10 PRO-7850B: scores of 242 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1010 in R20 multi-core, 142 in R20 single-core, 2407 in R23 multi-core, and 339 in R23 single-core. These cannot be compared directly across the two chips, since no matching Kaveri results exist, but they place the FX-8800P in context against its own nearest rivals: the Intel Core i7-3520M at an average of 843, the Intel Core i7-920 at 840, the Intel Xeon X5470 at 839, and the Intel Core i5-3380M at 838, all within a fraction of a percent of the FX-8800P's 843 average.

The A10 PRO-7850B's rival list is similarly legacy-flavored. Its 828 average sits 0.8 percent behind the Intel Core i5-3360M at 835, 1.1 percent behind the Intel Xeon X3450 at 837, and 0.9 percent ahead of both the AMD PRO A10-8750B at 821 and the Intel Xeon E5540 at 820. In short, both chips cluster tightly with a tier of parts that traded blows in the mid-2010s budget space, and neither separates itself from that pack.

The final tally for direct comparisons: the FX-8800P wins both shared benchmarks, and the A10 PRO-7850B wins none.

The Verdict

Strictly from the recorded data, the FX-8800P is the stronger performer. It wins the only two benchmarks the two share, by 3.4 percent multi-core and 13.4 percent single-core, and it does so at a 15-watt TDP versus 95 watts. If raw measured performance per watt matters, the mobile chip is not just ahead, it is ahead by an order of magnitude in efficiency terms.

The case for the A10 PRO-7850B rests on platform, not speed. It is a socketed FM2+ desktop part, which means serviceability and upgrade paths the soldered FP4 mobile FX-8800P cannot offer. Its 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes double the FX-8800P's 8, its 4 MB of L2 is generous, and its 4.00 boost clock is the highest number on the page. Buyers prioritizing a desktop platform with expandability could justify it, but anyone choosing on benchmark results alone should take the FX-8800P. It is faster in every recorded test while drawing far less power.

Specification Differences

• Socket: AMD Socket FP4 (FX-8800P) versus AMD Socket FM2+ (A10 PRO-7850B)
• Architecture and codename: Excavator, Carrizo versus Steamroller, Kaveri
• Generation: FX (Carrizo) versus A10 (Kaveri)
• Base clock: 2.10 versus 3.70
• Boost clock: 3.40 versus 4.00
• TDP: 15 watts versus 95 watts
• Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop
• Release date: 2015 versus 2014
• Transistors: 3,100 million versus 2,411 million
• Die size: 250 mm² versus 245 mm²
• L1 cache: 320 KB versus 256 KB
• L2 cache: 1 MB per module versus 4 MB
• PCIe: Gen 3, 8 lanes versus Gen 3, 16 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Radeon R7 with 8 compute units versus Radeon R7 (compute unit count not recorded)
• Part number: FM880PAAY43KAFM880PAAY43KAD versus AD785BXBI44JA

Everything else in the database matches: 4 cores, 4 threads, 28 nm GlobalFoundries fabrication, DDR3 on dual-channel with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC, no L3 cache, locked multipliers, and end-of-life status for both.

Where Each One Wins

Where the FX-8800P wins: measured compute performance, full stop. It leads Geekbench single-core by 13.4 percent and multi-core by 3.4 percent, and its richer benchmark record (Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 results) gives it a documented performance profile the Kaveri part lacks. It is also the efficiency pick by a wide margin, delivering those wins inside a 15-watt envelope. For any workload where the recorded scores are the deciding factor, such as general single- and multi-threaded application use, the Carrizo chip is the choice the data supports.

Where the A10 PRO-7850B wins: platform flexibility and interface bandwidth. As a socketed desktop processor it fits a traditional build, and its 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes give it twice the CPU-attached lane count for add-in cards. Its larger 4 MB L2 and higher stock clocks suggest it was designed for sustained desktop operation rather than a power-constrained notebook, and its FM2+ socket at least admits the possibility of platform reuse. None of that shows up as a benchmark win, but for a use case centered on expandability rather than speed, it is the only argument the data offers.

The curious footnote in all of this is the percentile figure: both chips occupy the 22nd percentile versus all CPUs. A year apart, a generation apart in architecture, and six times apart in TDP, and the database rates them identically overall. The head-to-head wins belong to Carrizo, but the broader standings confirm this matchup was always a fight between equals on paper, decided by efficiency in practice.