AMD A10-5800B

The AMD A10-5800B is a 4-core, 4-thread desktop processor from the Trinity generation, built on the 32nm Piledriver architecture for the AMD Socket FM2 platform. It operates at a base clock of 3.80 GHz with a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, and its benchmark data places it near the bottom of the current performance distribution. With a percentile ranking of 20 among all CPUs, the A10-5800B sits in a position where it competes primarily with other older, low-to-mid-range parts, as reflected in its average benchmark score of 794. The processor carries a 100W TDP, indicating a moderate power envelope for its era, and integrates a Radeon HD 7660D graphics solution. The data shows a processor that is firmly in the entry-level segment of its time, now well past its 2012 release and marked as end-of-life.

Benchmark Performance

The A10-5800B’s average benchmark score of 794 places it in a remarkably tight cluster of rivals, where performance differences are almost negligible. The nearest competitor, the AMD A6-9400, scores an identical 794, resulting in a delta of -0.1%. This effectively means the two processors are indistinguishable in overall benchmark output. Slightly ahead is the AMD A10-7850K with an average score of 796, a mere 0.3% advantage over the 5800B, which is within run-to-run variance and holds no practical significance for workload execution. The Intel Xeon E5530, a server-class part from an older generation, scores 801, putting it 0.8% ahead of the A10-5800B. Conversely, the AMD Opteron 3350 HE scores 789, trailing the A10-5800B by 0.6%.

What these deltas reveal is that the A10-5800B is not a performance outlier in either direction; it sits squarely in a performance band where a 1% swing covers all direct comparisons. The largest gap in the entire rival set is the 1.4% difference between the Opteron 3350 HE and the Xeon E5530, and the A10-5800B falls almost exactly in the middle of that range. For any application, the benchmark results indicate that swapping between these five processors would yield no perceptible change in framerates, render times, or application responsiveness. This clustering suggests that the A10-5800B’s value is not derived from raw compute superiority but from platform features, such as its integrated Radeon HD 7660D GPU, which are not captured in the average score alone.

The percentile rank of 20 is a more telling statistic. It means that 80% of all CPUs in the benchmark database outperform the A10-5800B. In practical terms, this places the processor in the lower quintile of all tested hardware, a position consistent with its age and architecture. The 2012 release date and end-of-life production status further reinforce that this is legacy hardware, and the benchmark data shows it has not aged well relative to modern parts. The average score of 794, while nearly identical to its rivals, is a stark contrast to the thousands of points achieved by contemporary multi-core processors, underscoring the A10-5800B’s status as a part suited only for basic, non-demanding workloads.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The A10-5800B shows a significant disparity between its single-core and multi-core benchmark results, which provides insight into its architectural strengths and limitations. The Geekbench single-core score is 459, while the multi-core score is 1128, yielding a ratio of approximately 2.46x when scaling from one core to four cores. This scaling factor is below the theoretical maximum of 4.0x, indicating imperfect parallelization efficiency, which is typical for a quad-core design without simultaneous multithreading. The processor has 4 threads across 4 cores, meaning each core handles exactly one thread, so the multi-core score reflects pure core count scaling with no hyper-threading boost.

For real-world workloads, this split means that single-threaded applications will see performance roughly equivalent to the 459-point score, which is low by modern standards. Tasks like legacy office productivity, basic web browsing, or single-threaded script execution will be bottlenecked by this core performance. The data shows that the A10-5800B is heavily dependent on its boost clock of 4.20 GHz to achieve even this modest single-core result, and the 3.80 GHz base clock is insufficient for demanding per-core workloads. In contrast, multi-threaded applications that can utilize all four cores will benefit from the 1128-point score, which is about 2.5 times the single-thread result but still falls far short of contemporary multi-core parts.

The implication is that the A10-5800B behaves best in scenarios where parallelism is high and per-core performance is less critical. Video encoding, batch photo processing, or compilation tasks that scale across cores will extract more value from this processor than single-threaded interactive workloads. However, the absolute multi-core score of 1128 is still very low, meaning even well-parallelized tasks will complete slowly compared to any modern processor. The 4 MB shared L2 cache and dual-channel DDR3 memory support with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth provide adequate data flow for these four cores, but they do not compensate for the weak compute cores themselves. The single-thread to multi-thread ratio suggests a balanced design for its time, but that balance is now obsolete, and the processor struggles to deliver acceptable performance in either regime relative to current hardware.

Who Should Consider It

Given the benchmark data, the A10-5800B is only suitable for workloads that are extremely light and do not rely on sustained compute throughput. For office tasks such as word processing, spreadsheet management, and email, the single-core score of 459 is sufficient to handle these operations without perceptible lag, provided the system has adequate memory and storage. The integrated Radeon HD 7660D GPU, while not benchmarked here, adds capability for basic display output and hardware acceleration of video playback, making the A10-5800B a plausible candidate for a low-cost office or home-theater PC where the CPU is not the primary bottleneck.

For gaming, the data does not support any strong recommendation. The multi-core score of 1128 and single-core score of 459 are far below what modern game engines require, and even older titles that are well-optimized for 4 threads will struggle to maintain playable framerates. The A10-5800B’s integrated graphics may handle 2D games or very old 3D titles at low settings, but the CPU performance will likely bottleneck even the most modest discrete GPU. Benchmark results indicate that this processor is not a viable gaming platform for anything released in the last decade.

Content creation is similarly not a fit. Video editing, 3D rendering, and audio production all demand multi-core performance well beyond the 1128-point score. The 4 MB L2 cache and 29.9 GB/s memory bandwidth are insufficient for large datasets, and the lack of L3 cache further limits performance in cache-sensitive workloads. The only scenario where the A10-5800B makes sense is as a basic desktop for web browsing, document editing, and media consumption, where its age and low performance are acceptable trade-offs for a working system. Its nearest rivals, all within 1% performance, offer no meaningful alternative, so the choice among them would come down to platform features rather than speed.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD A10-5800B compare to the AMD A6-9400?

A: The two processors have identical average benchmark scores of 794, with the A6-9400 showing a delta of -0.1%. This means there is no measurable performance difference between them in the benchmark data.

Q: What is the performance gap between the A10-5800B and the Intel Xeon E5530?

A: The Intel Xeon E5530 scores 801, which is 0.8% higher than the A10-5800B’s average score of 794. This is a negligible difference that would not be noticeable in any real workload.

Q: Does the A10-5800B support ECC memory?

A: No, the FACT PACK lists ECC memory as false for this processor. It supports dual-channel DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s.

Q: What is the multi-core scaling of the A10-5800B?

A: The Geekbench multi-core score is 1128, while the single-core score is 459. This represents roughly a 2.46x scaling from one core to four cores, which is below ideal 4.0x scaling due to parallelization overhead.

Q: Is the A10-5800B still in production?

A: No, the production status is listed as end-of-life. The processor was released on 2012-10-01 and is no longer manufactured.

Q: What socket does the A10-5800B use?

A: It uses the AMD Socket FM2, and the processor is built on the 32nm Piledriver architecture with a die size of 246 mm² and 1,303 million transistors.

Power and Thermals

The A10-5800B carries a TDP of 100 watts, which is a critical specification for thermal and power design. This TDP class indicates that the processor requires a cooling solution capable of dissipating 100W of heat under sustained load. For a 4-core processor running at up to 4.20 GHz, this is a relatively high power draw, reflecting the less efficient 32nm process node from GlobalFoundries. Modern processors with similar core counts often operate at lower TDPs, but the Piledriver architecture and high boost clock drive the power consumption upward.

Given the 100W TDP, the data implies that a capable air cooler is necessary, though not an exotic liquid cooling loop. A standard tower-style air cooler with a 120mm fan, or the stock cooler that would have shipped with the processor, is sufficient for maintaining safe operating temperatures. The 246 mm² die size and 1,303 million transistor count contribute to the power density, but the 32nm node spreads the heat across a relatively large area, which aids in thermal dissipation. The lack of an unlocked multiplier means users cannot overclock to increase performance, so the thermal load is fixed to the stock specifications.

The socket FM2 platform, combined with the 100W TDP, means motherboard VRM designs must provide adequate power delivery, but this is well within the capabilities of any board designed for the A10 series. The integrated Radeon HD 7660D GPU shares the same thermal envelope, so under combined CPU and GPU load, the total heat output approaches the TDP limit, requiring the cooling solution to handle the worst case. The data shows that the A10-5800B is not a power-efficient part by modern standards, but its 100W TDP is manageable with standard cooling hardware, making it a straightforward component for a basic desktop build where thermal constraints are not severe.