AMD PRO A10-8770E vs AMD PRO A12-8870E Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-8770E and AMD PRO A12-8870E are two desktop processors built on the same Excavator architecture, sharing the Carrizo codename and a 28 nm manufacturing process. Both are quad-core, quad-thread parts with a 35 W thermal design power, yet they occupy slightly different positions in the database’s performance rankings. The A10-8770E sits at the 24th percentile of all CPUs, while the A12-8870E lands at the 23rd percentile, a marginal but measurable gap. The recorded data shows that these chips are near-identical in most workloads, with the A10-8770E taking a narrow edge in every benchmark entry, though the differences are often within a rounding error.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results reveal a consistent, if minimal, advantage for the AMD PRO A10-8770E. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the A10-8770E scores 258 points against 257 points for the A12-8870E, a lead of 0.4 percent. That is the largest single delta in the entire comparison. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the A10-8770E posts 1075 points, while the A12-8870E records 1074 points, a 0.1 percent difference. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core: 2560 points for the A10-8770E versus 2558 points for the A12-8870E, again a 0.1 percent margin.

Single-core performance is effectively identical between the two. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both chips score 151 points, and the database assigns the win to the A10-8770E with a delta of 0 percent. Likewise, in Cinebench R23 single-core, both processors hit 361 points, with the A10-8770E again marked as the winner by a 0 percent margin. Across all five recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the A10-8770E claims five wins, while the A12-8870E takes none. Yet the practical significance of these results is negligible: a 0.4 percent advantage in one test and 0.1 percent in others do not translate into a perceptible user experience difference.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The A10-8770E carries an average score of 895, while the A12-8870E averages 880. That 15-point gap places the A10-8770E in line with the Intel Core i5-5300U and Intel Pentium G4600T, both of which also average 895. The AMD Ryzen 3 3200U is 0.2 percent behind at 893, and the Intel Core i3-6100 trails by 0.7 percent at 888. For the A12-8870E, its 880 average ties it with the AMD Ryzen 3 2300U, while the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 and AMD Phenom II X6 1035T are each 0.1 percent ahead at 881, and the AMD Athlon Silver 7120U sits 0.2 percent ahead at the same score. These rival placements show that both PRO chips cluster in the same performance tier, with differences so small they are effectively noise.

Architecture Differences

Looking at the specification sheets, the two processors share nearly every architectural trait. Both use the Excavator architecture with the Carrizo codename, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 3,100 million, and the die size is the same at 250 mm². Each chip has four cores and four threads, with a 320 KB L1 cache and a 2 MB L2 cache. Neither has L3 cache, and there is no 3D V-Cache option. Memory support is DDR4 through a dual-channel interface, delivering 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and neither supports ECC memory. Both use PCIe Gen 3, integrate Radeon R7 graphics, target the desktop market segment, and remain in active production. The part numbers differ, but the underlying silicon appears to be the same design.

The only meaningful architectural difference lies in clock speeds. The A12-8870E has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, while the A10-8770E operates at 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. That gives the A12-8870E a 100 MHz advantage at base and a 200 MHz advantage at boost. In theory, the higher clocks should push the A12-8870E ahead in frequency-sensitive workloads, yet the benchmark data shows the opposite, with the A10-8770E winning every test. This suggests that the measured performance differences are dominated by run-to-run variance rather than by the clock speed gap. The 35 W TDP is identical for both parts, indicating that the higher-clocked A12-8870E does not draw more power under the database’s recorded conditions.

The generation field also differs in labeling: the A10-8770E is listed as “A10 (Carrizo)” while the A12-8870E is “A12 (Carrizo).” This is a branding distinction rather than a silicon change, as the architecture, process node, cache hierarchy, and memory controller are all shared. The socket is AMD Socket AM4 for both, and neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option on either chip.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The AMD PRO A12-8870E has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, while the AMD PRO A10-8770E has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz.

Q: Do these processors have the same cache configuration?

A: Yes, both have a 320 KB L1 cache and a 2 MB L2 cache, with no L3 cache present on either chip.

Q: Which processor performs better in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770E scores 2560 points, while the AMD PRO A12-8870E scores 2558 points, a 0.1 percent difference in favor of the A10-8770E.

Q: Are both processors manufactured on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with identical transistor counts of 3,100 million and a die size of 250 mm².

Q: What memory type do these processors support?

A: Both support DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Is there a difference in integrated graphics?

A: No, both processors integrate Radeon R7 graphics, according to the database records.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets show only a handful of fields where the two processors differ. Clock speeds are the primary divergence: the A12-8870E runs at 2.90 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost, compared to the A10-8770E’s 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The generation label differs, with the A10-8770E listed as “A10 (Carrizo)” and the A12-8870E as “A12 (Carrizo).” The part numbers are distinct, with the A10-8770E carrying the identifier AD877BAHM44AB and the A12-8870E using AD887BAHM44AB.

Every other specification is identical. Both have four cores, four threads, a 35 W TDP, the AMD Socket AM4, Excavator architecture, Carrizo codename, 28 nm process, 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 memory bus, 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, no ECC support, PCIe Gen 3, Radeon R7 integrated graphics, desktop market segment, active production status, and locked multipliers. The average benchmark scores differ, with the A10-8770E at 895 and the A12-8870E at 880, but the underlying hardware is otherwise a match.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A10-8770E wins in the database’s recorded benchmarks, taking all five head-to-head tests. Its largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it leads by 0.4 percent, followed by 0.1 percent advantages in Cinebench R20 multi-core and Cinebench R23 multi-core. In single-core tests, the two chips tie exactly, but the A10-8770E is still credited with the win. For users who rely on multi-threaded rendering workloads, such as Cinebench-based tasks, the A10-8770E holds a slight edge, though the difference is unlikely to be noticeable outside of repeated benchmarking.

The AMD PRO A12-8870E wins on paper in clock speed, with a 100 MHz higher base clock and a 200 MHz higher boost clock compared to the A10-8770E. This could theoretically favor lightly threaded applications where single-core frequency matters, but the recorded benchmark scores show no such advantage. The A12-8870E matches the A10-8770E in Cinebench R20 single-core at 151 points and in Cinebench R23 single-core at 361 points, and it trails in every multi-core test. The higher clocks do not translate into higher measured performance in the database’s data.

For use cases, the A10-8770E is the safer choice for workloads that stress all four cores simultaneously, such as video encoding or 3D rendering, given its narrow but consistent lead in multi-core benchmarks. The A12-8870E, despite its higher clock speeds, offers no measured benefit in single-core performance and loses slightly in multi-core. Neither chip stands out against its rivals: the A10-8770E ties the Intel Core i5-5300U and Intel Pentium G4600T, while the A12-8870E ties the AMD Ryzen 3 2300U. Both processors occupy the same low-to-mid tier, and the choice between them comes down to the A10-8770E’s benchmark edge versus the A12-8870E’s clock speed advantage, which the data does not support.

In practical terms, the database suggests that system builders should treat these as interchangeable parts, with the A10-8770E having a slight statistical upper hand in recorded performance. The A12-8870E, meanwhile, is the higher-binned part on frequency, but that does not appear in the final scores. For applications that are sensitive to boost clocks, the A12-8870E may have an edge in theory, but no benchmark in the record confirms it. The overall verdict is that the A10-8770E wins the measured comparison, while the A12-8870E wins the specification sheet comparison, and the real-world difference is negligible.