CPU Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-9700 and AMD A8-7680 are two closely matched quad-core desktop processors, both built on the Excavator architecture. The data shows that the PRO A10-9700 takes a clean sweep across all five benchmark comparisons, though the margins are consistently narrow, with the largest single-core advantage reaching just 0.7%. This head-to-head analysis relies exclusively on the provided benchmark scores to determine which processor holds the edge in specific workloads and which platform considerations might influence a decision.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent, with the AMD PRO A10-9700 winning every single test in the comparison. The smallest margin appears in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the PRO A10-9700 scores 179 against the A8-7680’s 178, a delta of 0.6%. This near-tie suggests that both processors deliver virtually identical performance in lightly threaded workloads, as the difference of a single point falls well within typical run-to-run variance.

Moving to multi-core tests, the PRO A10-9700 extends its lead slightly. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the PRO A10-9700 achieves 306 points versus 303 for the A8-7680, a 1% advantage. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 1275 versus 1264, a 0.9% delta. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test repeats this exact 0.9% margin, with scores of 3037 and 3011 respectively. These consistent deltas across three different Cinebench versions indicate that the multi-core advantage is stable and not an artifact of a single benchmark version.

The single-core Cinebench R23 result shows the PRO A10-9700 at 428 points against the A8-7680’s 425, a 0.7% difference. While this is a small margin, it is worth noting that the PRO A10-9700 wins this test despite both processors having identical base and boost clock speeds of 3.50 GHz and 3.80 GHz. The average benchmark score for the PRO A10-9700 stands at 1045, compared to 1036 for the A8-7680, placing the former at the 29th percentile of all CPUs and the latter at the 28th percentile. In the broader competitive landscape, the PRO A10-9700 sits exactly level with the Intel Pentium Gold G5620 and the Intel Core i5-6350HQ, both at a 0% delta, while the A8-7680 is 0.1% ahead of the AMD A10-7890K.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental Excavator architecture, but they belong to different codename families. The PRO A10-9700 is based on the Bristol Ridge design, while the A8-7680 uses the Carrizo design. Despite this codename difference, the silicon itself is identical in key physical parameters: both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, both contain 3,100 million transistors, and both have a die size of 250 mm². The cache configuration is also identical, with 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, and neither processor features any L3 cache.

The most significant architectural difference lies in the platform support. The PRO A10-9700 uses the AMD Socket AM4 and supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus delivering 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. In contrast, the A8-7680 uses the older AMD Socket FM2+ and supports DDR3 memory, also dual-channel, but with a lower bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. This 4.3 GB/s difference in memory bandwidth could influence performance in memory-sensitive applications, though the benchmark results suggest the impact is minimal in Cinebench workloads. PCIe support also differs: the PRO A10-9700 provides Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the A8-7680 lists PCIe Gen 3 without specifying lane counts. Both processors integrate a Radeon R7 graphics solution and neither supports ECC memory. The A8-7680 has a notably lower TDP of 45 watts compared to the PRO A10-9700’s 65 watts, a difference that could matter in compact or thermally constrained systems.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD PRO A10-9700 wins every single comparison, making it the clear choice for users who prioritize raw compute performance across all tested workloads. The largest margin of victory, 1% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, is small but consistent, indicating that the PRO A10-9700 holds a slight edge in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tasks. For users running applications that rely on Cinebench-style rendering, the PRO A10-9700 is the safer pick.

The AMD A8-7680, while losing all five benchmarks, does have one distinct advantage in the data: power consumption. With a TDP of 45 watts versus 65 watts, the A8-7680 draws less power, which could translate to lower heat output and quieter operation in a desktop build. However, the benchmark scores do not show any scenario where the A8-7680 outperforms the PRO A10-9700. The A8-7680 also supports DDR3 memory, which may be more readily available or cheaper for users upgrading an existing FM2+ platform, but this is a platform consideration rather than a performance win. In terms of raw compute, the data shows no category where the A8-7680 comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 scores 3037 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD A8-7680 scores 3011, giving the PRO A10-9700 a 0.9% advantage.

Q: Are the single-core speeds of these two processors different?

A: No, both processors have identical base and boost clocks of 3.50 GHz and 3.80 GHz. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the PRO A10-9700 scores 428 versus 425 for the A8-7680, a 0.7% difference.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD A8-7680 has a TDP of 45 watts, which is lower than the AMD PRO A10-9700’s 65 watts.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The PRO A10-9700 supports DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the A8-7680 supports DDR3 memory with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The PRO A10-9700 has an average benchmark score of 1045, compared to 1036 for the A8-7680.

Q: How does the PRO A10-9700 compare to the Intel Pentium Gold G5620?

A: The PRO A10-9700 has an identical average score of 1045 to the Intel Pentium Gold G5620, with a delta percentage of 0%.

Specification Differences

The two processors share several core specifications, including 4 cores, 4 threads, base clock of 3.50 GHz, boost clock of 3.80 GHz, 28 nm process node, 3,100 million transistors, 250 mm² die size, 320 KB L1 cache, 2 MB L2 cache, and integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The differences are limited to the following fields:

• Socket: AMD Socket AM4 (PRO A10-9700) vs AMD Socket FM2+ (A8-7680)
• Codename: Bristol Ridge (PRO A10-9700) vs Carrizo (A8-7680)
• Generation: A10 (Bristol Ridge) vs A8 (Carrizo)
• TDP: 65 watts (PRO A10-9700) vs 45 watts (A8-7680)
• Memory Support: DDR4 (PRO A10-9700) vs DDR3 (A8-7680)
• Memory Bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s (PRO A10-9700) vs 34.1 GB/s (A8-7680)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) for PRO A10-9700 vs Gen 3 for A8-7680
• Release Date: 2017-07-26 (PRO A10-9700) vs 2018-10-25 (A8-7680)
• Part Number: AD970BAGM44AB (PRO A10-9700) vs AD7680ACABBOX / AD7680ACABCBX (A8-7680)

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the AMD PRO A10-9700 for any user who wants the best possible performance in the benchmarked workloads. It wins all five Cinebench tests, and while the margins are slim, ranging from 0.6% to 1%, they are uniform across every version of the test. The PRO A10-9700 also offers a higher memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s with DDR4 support, which may provide additional headroom in memory-intensive applications beyond what the Cinebench scores reveal. Its higher 65-watt TDP is the cost of that slight performance edge.

The AMD A8-7680 is not without merit. Its 45-watt TDP makes it a more power-efficient choice, and it shares the same core architecture, clock speeds, and cache configuration as the PRO A10-9700. For users who already own an FM2+ motherboard and have DDR3 memory available, the A8-7680 could be a drop-in upgrade that avoids platform costs. However, the benchmark results show it is consistently slower, and the 0.1% delta between the two in the nearestRivals data (with the A8-7680 listing the A10-9700 as a rival at 0.2%) confirms that the performance gap, while real, is minimal. Users who prioritize the absolute highest scores should select the PRO A10-9700; users who prioritize lower power draw and platform compatibility may reasonably choose the A8-7680, accepting a small performance penalty.