AMD A10 PRO-7800B

The AMD A10 PRO-7800B is a desktop processor built on the Steamroller architecture (codename Kaveri) for the AMD Socket FM2+ platform. It integrates four cores and four threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, all within a 65 W TDP. The chip is manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries, containing 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die. Its benchmark results place it in the 19th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 746. This analysis examines its performance, positioning, and platform characteristics using only the provided data.

Benchmark Performance

The A10 PRO-7800B achieves a Geekbench multi-core score of 1055 and a single-core score of 436. Its overall average benchmark score is 746, which sits essentially at parity with several near competitors. The nearest rivals, as listed, are the Intel Core i5-670, Intel Atom x7211E, and Intel Pentium G4400, each with an average score of 747, and the AMD FX-9800P with an average score of 745. The delta percentages are remarkably tight: the A10 PRO-7800B trails the three Intel parts by a negligible 0.1% (deltaPct of -0.1) and leads the AMD FX-9800P by 0.1% (deltaPct of 0.1). In practical terms, the average benchmark score of 746 is within one point of 747 and one point of 745, meaning the chip is statistically indistinguishable from these rivals in aggregate performance.

However, the multi-core score of 1055 tells a different story than the single-core score of 436. The multi-core figure is more than double the single-core figure, but that is expected given four cores. When compared to the average score of 746, the multi-core score is about 41% higher, while the single-core score is about 42% lower. This wide gap indicates that the processor's strength lies in parallel workloads, not in lightly threaded tasks. The percentile of 19 confirms that it sits below the majority of CPUs in the database, but the tight rivalry cluster suggests that within its immediate performance tier, there is no clear winner.

Who Should Consider It

Given the benchmark data, the A10 PRO-7800B is suited for workloads that can utilize all four cores simultaneously. Multi-threaded productivity tasks, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or compiling, would benefit from the multi-core score of 1055. In contrast, tasks that rely on single-core performance—like many older games, spreadsheet calculations, or web browsing—would see the 436 single-core score as a limiting factor. The processor's integrated Radeon R7 graphics means it can handle basic display output without a discrete GPU, but the lack of a dedicated GPU and the modest CPU performance suggest it is not intended for high-end gaming. Office applications that are mostly single-threaded would run adequately, but the chip would not excel in scenarios where responsiveness depends on high single-thread speed. The 65 W TDP and 28 nm process indicate an efficient part for a compact or entry-level desktop, but the end-of-life production status means it is only available in the used or clearance market.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The single-core score of 436 and multi-core score of 1055 reveal a 2.42× scaling from one core to four cores. Ideal scaling would be 4×, so the real-world scaling is about 60% of ideal. This indicates that the processor does not maintain per-core performance under full load—likely due to thermal or power limits, or shared resources like the L2 cache (4 MB total). The base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost of 3.90 GHz are relatively close, but the boost is likely not sustained across all cores simultaneously. For single-threaded tasks, the boost clock of 3.90 GHz helps, but the architecture (Steamroller) is older, and the single-core score of 436 is low by modern standards. In contrast, the multi-core score of 1055 is competitive with the rival group, as evidenced by the average scores near 746. This split suggests that the A10 PRO-7800B is a balanced part for multi-threaded throughput, but it will feel sluggish in single-thread-bound applications. Users who primarily run one or two heavy threads would see better performance from a rival with a higher single-core score, though the data does not provide such a rival in this set.

How It Compares

Intel Core i5-670: The A10 PRO-7800B trails the Core i5-670 by 0.1% in average benchmark score (746 vs 747). The delta is negligible, meaning the two chips deliver effectively identical overall performance. However, the Core i5-670 is an older dual-core part (based on its generation, but no specs are given), while the A10 has four cores. The multi-core advantage of the A10 is offset by the i5's likely superior single-core performance, though the single-core score of the i5 is not provided. In aggregate, they are tied.

Intel Atom x7211E: The A10 PRO-7800B also trails the Atom x7211E by 0.1% (746 vs 747). The Atom is a low-power, low-performance part typically found in embedded or fanless systems. The fact that the A10, a desktop quad-core, only matches an Atom in average score is telling. The A10's multi-core score of 1055 is likely higher, but its single-core score of 436 drags the average down. The Atom likely has a more balanced profile, but without its scores, the comparison rests on the average.

Intel Pentium G4400: Again a 0.1% deficit (746 vs 747). The Pentium G4400 is a dual-core desktop chip with Hyper-Threading (not stated, but common). The A10's four physical cores may give it an edge in multi-threaded tasks, but the Pentium's newer architecture likely provides better single-thread performance. The average scores being nearly identical suggests that the A10's multi-core advantage is cancelled by the Pentium's single-core lead.

AMD FX-9800P: The A10 PRO-7800B leads the FX-9800P by 0.1% (746 vs 745). The FX-9800P is a mobile part (likely from the same era), and the A10 edges it out by a single point. This is the only rival where the A10 is ahead, but the margin is trivial. Both are AMD parts with similar characteristics, but the A10's desktop orientation may give it a slight edge in sustained performance.

Platform and Compatibility

The A10 PRO-7800B uses the AMD Socket FM2+ interface, which is specific to AMD's Kaveri and later APUs. It supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The memory bus is dual-channel, and the processor does not support ECC memory. The PCIe interface is Gen 3 with 16 lanes available from the CPU, which is typical for a desktop part of its generation. The integrated graphics are Radeon R7, which provides basic display output and hardware acceleration for video. The processor is not multiplier-unlocked, so overclocking is not officially supported. The part number is AD780BYBI44JA, and it was released on 2014-07-30, with a production status of end-of-life. The socket FM2+ is a mature platform, and the memory support is limited to DDR3, which is now older technology. The lack of ECC support means it is not suited for error-sensitive server workloads. The 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are sufficient for a single graphics card, but the integrated GPU may be the primary display solution. The upgrade path is limited to other FM2+ processors, which are also end-of-life. Given the age, compatibility with modern peripherals and software may be constrained, but the platform offers a complete solution for a basic desktop.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the A10 PRO-7800B?

A: The average benchmark score is 746, placing it in the 19th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How does the A10 PRO-7800B compare to the Intel Core i5-670?

A: The A10 PRO-7800B has an average score of 746, which is 0.1% lower than the Core i5-670's 747, a negligible difference.

Q: Does the A10 PRO-7800B support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported. The processor uses DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration.

Q: What is the boost clock speed of the A10 PRO-7800B?

A: The boost clock is 3.90 GHz, while the base clock is 3.50 GHz.

Q: What socket does the A10 PRO-7800B use?

A: It uses the AMD Socket FM2+.

Q: Is the A10 PRO-7800B still in production?

A: No, its production status is end-of-life. It was released on 2014-07-30.