AMD PRO A10-8770 vs AMD PRO A10-9700 Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-8770 and AMD PRO A10-9700 are near-identical desktop processors, both built on the Excavator architecture and aimed at the same socket. Benchmark data shows the two chips are separated by fractions of a point in every test, making this one of the closest head-to-head comparisons in the database. The A10-8770 edges ahead in all five recorded Cinebench runs, but the margins are so slim they fall within typical run-to-run variance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clean sweep for the AMD PRO A10-8770, though the victories are almost entirely symbolic. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both processors score exactly 306 points, resulting in a 0% delta. The A10-8770 is designated the winner only by tiebreak convention, not by any measurable performance advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the A10-8770 scores 1276 points in multi-core against 1275 for the A10-9700, a delta of just 0.1%. The single-core R20 test shows a slightly larger gap: 180 points versus 179, a 0.6% difference. That is the largest relative margin anywhere in the benchmark suite.

In Cinebench R23, the pattern repeats. The A10-8770 records 3040 points in multi-core versus 3037 for the A10-9700, a 0.1% delta. Single-core R23 results are 429 versus 428, a 0.2% gap. Across all five tests, the A10-8770 wins five and the A10-9700 wins zero, but the average benchmark scores tell the real story: 1046 for the A10-8770 and 1045 for the A10-9700.

The nearest rival data places both chips in identical company. The A10-8770 matches the Intel Core i5-6350HQ at 1046 points, sits 0.1% behind the AMD Athlon X4 950, and is 0.1% ahead of both the A10-9700 and the Intel Pentium Gold G5620. The A10-9700, meanwhile, matches the Pentium Gold G5620 exactly at 1045, sits level with the Core i5-6350HQ, trails the Athlon X4 950 by 0.2%, and sits 0.1% behind the A10-8770.

Where Each One Wins

The A10-8770 holds the advantage in every single benchmark category recorded, but the margins define the practical reality. In multi-core workloads, the largest edge is 0.1% — a difference of one point in R20 and three points in R23. Single-core workloads show slightly more separation, with the 0.6% delta in R20 being the standout figure, representing a one-point gap.

The A10-9700 does not win any benchmark outright. However, the parity is so close that the two processors are functionally interchangeable in real-world usage. Both sit at the 29th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier relative to the broader market. The A10-9700’s only distinguishing feature in the data is its release date of 2017-07-26, which gives it a documented launch timeline that the A10-8770 lacks in this dataset.

For users prioritizing the absolute highest scores, even by a single point, the A10-8770 is the pick. For anyone choosing between these two based on availability or platform compatibility, the benchmark results indicate no meaningful performance sacrifice either way.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Excavator architecture, manufactured on the 28 nm process node by GlobalFoundries. Each features 4 cores and 4 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading. The transistor count is identical at 3,100 million, and the die size matches at 250 mm².

The cache layout is the same on both chips: 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present. Memory support is DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The key architectural distinction lies in the codename and generation. The A10-8770 is listed under the Carrizo codename with the generation label "A10 (Carrizo)," while the A10-9700 carries the Bristol Ridge codename with the generation label "A10 (Bristol Ridge)." Despite this naming difference, the underlying silicon specifications are identical on paper.

The PCIe implementation differs slightly in the data. The A10-8770 is listed simply as "Gen 3," while the A10-9700 specifies "Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only)." This suggests a potential difference in how the PCIe lanes are configured or exposed, though the fact pack does not provide comparable lane counts for the A10-8770.

Both chips integrate Radeon R7 graphics, use the AMD Socket AM4, and carry a 65 W TDP. The base clock is 3.50 GHz and the boost clock is 3.80 GHz on both processors. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 averages 1046 points, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 averages 1045 points — a one-point difference out of roughly a thousand.

Q: Are the clock speeds different between the two chips?

A: No. Both the AMD PRO A10-8770 and AMD PRO A10-9700 run at a 3.50 GHz base clock and a 3.80 GHz boost clock.

Q: How does the A10-9700 compare to the Intel Core i5-6350HQ?

A: The A10-9700 scores 1045 on average versus 1046 for the Core i5-6350HQ, a delta of 0%. The two are effectively tied.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in any benchmark between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the A10-8770 scores 180 against 179 for the A10-9700, a 0.6% difference.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Yes. Both support DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and neither supports ECC.

Q: What is the production status of these processors?

A: Both the AMD PRO A10-8770 and AMD PRO A10-9700 are listed as Active, meaning they remain in production.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in only a handful of documented fields. The codename is Carrizo for the A10-8770 and Bristol Ridge for the A10-9700. The generation label follows the same split: "A10 (Carrizo)" versus "A10 (Bristol Ridge)."

The PCIe specification is listed as "Gen 3" for the A10-8770 and "Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only)" for the A10-9700. This is the only hardware feature where the fact pack shows a concrete difference.

The release date is documented only for the A10-9700, which launched on 2017-07-26. The A10-8770 has no release date listed in the data.

The part numbers differ: AD877BAGM44AB for the A10-8770 and AD970BAGM44AB for the A10-9700.

All other specification fields are identical: 4 cores, 4 threads, 3.50 GHz base clock, 3.80 GHz boost clock, 65 W TDP, AMD Socket AM4, Excavator architecture, 28 nm process node, GlobalFoundries foundry, 3,100 million transistors, 250 mm² die size, 320 KB L1 cache, 2 MB L2 cache, no L3 cache, DDR4 memory support, dual-channel bus, 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC, Radeon R7 integrated graphics, Desktop market segment, and a locked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous picture: the AMD PRO A10-8770 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, but the margins are negligible. A 0.6% lead in the most favorable test translates to a single point on a 180-point scale. The average benchmark scores differ by one point out of 1046.

Users should select the A10-8770 if they want the theoretical maximum performance, however marginal. It wins all five head-to-head tests and carries a slightly higher average score. The 0.1% to 0.6% deltas are real but imperceptible in practice.

Users should select the A10-9700 if they prefer the variant with a documented release date and a more explicit PCIe specification. The Bristol Ridge codename may also offer better platform familiarity, though the fact pack provides no data to confirm this.

For anyone making a purchasing decision based strictly on benchmark results, the two chips are functionally identical. The 29th percentile ranking for both processors confirms they occupy the same tier relative to the entire CPU market. The choice comes down to minor specification details and availability, not measurable performance.