AMD Athlon X4 950 vs AMD PRO A10-8770 Comparison
AMD Athlon X4 950
PRO A10-8770
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Athlon X4 950 vs AMD PRO A10-8770
The AMD Athlon X4 950 and the AMD PRO A10-8770 are near-perfect statistical twins in every benchmark recorded. The Athlon X4 950 edges out a 5-0 win tally in the head-to-head comparisons, but the margins are razor-thin, ranging from 0% to 0.1%. The average benchmark scores are effectively identical at 1047 for the Athlon X4 950 and 1046 for the PRO A10-8770, placing both in the 29th percentile of all CPUs. The decisive factor between these two parts is not raw compute performance—which is indistinguishable—but rather the presence of integrated graphics on the PRO A10-8770 and the PCIe lane configuration differences.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data shows a statistical dead heat. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both processors score exactly 306 points. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows the Athlon X4 950 ahead by a single point, 1277 versus 1276, a 0.1% delta. Single-core performance is identical: both chips post 180 points in Cinebench R20 single-core and 429 points in Cinebench R23 single-core. The multi-core Cinebench R23 results mirror this parity, with the Athlon X4 950 scoring 3041 and the PRO A10-8770 scoring 3040.
The largest advantage in the entire comparison is the 0.1% lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core. This is within run-to-run variance and has no practical impact on real-world workloads. The average benchmark score of 1047 for the Athlon X4 950 against 1046 for the PRO A10-8770 reinforces this conclusion. When stacked against external rivals, both chips land in the same tier. The nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-6350HQ, shows a 0.1% delta from the Athlon X4 950 and a 0% delta from the PRO A10-8770. The AMD PRO A10-9700 trails both by 0.2% and 0.1%, respectively, while the Intel Pentium Gold G5620 matches that same narrow gap. In effect, these two AMD chips are interchangeable in any CPU-bound task.
Architecture Differences
Both processors share the same Excavator architecture, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is identical at 3,100 million, and the die size is the same 250 mm². The cache hierarchy is also a perfect match: 320 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache, and no L3 cache on either part. Both run at a 3.50 GHz base clock and a 3.80 GHz boost clock, with a 65 W TDP. They use the same AMD Socket AM4 and support dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.
The first meaningful split is the codename and generation. The Athlon X4 950 is branded as "Athlon (Bristol Ridge)," while the PRO A10-8770 is branded as "A10 (Carrizo)." Despite this naming difference, the underlying silicon is functionally identical in CPU terms. The PRO A10-8770 includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, whereas the Athlon X4 950 has no integrated graphics listed. This is the most significant architectural distinction. The PCIe configuration also differs: the Athlon X4 950 provides Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU only, while the PRO A10-8770 lists simply "Gen 3" without a lane count. The production status for both is listed as active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Athlon X4 950 has a release date of 2017-07-26, while the PRO A10-8770 has no release date listed.
Where Each One Wins
The Athlon X4 950 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins are negligible. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it leads by 0.1%; in the other four tests, the scores are tied. The only scenario where the Athlon X4 950 holds a definitive advantage is in systems that pair the CPU with a discrete graphics card. Because it has no integrated graphics, it forces the use of a dedicated GPU, and its PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes is explicitly specified. The PRO A10-8770, by contrast, wins in any system that wants to skip a discrete GPU entirely. Its integrated Radeon R7 graphics mean the machine can operate without an add-in card, making it suitable for basic desktop tasks, light media playback, or office productivity where the CPU's compute performance is identical but the graphics capability is built in.
The PRO A10-8770 also carries the "PRO" branding, which typically indicates a commercial-oriented product, though the FACT PACK does not list any additional management or security features to substantiate that beyond the name. For workloads that are purely CPU-bound, such as multi-threaded rendering in Cinebench R23, the choice between the two is immaterial—the scores of 3041 and 3040 are functionally equal. For single-threaded tasks, the 429-point scores in Cinebench R23 single-core are also identical.
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?
A: The AMD Athlon X4 950 is marginally faster, scoring 1277 in Cinebench R20 multi-core versus 1276 for the AMD PRO A10-8770, a 0.1% difference. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both score exactly 306.
Q: Do these CPUs have the same single-core performance?
A: Yes. Both score 180 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 429 in Cinebench R23 single-core, with a 0% delta in both tests.
Q: Can I use either processor without a dedicated graphics card?
A: Only the AMD PRO A10-8770. It includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, while the AMD Athlon X4 950 has no integrated graphics listed.
Q: What are the memory specifications for both chips?
A: Both support dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory.
Q: How do these chips compare to the Intel Core i5-6350HQ?
A: The Intel Core i5-6350HQ has an average score of 1046, which is 0.1% behind the Athlon X4 950 and exactly equal to the PRO A10-8770.
Q: Are the clock speeds identical?
A: Yes, both have a 3.50 GHz base clock and a 3.80 GHz boost clock, with a 65 W TDP.
Specification Differences
The two chips differ in only a few recorded fields. The architecture codename is "Bristol Ridge" for the Athlon X4 950 and "Carrizo" for the PRO A10-8770, despite both using Excavator cores. The generation label is "Athlon (Bristol Ridge)" versus "A10 (Carrizo)." The PRO A10-8770 lists integrated Radeon R7 graphics; the Athlon X4 950 has no integrated graphics field. The PCIe specification is "Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only)" for the Athlon X4 950, while the PRO A10-8770 lists only "Gen 3" without a lane count. The Athlon X4 950 has a release date of 2017-07-26; the PRO A10-8770 has no release date. The part numbers differ (AD950XAGM44AB versus AD877BAGM44AB). All other core specifications—cores, threads, clocks, TDP, cache, process node, transistor count, die size, and memory support—are identical.
The Verdict
The data tells a clear story: choose the AMD Athlon X4 950 if you plan to use a discrete graphics card, and choose the AMD PRO A10-8770 if you need integrated graphics. In every CPU benchmark, the Athlon X4 950 either ties or leads by 0.1%, so there is no compute-performance reason to prefer one over the other. The Athlon X4 950's five benchmark wins are purely nominal. The PRO A10-8770's integrated Radeon R7 graphics is the only feature that meaningfully separates the two, making it the superior pick for a system without a dedicated GPU. The Athlon X4 950's explicit PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes suggests it is positioned for a builder who already knows a discrete GPU is coming. Both chips sit at the 29th percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by just 1 point. For a user with a discrete GPU, the Athlon X4 950 is the dataset's pick. For a user who wants a complete desktop solution without add-in cards, the PRO A10-8770 is the only choice that offers graphics at all. There is no scenario in the data where the PRO A10-8770 wins on raw CPU performance, and no scenario where the Athlon X4 950 offers graphics capability. The verdict is therefore entirely dependent on the graphics solution: discrete GPU buyers take the Athlon X4 950, integrated graphics buyers take the PRO A10-8770.