
Athlon II X4 635 vs A10-8700P

Athlon II X4 635

A10-8700P
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon II X4 635 is positioned at rank 1069 and the A10-8700P is on rank 978, so the A10-8700P offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II X4 635
Performance Per Dollar A10-8700P
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X4 635 | A10-8700P |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($250) | ✅ More affordable ($40) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Propus (2009−2011) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Carrizo (2015−2018) / 28 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X4 635 | A10-8700P |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+527%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($250) | ✅ More affordable ($40) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon II X4 635 and A10-8700P

Athlon II X4 635
The Athlon II X4 635 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 25 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Propus (2009−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,248 points. Launch price was $70.

A10-8700P
The A10-8700P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Carrizo (2015−2018) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FP4. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 2,254 points. Launch price was $130.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II X4 635 and A10-8700P share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.9 GHz on the Athlon II X4 635 versus 3.2 GHz on the A10-8700P — a 9.8% clock advantage for the A10-8700P (base: 2.9 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Athlon II X4 635 uses the Propus (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the A10-8700P uses Carrizo (2015−2018) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X4 635 scores 2,248 against the A10-8700P's 2,254 — a 0.3% lead for the A10-8700P. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 180 vs 480, a 90.9% lead for the A10-8700P that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 550 vs 1,000 (58.1% advantage for the A10-8700P).
| Feature | Athlon II X4 635 | A10-8700P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4 | 4 / 4 |
| Boost Clock | 2.9 GHz | 3.2 GHz+10% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+61% | 1.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | — |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core) | 2048 kB+300% |
| Process | 45 nm | 28 nm-38% |
| Architecture | Propus (2009−2011) | Carrizo (2015−2018) |
| PassMark | 2,248 | 2,254 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 658 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 180 | 480+167% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 550 | 1,000+82% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X4 635 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the A10-8700P uses FP4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 / DDR2-1066 memory speed. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon II X4 635) vs 12 (A10-8700P) — the Athlon II X4 635 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 770,785G,790FX,880G,890FX,970,990FX (Athlon II X4 635) and SoC (A10-8700P).
| Feature | Athlon II X4 635 | A10-8700P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | FP4 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 / DDR2-1066 | DDR3-2133 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16+33% | 12 |
Advanced Features
Only the Athlon II X4 635 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AMD-V virtualization. The A10-8700P includes integrated graphics (Radeon R6), while the Athlon II X4 635 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon II X4 635 targets Budget, A10-8700P targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A10-8700P rivals Core i5-5200U.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 635 | A10-8700P |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Radeon R6 |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Budget | Budget Laptop |
Value Analysis
The Athlon II X4 635 launched at $400 MSRP, while the A10-8700P debuted at $150. At current prices ($250 vs $40), the A10-8700P is $210 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X4 635 delivers 9.0 pts/$ vs 56.4 pts/$ for the A10-8700P — making the A10-8700P the 145% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 635 | A10-8700P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $400 | $150-63% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $250 | $40-84% |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.0 | 56.4+527% |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2015 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
















