CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 965 vs 5700

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Passmark and GeekBench (32-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
AMD Phenom II X4 965 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Phenom II X4 965  based on its .

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

AMD Phenom II X4 965

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of AMD Phenom II X4 965

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Phenom II X4 965

Reasons to consider the
AMD Phenom II X4 965

Report a correction
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Better PassMark score 5,916 vs 4,200 More than 40% better PassMark score
Slightly better 3DMark11 physics score 4,100 vs 3,250 More than 25% better 3DMark11 physics score
Front view of AMD A10 5700

Reasons to consider the
AMD A10 5700

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
More l2 cache 4 MB vs 2 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 152.93W 2.9x lower typical power consumption
Significantly higher Maximum Operating Temperature 71.3 °C vs 62 °C Around 15% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Significantly more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Nov, 2009 Release date over 2 years later
Much lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 54.06 $/year 3.5x lower annual home energy cost
Better performance per watt 7.47 pt/W vs 3.26 pt/W More than 2.2x better performance per watt
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 152.42 $/year 2.7x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Phenom II X4 965 vs A10 5700

GeekBench (32-bit)

GeekBench

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Phenom II X4 965 A10 5700 @ community.futuremark.com

Passmark

Phenom II X4 965 A10 5700 @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Reviews Word on the street

Phenom II X4 965  vs A10 5700 

7.0
7.0
The six-core chip definitely makes more sense for a video editing rig.
Phenom II X4 965

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Phenom II X4 965  vs
A10 5700 
Clock speed 3.4 GHz 3.4 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Is unlocked Yes No
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
MMX
AVX 1.1
SSE
SSE4.2
AMD64
XOP
SSE3
CLMUL
SSE2
FMA4
F16C
SSE4.1
SSE4a
AES
3DNow!
CVT16
AMD-V
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 140W 65W
Annual home energy cost 54.06 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 152.42 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 3.26 pt/W 7.47 pt/W
Typical power consumption 152.93W 52.81W

details

Phenom II X4 965  vs
A10 5700 
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 2 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 758,000,000 1,303,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.43V 0.83 - 1.48V
Operating temperature Unknown - 62°C Unknown - 71.3°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 22 2
Overclocked clock speed 4.06 GHz 4.24 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.4 GHz 3.4 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 3,136.7 2,854.9
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.06 GHz 4.24 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon™ HD 7660D
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
GPU clock speed N/A 760 MHz
AMD Phenom II X4 965
Report a correction
AMD A10 5700
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus