AMD PRO A10-8770E vs AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though modest, victory for the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G across all five shared Cinebench tests. The Ryzen Embedded R1305G wins every head-to-head comparison, with the PRO A10-8770E trailing in each instance. The margin of victory is remarkably uniform, hovering around 4.3 to 4.6 percent in every test. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen Embedded R1305G scores 269 against 258 for the PRO A10-8770E, a 4.3 percent difference. The R20 multi-core test shows the same pattern: 1121 versus 1075, again a 4.3 percent gap. Single-core results follow suit, with the R1305G posting 158 in R20 single-core against 151, a 4.6 percent advantage. The R23 suite mirrors these results: 2670 versus 2560 in multi-core (4.3 percent) and 377 versus 361 in single-core (4.4 percent).

What stands out is that the PRO A10-8770E, despite having twice the physical cores (4 versus 2), cannot overcome the per-core efficiency of the Ryzen design. The R1305G matches or exceeds the PRO A10 in every multi-threaded test while using a fraction of the power envelope. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the R1305G sits at 919, while the PRO A10-8770E averages 895, a roughly 2.7 percent overall lead for the Ryzen part.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the R1305G's nearest rivals include the AMD PRO A10-9700E with an identical average score of 919, the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U at 917 (0.2 percent behind), and the Intel Pentium Gold G6405T at 915 (0.5 percent behind). The PRO A10-8770E, by contrast, sits alongside the Intel Core i5-5300U and Intel Pentium G4600T, both at 895, with the AMD Ryzen 3 3200U just ahead at 893 (0.2 percent difference). Both processors occupy the 24th percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier overall.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two AMD processors is substantial. The Ryzen Embedded R1305G uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, packing 3,500 million transistors into a 148 mm² die. The PRO A10-8770E relies on the older Excavator architecture, built on a 28 nm process with 3,100 million transistors spread across a larger 250 mm² die. The smaller, denser Zen design delivers better performance per watt and per square millimeter.

Core configuration differs significantly. The R1305G offers 2 cores and 4 threads, leveraging simultaneous multithreading to extract more work from each physical core. The PRO A10-8770E provides 4 physical cores but only 4 threads, with no multithreading capability. This explains why the dual-core R1305G can hold its own in multi-threaded workloads: its four logical threads compete effectively against four physical threads from an older architecture.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. The R1305G features 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The PRO A10-8770E offers 320 KB of total L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The absence of L3 cache on the Excavator part is a significant disadvantage in modern workloads that benefit from larger shared cache pools.

Clock speeds favor the PRO A10-8770E on paper. It runs at a 2.80 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.50 GHz, while the R1305G operates at 1.50 GHz base and boosts to 2.80 GHz. Despite the lower clocks, the Zen architecture's superior IPC (instructions per clock) allows the R1305G to outperform the Excavator part in every measured benchmark. The R1305G also carries a 10 W TDP versus 35 W for the PRO A10-8770E, making it dramatically more power-efficient.

Memory support is similar: both use DDR4 with dual-channel buses and 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs slightly, with the R1305G specifying "Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only)" while the PRO A10-8770E simply lists "Gen 3" without lane details. Integrated graphics differ as well: the R1305G pairs with Radeon Vega 3, while the PRO A10-8770E uses Radeon R7. The R1305G targets the mobile segment on AMD Socket FP5, whereas the PRO A10-8770E is a desktop part on Socket AM4.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on benchmark data, the Ryzen Embedded R1305G wins every measured comparison. There are no tests where the PRO A10-8770E comes out ahead. This makes the use-case split straightforward: the R1305G is the superior choice for any workload captured in the Cinebench suite, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded.

That said, the PRO A10-8770E retains relevance in specific contexts. Its four physical cores could theoretically benefit workloads that scale poorly with multithreading but respond to raw core count, though the recorded data does not include such tests. The PRO A10-8770E's higher base and boost clocks might also matter in scenarios where sustained clock speed is more important than architectural efficiency, but again, no benchmark in the database confirms this advantage.

The R1305G's advantages are clear: it wins by 4.3 to 4.6 percent across all Cinebench versions, does so with a 10 W TDP versus 35 W, and packs more efficient silicon. For embedded or mobile applications where power consumption and thermal output are critical, the R1305G is the obvious pick. The PRO A10-8770E, with its desktop AM4 socket and 35 W envelope, would only be selected for legacy platform compatibility or specific desktop requirements not covered by the benchmark suite.

Both processors land at the 24th percentile in the overall CPU distribution, meaning they occupy the same performance tier relative to all other processors. The R1305G's average score of 919 edges out the PRO A10-8770E's 895, but neither processor threatens higher-tier parts. The R1305G's nearest rival, the AMD PRO A10-9700E, matches its average score exactly, while the PRO A10-8770E sits level with the Intel Core i5-5300U and Pentium G4600T.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G wins every multi-core test. It scores 269 versus 258 in Cinebench R15, 1121 versus 1075 in R20, and 2670 versus 2560 in R23, each representing a 4.3 percent advantage.

Q: Does the PRO A10-8770E's four cores give it an advantage?

A: No. Despite having 4 physical cores versus 2, the PRO A10-8770E loses all multi-core benchmarks. The R1305G's 4 threads from 2 cores with Zen architecture outperform the older Excavator design's 4 physical threads.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The R1305G has a 10 W TDP while the PRO A10-8770E has a 35 W TDP. The R1305G delivers better performance while consuming only about 29 percent of the power budget.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance tier?

A: Yes, both sit at the 24th percentile among all CPUs. The R1305G has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 919 versus 895 for the PRO A10-8770E.

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The R1305G wins single-core tests as well. It scores 158 versus 151 in Cinebench R20 single-core (4.6 percent) and 377 versus 361 in R23 single-core (4.4 percent).

Q: What are the socket requirements for each?

A: The R1305G uses AMD Socket FP5 and targets the mobile segment, while the PRO A10-8770E uses AMD Socket AM4 for desktop systems. They are not socket-compatible.

The Verdict

The data points decisively to the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G as the superior processor. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks with margins between 4.3 and 4.6 percent, achieves a higher average benchmark score (919 versus 895), and does so with a 10 W TDP versus 35 W. The architectural advantages of the Zen design on 14 nm, including L3 cache and simultaneous multithreading, overcome the PRO A10-8770E's higher clock speeds and additional physical cores.

The PRO A10-8770E's only potential advantages lie outside the measured benchmarks: its desktop form factor and AM4 socket may suit users building or upgrading desktop systems with existing AM4 motherboards. Its four physical cores, while not helping in the Cinebench suite, might theoretically benefit specific workloads not represented in the database. However, no recorded evidence supports such a claim.

For embedded applications, mobile deployments, or any scenario where power efficiency and performance per watt matter, the R1305G is the clear choice. For desktop users constrained to the AM4 platform, the PRO A10-8770E remains a functional option, though the data suggests it will trail the R1305G in rendering and general compute tasks. Both processors occupy the 24th percentile, so neither will satisfy demanding workloads, but within their tier, the R1305G is measurably better.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G | AMD PRO A10-8770E |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 1500.00 MHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.80 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 10 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP5 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Zen | Excavator |

| Codename | Zen | Carrizo |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 3,500 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 320 KB |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | None |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Vega 3 | Radeon R7 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Part Number | YE1305C9T2OFG | AD877BAHM44AB |

| Average Benchmark Score | 919 | 895 |