AMD Athlon X4 870K

The AMD Athlon X4 870K is a desktop processor built on the Steamroller architecture, code-named Godaveri, manufactured on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, and it carries a 95 W TDP. The chip is positioned in the lower quartile of all CPUs, holding a 25th percentile ranking, with an average benchmark score of 956 across the tested workloads.

Platform and Compatibility

The Athlon X4 870K uses AMD Socket FM2+, a platform that is now firmly in the legacy segment, as the processor’s production status is listed as end-of-life. Memory support is limited to DDR3, operating in dual-channel mode, with a peak memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. Notably, ECC memory is not supported, which narrows its appeal for error-tolerant workstation builds but is typical for a consumer-oriented part. The PCIe implementation is Gen 3 with 16 lanes available from the CPU only, meaning any add-in cards, such as a discrete GPU, draw directly from those lanes; there is no integrated graphics on this die, so a separate graphics card is mandatory for any display output.

The upgrade path is constrained by the socket’s age. Because the platform is end-of-life, users are limited to other FM2+ processors, which are all based on similar-era architectures. The 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present, is a structural characteristic of the Godaveri design. The multiplier is unlocked, which provides some overclocking headroom, but the underlying platform—DDR3 memory and an older chipset—means the ceiling for system-level performance improvements is modest. For anyone building a new system today, this socket is not a forward-looking choice; it is best understood as a drop-in upgrade for an existing FM2+ motherboard.

Who Should Consider It

Benchmark results indicate this CPU is suited for light, single-task workloads rather than demanding parallel applications. The multi-core scores—294 in Cinebench R15, 1225 in R20, and 2917 in R23—place it firmly in entry-level territory. For office productivity, such as word processing, spreadsheet work, and web browsing, the single-core performance is adequate, though the 468 Geekbench single-core score suggests no headroom for heavy multitasking. Gaming is possible but only with older or less demanding titles; the lack of integrated graphics and the modest multi-threaded output mean modern AAA games will likely be bottlenecked, especially in scenes that leverage multiple cores. Content creation, such as video editing or 3D rendering, is not a strength; the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2917 is roughly a fraction of what contemporary mid-range CPUs achieve, so render times will be long. The intended audience is someone with an existing FM2+ board who wants a quick, low-cost upgrade for basic tasks, or a hobbyist exploring older platforms for educational purposes. The 25th percentile ranking across all CPUs reinforces that this is not a performance-oriented part by current standards.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The split between single-core and multi-core scores reveals a processor that is comparatively weaker in single-threaded execution. In Cinebench R20, the single-core score is 172, while the multi-core score is 1225, which is a ratio of roughly 7.1x for four cores—an ideal scaling would be near 4x, but the actual scaling is higher because the single-core score is so low. In Cinebench R23, the single-core score is 411 against a multi-core score of 2917, a ratio of about 7.1x as well. This suggests that the multi-core performance benefits from all cores being active, but the per-core throughput is limited by the Steamroller architecture’s older design. For real workloads, this means applications that are heavily dependent on a single thread—such as many older games, spreadsheet recalculation, or light scripting—will see performance that is below even modern entry-level chips. Conversely, well-threaded applications, like batch image processing or multi-threaded compression, will use all four cores, but the absolute output is still constrained by the modest clock-per-core efficiency. The boost clock of 4.10 GHz helps mitigate some of the single-thread deficit, but the architecture’s lower instructions-per-clock (IPC) compared to newer designs is the limiting factor. The data implies a chip that is more consistent in multi-threaded tasks relative to its single-thread capability, but both are at the low end of the spectrum.

How It Compares

Against the Intel Celeron N5100, the Athlon X4 870K has an average score of 956 versus 957, a delta of -0.1%. This is essentially a statistical tie, but the two chips are very different in nature: the Celeron is a low-power, often fanless design aimed at netbooks and mini-PCs, while the Athlon is a desktop part with a 95 W TDP. The X4 870K’s higher clock speed (4.10 GHz boost) does not translate into a meaningful lead, which suggests that the Celeron’s newer architecture compensates for its lower clocks.

The Intel Xeon W3570, a much older server-grade processor, scores 955 against the Athlon’s 956, a delta of 0.1%. This is another near-dead heat. The Xeon has more cache and was designed for multi-socket servers, but in these specific benchmarks, the Athlon manages to match it, likely due to the Xeon’s age and lower per-core efficiency in modern test loads.

The AMD Opteron 4386, another server chip, also scores 957, giving a delta of -0.1% against the Athlon. This is a surprising result because the Opteron is a higher-core-count part (though the pack does not specify cores), but in these tests, the Athlon’s four cores with higher clocks are enough to keep pace. The data suggests that the Athlon X4 870K is not outperforming any of its nearest rivals by a meaningful margin; it is clustered tightly around the 955–957 average score range.

The Intel Pentium Silver J5040, a low-power desktop processor, scores 955, a delta of 0.1% relative to the Athlon. This is a particularly telling comparison because the J5040 is a modern, efficient chip with a much lower TDP, yet the Athlon’s higher clock speed and four full cores only manage a negligible edge. Overall, the Athlon X4 870K sits in a crowded performance tier where several very different processor designs all converge to the same average score.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark data shows a processor that is consistent across multiple test suites but consistently low in absolute terms. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the score is 294, which is a modest number for a 4-core part; modern 4-core CPUs often score several times higher. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 1225 and R23 multi-core score of 2917 follow the same pattern—each generation of the test increases the workload, and the Athlon’s scores scale accordingly but remain at the bottom of the range. The single-core scores are even more revealing: Cinebench R20 single-core is 172, and R23 single-core is 411, both of which are below typical entry-level processors from the last few years. Geekbench scores are 1205 multi-core and 468 single-core, which again place the chip in the 25th percentile of all CPUs.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the deltas are negligible. The Athlon’s average score of 956 is 0.1% below the Celeron N5100’s 957 and 0.1% below the Opteron 4386’s 957. It is 0.1% above the Xeon W3570 and the Pentium Silver J5040, both at 955. These differences are within the margin of test variance, so the data indicates that the Athlon X4 870K performs essentially identically to all four of these rivals in aggregate. However, the composition of that score differs: the Athlon relies on higher clock speeds (3.90 GHz base, 4.10 GHz boost) to match chips that likely have lower clocks but newer architectures. This implies that the Athlon’s Steamroller design is significantly less efficient per clock than its competitors, and it only achieves parity through brute clock frequency. The 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is a further constraint, as newer rivals may have faster memory access, but the pack does not provide those figures for comparison.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Athlon X4 870K?

A: The average benchmark score is 956, placing it in the 25th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How does the Athlon X4 870K compare to the Intel Celeron N5100?

A: The Athlon has an average score of 956 versus the Celeron’s 957, a delta of -0.1%, indicating they perform nearly identically in these tests.

Q: Does the Athlon X4 870K support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported; the chip uses dual-channel DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP of this processor, and what does that imply for cooling?

A: The TDP is 95 W, which is a moderate thermal load. It implies the need for a capable air cooler, but not an exotic liquid cooling solution; a basic tower cooler would suffice.

Q: Is the multiplier unlocked on the Athlon X4 870K?

A: Yes, the multiplier is unlocked, which allows for overclocking, though the older platform and DDR3 memory limit the potential gains.

Q: What is the production status of the Athlon X4 870K?

A: The production status is end-of-life, meaning it is no longer manufactured and the FM2+ socket is a legacy platform.

Power and Thermals

The Athlon X4 870K carries a 95 W TDP, which is a moderate figure for a desktop processor. This TDP class suggests that a standard air cooler with a 92 mm or 120 mm fan is sufficient for stock operation, and given the unlocked multiplier, a slightly larger cooler would provide headroom for overclocking. The 28 nm process node and the Steamroller architecture are not known for exceptional efficiency, so the 95 W TDP is a reflection of the higher clock speeds (3.90 GHz base, 4.10 GHz boost) rather than a particularly power-hungry design. The lack of integrated graphics means the TDP is entirely devoted to the CPU cores, which simplifies thermal management. In a well-ventilated case, the stock cooler should maintain acceptable temperatures, but the data does not specify thermal limits. The end-of-life status and the availability of more efficient modern chips suggest that while this processor is functional, it is not a power-efficient choice by current standards. For a user with an existing FM2+ motherboard, the 95 W TDP is manageable, but any new build would be better served by a newer platform with a lower TDP and higher performance per watt. The benchmark scores, clustered around 956 average, are achieved at this TDP, which is a trade-off that reflects the age of the architecture.