AMD PRO A10-8750B

The AMD PRO A10-8750B is a 28 nm Steamroller-based desktop processor from the Godaveri generation, built for the AMD Socket FM2+ platform. It pairs four physical cores with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, along with a Radeon R7 integrated GPU. Its benchmark profile places it near the bottom of the current processor landscape, sitting at the 21st percentile of all CPUs tracked in the database, with an average benchmark score of 821. The following analysis breaks down how this chip actually performs, where its strengths and weaknesses lie, and which workloads suit it best.

Benchmark Performance

The PRO A10-8750B's raw compute scores are modest by modern standards, reflecting its 2015-era architecture and four-thread design. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 254 points; in Cinebench R20 multi-core, it reaches 1060 points. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core result is 2525 points. These numbers place it in a tight cluster with several older Intel and AMD parts. The data shows the chip is effectively a peer of the Intel Xeon E5540, which scores an average of 820 versus the A10's 821, a delta of just 0.1%. That means in mixed workloads, the two are virtually indistinguishable.

Against the Intel Pentium G4500, the A10 leads by a slim 0.7% in average score (821 vs 816). This is a marginal win, but it is not consistent across all test types. The Celeron J4105 actually edges out the A10 by 0.7% (827 vs 821), showing that a low-power quad-core from a newer generation can match this older AMD part. The closest rival is the AMD A10 PRO-7850B, which scores 828 on average, putting the 8750B behind by 0.8%. That gap is small enough to be within run-to-run variance, but it indicates the 7850B holds a slight edge in sustained multi-threaded output.

For single-core performance, the Cinebench R20 single-core score of 149 and R23 single-core score of 356 show a significant deficit compared to modern chips. The Geekbench single-core result of 416 reinforces this. These numbers are not competitive with even entry-level current processors, but they are consistent with the rival set listed here, which also includes older or lower-tier parts. The average benchmark score of 821 across all tests positions the A10-8750B as a strictly entry-level or legacy processor, suitable for basic tasks but not for heavy lifting.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The A10-8750B is a true quad-core with four threads, meaning it does not rely on simultaneous multithreading. This gives it predictable scaling in multi-threaded applications, but it also caps its peak throughput. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score of 1060 is roughly 7.1 times the single-core score of 149, which is a typical ratio for a four-core part without SMT. The R23 results show a similar pattern: 2525 multi-core versus 356 single-core, a factor of about 7.1. This linear scaling means that workloads which use all four cores will see near-ideal speedups, but anything that relies on a single thread will suffer.

In real-world terms, the single-thread performance is the chip's biggest weakness. A Geekbench single-core score of 416 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 356 are well below what modern office applications expect. Basic web browsing, document editing, and light spreadsheet work will feel sluggish, especially if the system is running background tasks. Conversely, multi-threaded workloads that are properly optimized, such as video encoding or 3D rendering in older software versions, will use all four cores effectively, but the absolute output is still low. The 1060-point R20 multi-core result is roughly half of what a modern budget quad-core would produce, so rendering times will be long.

The split between single and multi-thread performance also matters for gaming. Most games still rely heavily on one or two threads, and the low single-core scores will bottleneck frame rates even with a capable discrete GPU. Multi-threaded games that scale across four cores will fare better, but the overall compute headroom is limited. For mixed productivity, the chip behaves like a balanced but slow quad-core: fine for one task at a time, but prone to stuttering when multiple applications compete for CPU time.

Power and Thermals

The PRO A10-8750B carries a 95 W TDP, which is high for a four-core processor by today's standards. This TDP class requires a capable air cooler, not a stock low-profile unit, to maintain boost clocks under sustained load. The 28 nm process node and 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die mean the chip runs hot relative to its performance. The 95 W figure is comparable to many mid-range desktop CPUs from the same era, but modern quad-cores with similar or better performance typically draw far less power.

For cooling, a standard tower-style air cooler with a 120 mm fan will handle the 8750B without issue, but the stock AMD cooler that shipped with FM2+ processors may be borderline under heavy all-core loads. The socket is AMD Socket FM2+, which limits upgrade paths to other FM2+ parts, all of which are end-of-life. There is no L3 cache, only 256 KB of L1 and 4 MB of L2, which contributes to higher latency and lower efficiency per clock. Memory support is DDR3 dual-channel with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is another limiting factor for modern workloads that expect DDR4 or DDR5.

Thermals are not catastrophic, but they are not efficient. The 95 W TDP means the chip will draw a noticeable amount of power under load, and the lack of a modern process node means that power translates into heat rather than performance. In a compact or poorly ventilated case, sustained multi-threaded workloads could push temperatures high enough to reduce boost clocks. The integrated Radeon R7 GPU shares the same thermal envelope, so gaming on the iGPU will add to the heat load. For a budget or office build, a decent aftermarket cooler is recommended, but not an expensive liquid cooler, the chip simply cannot utilize that much cooling capacity.

How It Compares

vs Intel Xeon E5540: The A10-8750B and the Xeon E5540 are nearly identical in average score, with a delta of just 0.1%. The Xeon is an older server part with a different architecture, but in the benchmark database, they perform within noise of each other. The A10 has a higher clock speed, but the Xeon likely has more cache and memory bandwidth, which balances out. For practical purposes, choosing between them comes down to platform availability, not performance.

vs Intel Pentium G4500: The A10 leads the Pentium G4500 by 0.7% in average score. The Pentium is a dual-core with hyper-threading, so it has fewer physical cores but potentially better single-thread performance. In single-threaded tests, the Pentium would likely win, but the A10's extra cores give it an edge in multi-threaded workloads. This makes the A10 a better choice for encoding or rendering, while the Pentium might feel snappier in everyday desktop use.

vs Intel Celeron J4105: The Celeron J4105 beats the A10 by 0.7%, despite being a low-power quad-core with a much lower TDP. This is a significant indictment of the A10's efficiency. The J4105 is a 10 W-class chip that competes with a 95 W part, which means the A10 uses far more power for slightly less performance. For any power-sensitive or silent build, the J4105 is clearly superior, but the A10 does offer a faster integrated GPU and more memory bandwidth.

vs AMD A10 PRO-7850B: The closest rival, the A10 PRO-7850B, scores 0.8% higher on average. Both are Steamroller quad-cores on FM2+, so the difference likely comes down to clock bins or minor firmware optimizations. The 7850B is effectively the same chip with a slightly better bin, making the 8750B the weaker sibling in the same family. If you already own an FM2+ board, the 7850B is the better drop-in upgrade, but neither is worth seeking out today.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD PRO A10-8750B support ECC memory?

A: No, the FACT PACK lists ECC memory support as false, so it only works with non-ECC DDR3 modules.

Q: What is the socket type for this processor?

A: It uses AMD Socket FM2+, which is a legacy platform with no new motherboard releases.

Q: How much L3 cache does the A10-8750B have?

A: It has no L3 cache; the cache hierarchy consists of 256 KB of L1 and 4 MB of L2.

Q: Can this CPU be overclocked?

A: No, the multiplier is locked, so overclocking is not supported through standard multiplier adjustments.

Q: What integrated graphics does it include?

A: It features a Radeon R7 integrated GPU, which is suitable for basic display output and light gaming.

Q: Is the processor still in production?

A: No, the production status is end-of-life, and it was released on September 28, 2015.

Who Should Consider It

The AMD PRO A10-8750B is a relic from the FM2+ era, and its benchmark scores reflect that. For gaming, this chip is a poor choice. The single-core scores of 356 in Cinebench R23 and 416 in Geekbench will bottleneck most modern games, even at low settings. The integrated Radeon R7 GPU can handle esports titles at 720p or 1080p with reduced detail, but any dedicated GPU will be held back by the CPU. Gamers should look elsewhere, as even the rival Pentium G4500 offers better single-thread performance for the same average score.

For content creation, the multi-threaded scores are usable but slow. A Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2525 means a 4K video export will take several times longer than a modern chip. However, for occasional 1080p encoding or light photo editing, the four cores can get the job done, albeit slowly. The 1060-point R20 score is adequate for hobbyist rendering in older software, but professionals will find it frustratingly slow. Office work is a mixed bag: basic document editing and spreadsheet tasks will run, but the low single-thread performance will make the system feel laggy with multiple tabs or applications open.

The only compelling use case is a legacy system where the motherboard and memory are already owned. If you have an FM2+ board and DDR3 RAM, the A10-8750B is a functional drop-in for basic office, web browsing, or as a media playback machine. Its 95 W TDP and 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth are acceptable for these tasks, and the Radeon R7 iGPU can drive a 1080p display without a discrete card. For anyone building a new system, the data clearly shows that even a low-power Celeron J4105 matches it in average score while using a fraction of the power, so there is no reason to choose the A10 in 2025. It is a chip for salvage builds, not new purchases.