AMD PRO A10-8850B vs AMD PRO A12-8870 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is remarkably consistent across all five Cinebench tests: the AMD PRO A12-8870 wins every single matchup, but by margins so narrow they border on statistical noise. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the A12-8870 scores 324 against the A10-8850B's 321, a 0.9% advantage. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where 1351 versus 1339 yields the same 0.9% delta. The single-core tests tell the same story: R20 single-core shows 190 versus 189 (0.5% lead), and R23 single-core shows 454 versus 450 (0.9% lead). The largest absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, 3218 versus 3189, but that still translates to just 0.9%.

What does this mean in context? Both processors sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs in the database, so neither is a performance outlier. The A12-8870's average benchmark score is 1107, while the A10-8850B trails at 1098, a difference of less than 1%. The nearest rivals for the A12-8870 include the AMD Opteron 4280 at 1107 (0% delta), the AMD Athlon X4 845 at 1106 (0.1% ahead), and the AMD Opteron 3280 at 1106 (0.1% ahead), with the Intel Core i5-4570T at 1108, which is 0.1% faster. For the A10-8850B, the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 matches it exactly at 1098, while the Intel Pentium 6805 and Intel Core i5-3450S both score 1099, 0.1% ahead, and the Intel Core i7-2710QE scores 1096, 0.1% behind.

The data implies a near-tie in raw compute. A 0.9% delta across multicore workloads is within run-to-run variance for most benchmark suites. The A12-8870 does win all five recorded tests, which suggests a slight but repeatable edge, yet the magnitude is not enough to call it a generational leap. The A10-8850B, despite its higher base clock, cannot overcome whatever architectural inefficiencies it carries.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD PRO A12-8870 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multicore modes. The A10-8850B records zero wins.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multicore workloads?

A: The gap is consistently 0.9% in favor of the A12-8870 across Cinebench R15 multicore (324 vs 321), R20 multicore (1351 vs 1339), and R23 multicore (3218 vs 3189). This is a very narrow margin.

Q: What about single-core performance?

A: The A12-8870 leads by 0.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core (190 vs 189) and by 0.9% in R23 single-core (454 vs 450). Again, the advantage is small but uniform.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The A12-8870 has an average benchmark score of 1107, while the A10-8850B averages 1098. Both processors occupy the 31st percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Are there meaningful rival comparisons for each?

A: The A12-8870's closest rival is the AMD Opteron 4280 at exactly 1107 (0% delta), with the AMD Athlon X4 845 and Opteron 3280 both at 1106 (0.1% behind). The A10-8850B's closest rival is the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 at 1098 (0% delta), with the Intel Pentium 6805 and Core i5-3450S at 1099 (0.1% ahead).

Q: Does the A10-8850B have any advantage in clock speed?

A: Yes, its base clock is 3.90 GHz versus 3.70 GHz on the A12-8870, and its boost clock is 4.10 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. Despite the higher base clock, it still loses every benchmark in the head-to-head data.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, though modest, winner: the AMD PRO A12-8870. It wins every recorded benchmark, holds a higher average score (1107 vs 1098), and matches the A10-8850B in the 31st percentile ranking. The margins are small, but they are consistent across five separate tests spanning multiple Cinebench versions. Anyone choosing between these two should favor the A12-8870 if benchmark performance is the sole criterion.

There is a secondary consideration: production status. The A12-8870 is listed as Active, while the A10-8850B is End-of-life. For a system builder looking at availability and long-term support, the A12-8870 is the safer choice. The A10-8850B also uses a different socket (AMD Socket FM2+ versus AM4), which matters for platform compatibility. The A12-8870's AM4 socket is a more modern platform, though the data does not quantify platform longevity.

The A10-8850B is not a poor performer by any means. Its 1098 average score places it alongside the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-3450S and Pentium 6805. It is a capable quad-core desktop part, but in a direct comparison, it falls short in every measured metric.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specification fields. The A12-8870 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the A10-8850B runs at 3.90 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost. This means the A10-8850B starts higher but peaks lower. Thermal design power differs significantly: 65 watts for the A12-8870 versus 95 watts for the A10-8850B. The A12-8870 achieves better or equal performance at a much lower power envelope.

Sockets differ: the A12-8870 uses AMD Socket AM4, while the A10-8850B uses AMD Socket FM2+. Memory support also diverges, with the A12-8870 supporting DDR4 and the A10-8850B supporting DDR3. Memory bandwidth reflects this: 38.4 GB/s for the A12-8870 versus 34.1 GB/s for the A10-8850B. Both support dual-channel memory and do not support ECC.

Cache configurations differ as well. The A12-8870 has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, while the A10-8850B has 256 KB of L1 and 4 MB of L2. Neither has L3 cache. The transistor counts are also distinct: 3,100 million for the A12-8870 versus 2,411 million for the A10-8850B, with die sizes of 250 mm² and 245 mm² respectively. The PCIe specification is listed as Gen 3 for both, though the A10-8850B notes "16 Lanes (CPU only)" as an additional qualifier.

Production status separates them: the A12-8870 is Active, while the A10-8850B is End-of-life. The A10-8850B has a release date of September 28, 2015, while the A12-8870 has no recorded release date. Both have integrated Radeon R7 graphics, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both are desktop parts with 4 cores and 4 threads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear from the codenames and generations. The A12-8870 is built on Excavator architecture, codenamed Carrizo, while the A10-8850B uses Steamroller architecture, codenamed Godaveri. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries, but the Excavator design in the A12-8870 represents a newer microarchitecture iteration.

The transistor counts hint at the design changes. The A12-8870 packs 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die, while the A10-8850B has 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die. The A12-8870 has a higher transistor density, which aligns with the Excavator generation's refinements over Steamroller. The L1 cache shrinks from 256 KB to 320 KB (actually, it grows), while L2 cache shrinks from 4 MB to 2 MB. This cache trade-off is notable: the A10-8850B has double the L2, yet the A12-8870 still wins all benchmarks.

Memory architecture also differs. The A12-8870 supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the A10-8850B is limited to DDR3 with 34.1 GB/s. This is a meaningful platform advantage for the A12-8870, as DDR4 offers higher theoretical bandwidth. The A12-8870's socket, AM4, is associated with the newer Carrizo generation, while the FM2+ socket on the A10-8850B ties it to the older Godaveri platform.

The production status difference reinforces the architectural timeline: the A10-8850B is End-of-life, suggesting Steamroller has been superseded, while the A12-8870 remains Active. The measured performance data shows that Excavator, despite less L2 cache, achieves slightly higher scores across the board.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A12-8870 wins in every benchmark category recorded: Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 single-core, R23 multicore, and R23 single-core. That makes its use-case coverage total. It is the better choice for any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering or general CPU compute, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded.

The A12-8870 also wins on efficiency. Its 65 watt TDP versus 95 watts for the A10-8850B means it delivers comparable or better performance with a lower thermal requirement. For compact desktops or systems with modest cooling, the A12-8870 is the more practical option. The DDR4 memory support and AM4 socket further extend its platform modernity.

The A10-8850B has no benchmark wins, but its specification sheet offers some theoretical advantages. Its higher base clock (3.90 GHz) could suggest better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks, but the data contradicts this: the A12-8870 wins single-core tests despite a lower base clock, leaning on its 4.20 GHz boost. The A10-8850B's larger L2 cache (4 MB versus 2 MB) might help cache-sensitive workloads, yet no benchmark in the recorded data reflects that benefit.

The A10-8850B's only clear edge is its release date, September 28, 2015, which is a historical fact rather than a performance attribute. For legacy FM2+ platforms where the motherboard is already in place, the A10-8850B could be a drop-in upgrade candidate. But for any new build, the A12-8870 is the stronger choice across every measured dimension.

In summary, the A12-8870 is the all-around winner, with the A10-8850B offering nothing beyond its higher base clock and larger L2 cache. The benchmark data is unambiguous: five wins for the A12-8870, zero for the A10-8850B, with margins that are small but consistent. The A12-8870 also comes with lower power consumption, newer memory support, and an active production status, making it the more future-proof option in every respect.