AMD Athlon X4 950 vs AMD PRO A10-9700 Comparison
AMD Athlon X4 950
PRO A10-9700
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Athlon X4 950 vs AMD PRO A10-9700
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The data is unambiguous: the AMD Athlon X4 950 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD PRO A10-9700, though the margins are consistently razor-thin. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, both processors produce an identical score of 306, with the Athlon X4 950 declared the winner by a delta of 0% — effectively a statistical tie. The multicore results remain nearly indistinguishable in newer test versions: the Athlon scores 1277 in Cinebench R20 multicore versus 1275 for the PRO A10-9700, a 0.2% advantage, and 3041 versus 3037 in Cinebench R23 multicore, another 0.1% lead.
Single-core performance tells the same story with equally marginal separations. The Athlon X4 950 posts 180 in Cinebench R20 single-core against 179 for the PRO A10-9700, a 0.6% difference — the largest relative gap in the entire comparison. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Athlon scores 429 versus 428, a 0.2% edge. Across all five tests, the Athlon X4 950 secures five wins while the PRO A10-9700 records zero. The average benchmark score reinforces this pattern: 1047 for the Athlon versus 1045 for the PRO A10-9700.
These margins are so small that they fall within typical run-to-run variance for identical silicon. The Athlon X4 950's nearest rivals list includes the PRO A10-9700 itself with a delta of 0.2% — meaning the two are effectively interchangeable in raw compute benchmarks. For practical purposes, neither chip delivers a meaningful performance advantage over the other in CPU-bound workloads.
Architecture Differences
Both processors share nearly every architectural specification, which explains the benchmark equivalence. Each is built on the Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename, manufactured on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Both integrate 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. Core and thread counts match at 4 cores and 4 threads, with identical base clocks of 3.50 GHz and boost clocks of 3.80 GHz. The 65 W TDP, AMD Socket AM4, and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth are also shared.
The cache hierarchy is identical: 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present on either chip. Both support PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both were released on the same date, 2017-07-26, and both carry the "Desktop" market segment designation with Active production status.
The single meaningful architectural distinction is the integrated graphics. The AMD PRO A10-9700 includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU, while the AMD Athlon X4 950 lists no integrated graphics at all. This is the only functional difference between the two parts beyond their naming and part numbers (AD950XAGM44AB for the Athlon, AD970BAGM44AB for the PRO A10). The PRO A10-9700 belongs to the "A10 (Bristol Ridge)" generation, while the Athlon X4 950 belongs to the "Athlon (Bristol Ridge)" generation — a branding distinction rather than a silicon difference.
Where Each One Wins
Given the near-identical benchmark results, the performance-based use-case split is minimal. The Athlon X4 950 holds a slight edge in every measured benchmark, so any workload that relies purely on CPU compute — whether multicore rendering or single-threaded tasks — technically favors the Athlon. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Athlon's 180 score represents a 0.6% improvement over the PRO A10-9700's 179. For users running single-threaded applications that are sensitive to even tiny clock-for-clock differences, the Athlon is nominally the better pick.
The PRO A10-9700's advantage is entirely different in kind. Its integrated Radeon R7 graphics provide a capability the Athlon X4 950 simply does not offer. Systems built around the PRO A10-9700 can output to a display without a discrete GPU, making it suitable for basic desktop use, media playback, or office tasks where a separate graphics card would be unnecessary. The Athlon X4 950, lacking integrated graphics, requires a dedicated GPU for any display output whatsoever.
For multicore workloads such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or compilation, the benchmark data shows no meaningful winner — the 0.1% to 0.2% differences in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests are negligible. Both processors sit at the 29th percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the lower range of desktop performance. The nearest rivals for the Athlon include the AMD PRO A10-8770 (avg score 1046, delta 0.1%), Intel Core i5-6350HQ (1046, 0.1%), and Intel Pentium Gold G5620 (1045, 0.2%) — all within a fraction of a percent of each other.
The Verdict
The choice between these two processors comes down to one question: do you need integrated graphics? The benchmark data shows that the AMD Athlon X4 950 is the stronger performer in CPU-bound tests, winning all five head-to-head comparisons. Its average benchmark score of 1047 exceeds the PRO A10-9700's 1045, and its nearest-rival comparison lists the PRO A10-9700 as 0.2% behind. For any workload where the CPU is the bottleneck, the Athlon X4 950 is the data-backed selection.
However, the performance gap is so small that it would be imperceptible in real-world use. A 0.6% difference in single-core Cinebench R20 and a 0.2% difference in multicore R20 translate to fractions of a frame per second or seconds per hour in extended workloads. Neither chip offers a compelling raw performance story at the 29th percentile of all CPUs.
The PRO A10-9700 becomes the logical choice when the system needs to function without a discrete GPU. Its Radeon R7 integrated graphics enable a complete desktop build with a single component handling both compute and display output. The Athlon X4 950 forces a separate graphics card purchase, which may be acceptable for performance-focused builders but defeats the purpose of a low-cost, low-power desktop platform. Both chips share the same 65 W TDP, same socket, and same platform features, so the decision rests entirely on the integrated graphics requirement.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?
A: The AMD Athlon X4 950 has an average benchmark score of 1047, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 scores 1045.
Q: Are the clock speeds different between the two CPUs?
A: No. Both the AMD Athlon X4 950 and the AMD PRO A10-9700 have a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz.
Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?
A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU. The AMD Athlon X4 950 has no integrated graphics listed.
Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?
A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Athlon X4 950 scores 180 versus 179 for the PRO A10-9700, a 0.6% difference.
Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?
A: Yes, both support DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Are both chips manufactured on the same process node?
A: Yes, both use a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die.
Specification Differences
| Specification | AMD Athlon X4 950 | AMD PRO A10-9700 |
|---|---|---|
| Generation | Athlon (Bristol Ridge) | A10 (Bristol Ridge) |
| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon R7 |
| Part Number | AD950XAGM44AB | AD970BAGM44AB |
| Cinebench R20 Single-Core | 180 | 179 |
| Cinebench R20 Multi-Core | 1277 | 1275 |
| Cinebench R23 Single-Core | 429 | 428 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi-Core | 3041 | 3037 |
| Average Benchmark Score | 1047 | 1045 |
All other specifications — cores (4), threads (4), base clock (3.50 GHz), boost clock (3.80 GHz), TDP (65 W), socket (AMD Socket AM4), architecture (Excavator), codename (Bristol Ridge), process node (28 nm), foundry (GlobalFoundries), transistors (3,100 million), die size (250 mm²), L1 cache (320 KB), L2 cache (2 MB), no L3 cache, memory support (DDR4), memory bus (dual-channel), memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s), ECC support (false), PCIe (Gen 3, 8 lanes), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), release date (2017-07-26), and unlocked multiplier (false) — are identical between the two processors.