AMD A4-7300 CPU Review

[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
The A4-7300 from AMD, with two cores and 4.0 GHz, is one of the most inexpensive CPUs available today. Let’s find out how it performs and compare it to the Celeron G3900. Check it out!
Entry (low-end) CPUs are usually fitted for inexpensive computers aimed on office or simple home tasks, like text editing and web browsing, which don’t demand high computing power. Intel has, for this market, the Celeron G3900 (which we tested recently). On the other hand, inside APU family from AMD, the A6 and the A4 are the most basic processors.
The A4-7300 is one of the most inexpensive AMD processors available today. It has two “Richland” cores, Radeon HD8470D video engine, 3.8 GHz base clock and 4.0 GHz turbo block, and uses the FM2 socket (being compatible, however, also with FM2+ motherboards).
Figure 1 shows the A4-7300 package.

Figure 1: the box of the A4-7300

Figure 2 shows the package contents: a manual, a case sticker, the CPU itself, and a cooler.

Figure 2: box contents

Figure 3 unveils the A4-7300 CPU.

Figure 3: the A4-7300 CPU

In Figure 4, you see the bottom of the processor.

Figure 4: bottom of the A4-7300

In our tests, we compared the A4-7300 to the Celeron G3900, for they are in the same price range. We also included, for comparison, the Pentium G4400 and the A6-7400B (which is similar to the A6-7400K), because they are two of the the most inexpensive CPUs we had available at the lab. It is important to keep in mind, however, that those processors are a little more expensive than the A4-7300 and the Celeron G3900.
Let us compare the main specs of the reviewed CPUs in the next page.
[nextpage title=”The Reviewed CPUs”]
In the tables below, we compare the main features of the CPUs included in our review.

CPU	Cores	HT	IGP	Internal Clock	Turbo Clock	Core	Tech.	TDP	Socket	Price
A4-7300	2	No	Yes	3.8 GHz	4.0 GHz	Richland	32 nm	65/45 W	FM2	USD 45
Celeron G3900	2	No	Yes	2.8 GHz	–	Skylake	14 nm	51 W	LGA1151	USD 55
Pentium G4400	2	No	Yes	3.3 GHz	–	Skylake	14 nm	54 W	LGA1151	USD 65
A6-7400B	2	No	Yes	3.5 GHz	3.9 GHz	Kaveri	28 nm	65 W	FM2+	USD 65*

Prices were researched at Newegg.com on the day this article was published. TDP means Thermal Design Power, the maximum amount of heat the CPU can dissipate.
* This price refers to the A6-7400K model, which is similar to the A6-7400B.
Below you can see the memory configuration for each CPU.

CPU	L2 Cache	L3 Cache	Memory Support	Memory Channels
A4-7300	1 MiB	–	Up to DDR3-1600	Two
Celeron G3900	2 x 256 kiB	2 MiB	Up to DDR4-2133 or DDR3L-1600	Two
Pentium G4400	2 x 256 kiB	3 MiB	Up to DDR4-2133 or DDR3L-1600	Two
A6-7400B	1 MiB	–	Up to DDR3-1866	Two

Below we have a comparison of the graphic engine of each CPU.

CPU	GPU	DirectX	Clock	Cores
A4-7300	Radeon HD 8470D	11	800 MHz	192
Celeron G3900	Intel HD 510	12	350/950 MHz	12
Pentium G4400	Intel HD 510	12	350/1,000 MHz	12
A6-7400B	Radeon R5	11.2	756 MHz	256

[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions, the only variable device was the CPU being tested, besides the motherboard and memory, which had to be replaced to match the different CPUs.
Hardware Configuration

Motherboard (socket LGA1151): ASRock Fatal1ty Z170 Gaming K6+
Motherboard (socket FM2+): ASRock FM2A88X Extreme6+
CPU Cooler: Intel/AMD stock
Memory (DDR3): 8 GiB DDR3-2133, two G.Skill Ripjaws F3-17000CL9Q-16GBZH 4 GiB memory modules configured at 2,133 MHz
Memory (DDR4): 8 GiB DDR4-2400 two G.Skill Ripjaws 4 F4-2400C15Q-16GRR 4 GiB memory modules configured at 2133 MHz
Boot drive: Kingston HyperX Savage 480 GB
Video Card: integrated
Video Monitor: Philips 236VL
Power Supply: Corsair CX500M

Operating System Configuration

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
NTFS
Video resolution: 1920 x 1080 60 Hz

Driver Versions

AMD driver version: 15.11
Intel Inf chipset driver version: 10.0

Software Used

Error Margin
We adopted a 4% error margin. Thus, differences below 4% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 4% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”PCMark 8″]
PCMark 8 is a benchmarking software that uses real-world applications to measure the computer performance. We ran three tests: Home, which includes web browsing, writing, light gaming, photo editing, and video chat tests; Creative, which includes web surfing, video editing, group video chat, video conversion, and gaming; and Work, which runs tasks such as writing documents, web browsing, spreadsheets, editing, and video chatting. Let’s see the results.

On the Home benchmark, the A4-7300 was 14% slower than the Celeron G3900.

On Creative benchmark, the A4-7300 was 31% slower than the Celeron G3900.

On the Work benchmark, the A4-7300 was 14% slower than the Celeron G3900.

[nextpage title=”3DMark”]

3DMark is a program with a set of several 3D benchmarks. Sky Diver measures DirectX 11 performance, and is aimed on average computers. The Cloud Gate benchmark measures DirectX 10 performance, and the Ice Storm Extreme measures DirectX 9 performance and is targeted to entry-level computers.

On the Sky Diver benchmark, the A4-7300 performed similarly to the Celeron G3900.

On Cloud Gate, the A4-7300 was 16% slower than the Celeron G3900.

On the Ice Storm Extreme benchmark, the A4-7300 was 20% faster than the Celeron G3900.

[nextpage title=”Photoshop CC and Cinebench R15″]

Cinebench R15

Cinebench R15 is based on the Cinema 4D software. It is very useful to measure the performance gain obtained by the presence of several processing cores while rendering heavy 3D images. Rendering is an area where a bigger number of cores helps a lot, because usually this kind of software recognize several processors (Cinebench R15, for example, can use up to 256 processing cores).
We ran the CPU benchmark, which renders a complex image using all the processing cores (real and virtual) to speed up the process. The result is given as a score.

Here the A4-7300 was 37% slower than the Celeron G3900.

DivX

We used the DivX converter, a tool included in the DivX package, in order to measure the encoding performance using this codec. The DivX codec is capable of recognizing and using all available cores and the SSE4 instruction set.
We converted a Full HD, six-minute long .mov video file into a .avi file, using the “HD 1080p” output profile. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

On DivX encoding, the A4-7300 was 35% slower than the Celeron G3900.

DVDShrink

DVDShrink is an old but still very useful program to “shrink” video DVDs that have more than 4.7 GiB of data to fit single-layer DVD media. We used it to compress the DVD of “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” DVD to 4.7 GiB. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

On this test, the A4-7300 was 21% faster than the Celeron G3900.

Media Espresso

Media Espresso is a video conversion program that uses the graphics processing unit of the video engine to speed up the conversion process. We converted a 1 GiB, 1920x1080i, 23,738 kbps, .mov video file to a smaller 320×200, H.264, .MP4 file for viewing on a smartphone. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

Here the A4-7300 was 20% slower than the Celeron G3900.
[nextpage title=”Gaming Performance”]

Battlefield 4

Battlefield 4 is the latest installment in the Battlefield franchise, released in 2013. It is based on the Frostbite 3 engine, which is DirectX 11. In order to measure performance using this game, we walked our way through the first mission, measuring the number of frames per second three times using FRAPS. We ran this game at 1920 x 1080, setting overall image quality at “medium.”
The results below are expressed in frames per second (fps) and they are the mean between the three collected results.

On Battlefield 4, the A4-7300 was 17% faster than the Celeron G3900.

Dirt Rally

Dirt Rally is an off-road racing game released in April 2015, using Ego engine. To measure performance using this game, we ran the performance test included in the game, in 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) resolution and image quality configured as “low” and MSAA off.
The results below are expressed in frames per second.

In this game, there was a technical tie between the A4-7300 and the Celeron G3900.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V, or simply GTA V, is an open-world action game released for PCs in April of 2015, using the RAGE engine. In order to measure the performance on this game, we ran the performance test of the game, measuring the framerate with FRAPS. We ran GTA V at 1280 x 720, with image quality set to the minimum.

The results below are expressed in frames per second.

Unfortunately, we weren’t able to run decently GTA V on the A4-7300. The game actually adverts us, at launch, that the system doesn’t comply the minimum requisites to run the game.

[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
In a direct comparison to the Celeron G3900, it is clear that the A4-7300 has less processing power. It is also clear that the performance of its integrated video is not much higher. So, similarly as we concluded on the Celeron G3900 review, we can say the A4-7300 is not a good choice for a gaming computer.
Anyone who buys an entry CPU like the A4-7300 is not looking for a processor for tasks that demand high processing power. On the other hand, for simple applications like text editing, web browsing, and even media playing, it can be a good deal, due to its very low cost.
And the A4-7300 also has the option to reduce its TDP to 45 W, using an adjust present on compatible motherboards setup, which can be amazing on ultra-SFF computers or HTPCs that need do be quiet.