AMD A8-3820 | Samsung Exynos 9609 | |
65 W | Max TDP | |
NA | Power consumption per day (kWh) | NA |
NA | Running cost per day | NA |
NA | Power consumption per year (kWh) | NA |
NA | Running cost per year | NA |
AMD A8-3820 vs Samsung Exynos 9609
The AMD A8-3820 operates with 4 cores and 4 CPU threads. It run at 2.80 GHz base 2.80 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 65 W.The processor is attached to the FM1 CPU socket. This version includes 4.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support DDR3-1600 RAM and features PCIe Gen lanes. Tjunction keeps below -- degrees C. In particular, Llano (K10) Architecture is enhanced with 32 nm technology and supports AMD-V. The product was launched on Q4/2011
The Samsung Exynos 9609 operates with 8 cores and 4 CPU threads. It run at 2.20 GHz base 1.60 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at .The processor is attached to the N/A CPU socket. This version includes -- of L3 cache on one chip, supports 0 memory channels to support LPDDR4X-1600 RAM and features PCIe Gen lanes. Tjunction keeps below -- degrees C. In particular, Cortex-A73 / Cortex-A53 Architecture is enhanced with 10 nm technology and supports None. The product was launched on Q2/2019
Samsung Exynos 9609
Compare Detail
2.50 GHz | Frequency | 2.20 GHz |
4 | Cores | 8 |
2.80 GHz | Turbo (1 Core) | 2.20 GHz |
2.80 GHz | Turbo (All Cores) | 1.60 GHz |
No | Hyperthreading | No |
Yes | Overclocking | No |
normal | Core Architecture | hybrid (big.LITTLE) |
AMD Radeon HD 6550D | GPU | ARM Mali-G72 MP3 |
No turbo | GPU (Turbo) | No turbo |
32 nm | Technology | 10 nm |
No turbo | GPU (Turbo) | No turbo |
11 | DirectX Version | 12 |
2 | Max. displays | 1 |
DDR3-1600 | Memory | LPDDR4X-1600 |
2 | Memory channels | 0 |
Max memory | ||
No | ECC | No |
-- | L2 Cache | -- |
4.00 MB | L3 Cache | -- |
PCIe version | ||
PCIe lanes | ||
32 nm | Technology | 10 nm |
FM1 | Socket | N/A |
65 W | TDP | |
AMD-V | Virtualization | None |
Q4/2011 | Release date | Q2/2019 |
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn't count.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
iGPU - FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
The theoretical computing performance of the internal graphics unit of the processor with simple accuracy (32 bit) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS indicates how many billion floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
AnTuTu 8 benchmark
The AnTuTu 8 Benchmark measures the performance of a SoC. AnTuTu benchmarks the CPU, GPU, Memory as well as the UX (User Experience) by simulating browser and app usage. AnTuTu can benchmark any ARM CPU that runs under Android or iOS. Devices may not be directly compareable if the benchmark has been performed under different operating systems.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn't count.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the CPUs listed below have been benchmarked by CPU-Comparison. However the majority of CPUs have not been tested and the results have been estimated by a CPU-Comparison’s secret proprietary formula. As such they do not accurately reflect the actual Passmark CPU mark values and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.