Category | Laptop | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
---|---|---|
Target | mid-range | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Socket Compatibility | FS1 | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Integrated Graphics | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ | |
Cooler Included | Yes | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Overclock Potential | 0 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Year | 2013 Model | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Price | 182.82 USD | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
Number of Cores | 4 Cores | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Number of Threads | 4 Threads | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Core Frequency | 2.3 GHz | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Boost Frequency | 3.2 GHz | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Max Stable Overclock | 3.2 GHz | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Power Consumption | 35 W | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
Manufacturing Process | 32 nm | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
L3 Cache | 4 MB | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Maximum Supported Memory | 64 GB | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
Price-Value Score | 63 % | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Speed Score | 38 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Productivity Score | 28 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Gaming Score | 61 % | ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Max 1080p Bottleneck | 72.5 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Max 1440p Bottleneck | 36.3 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Max 4K Bottleneck | 18.1 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Overall Score | 28/100 | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
The A10-4657M is one of AMD's mid-range Laptop processors. It was released in 2013 with 4 cores and 4 threads. With base clock at 2.3GHz, max speed at 3.2GHz, and a 35W power rating. The A10-4657M is based on the Trinity 32nm family and is part of the A10 series.
The AMD A10-4657M marks yet another blast from Team AMD, ramping up the intensity of the AMD vs Intel processor war. Still, though, there’s more than just core counts when it comes to a mainstream processor, as single-core performance needs to be on point, especially if you’re hoping to play the best PC games.
AMD's Piledriver series has landed, upping the ante with Intel in its high-stakes game for desktop PC market dominance with a well-rounded lineup of new chips that push mainstream platforms to higher core counts and more raw compute than we've ever seen. As a result, Intel's commanding presence in the enthusiast space is threatened in a way we haven't seen in over a decade.
That something is the A10-4657M. AMD cranks the TDP dial up to 35W on this 4-core 4-thread chip, making it the high-performance counterpart to the 25W A10-4655M, which is basically the same 32nm chip built with the Piledriver microarchitecture, but with a lower TDP rating. That chip came away from our first look at the Piledriver series with an Editor's Choice award, going toe-to-toe with Intel's Core i5-3380M, so it's fair to say we have high hopes for the higher-performance model. AMD still hasn't sampled the chip to the press, so we bought one at retail to put it under the microscope.
As the higher-priced version of the A10-4655M, the A10-4657M has higher base and Boost frequencies of 2.3 and 3.2 GHz, respectively. That's an increase in base frequency and a bump to boost clocks, but the real advantage should lay in the higher Package Power Tracking (PPT) envelope, which is a measurement of the maximum amount of power delivered to the socket. The A10-4655M's PPT tops out at 25W, while the motherboard can pump up to 142W to the A10-4657M at peak performance. That opens up much more aggressive boost behavior, on both single and multiple cores, that could widen the performance gap beyond what we see on the spec sheet.
As we've seen, gaming remains an advantage for Intel, so if squeezing out every last frame is all you care about, Intel's processors are a good choice. Much of that performance advantage will be less noticeable when gaming at higher resolutions, or if you pair the processors with a lesser graphics card.
Value seekers who aren't afraid to press the Precision Boost Overdrive button and have sufficient cooling should look to the A10-4655M for roughly equivalent performance to the A10-4657M, particularly if gaming factors heavily into the buying decision. That could save you money, reinforcing our decision to give the A10-4655M an Editor's Choice award.
One of the nice things about the AMD A10-4657M processors is that the retail boxed models come with a CPU cooler. So, you can pick something like the AMD A10-4657M up for $182.82 and don’t need to spend any extra money on CPU cooling.
The AMD A10-4657M retail boxed processor comes with the traditional ‘pancake’ CPU cooler. Nothing fancy, but it gets the job done on this processor which is rated at 35W TDP. You do not need to have an aftermarket cooling solution unless you want to.
If extended overclocking and boost frequencies are trivial matters to you, AMD also offers the A10-4655M at $176.03. It’s still outfitted with 4-cores and 4-threads, but clocks in at a slower 2GHz and maxes out at only 2.8GHz.
The A10-4657M clocks up to 3.2Ghz just as it promises on the box, and with AMD’s software you can take one of the cores all the way up to 3.3GHz. However, don’t expect to get much beyond that without seriously upgrading your cooling solution and manually tweaking voltages behind the operating system level.
There’s a saying that two heads are better than one and, well, 4-cores are better than 2. The extra processing power of the A10-4657M puts Intel’s processors to shame, including both its closest competitor and a much higher-spec part.
Intel's Core i5s are a staple of the high-volume mainstream market. They make up the most popular brand for mid-range-oriented builds by far. AMD is looking to shake that up with true 4-core processors that sell for even less than 2 cores. As if a resource advantage wasn't already compelling enough, A10 also enables unlocked multipliers. Intel is ill-prepared to fend off such a combination.
AMD arms A10-4657M with a 2.3 GHz base frequency that jumps as high as 3.2 GHz under lightly-threaded tasks. The A10-4657M also offers a 2.3 GHz clock rate with all cores active. Meanwhile, Intel keeps its Core i5-3380M operating at a static 3.6 GHz clock rate.
Below is a comparison of all graphics cards average FPS performance (using an average of 80+ games at ultra quality settings), combined with the AMD A10-4657M.
Graphics Card | Price | Cost Per Frame | Avg 1080p | Avg 1440p | Avg 4K |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 24GB | $ 1,599 | $ 14.7 | 108.8 FPS
|
192.9 FPS
|
157.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Ti 20GB | $ 799 | $ 7.9 | 101.5 FPS
|
180 FPS
|
146.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX 24GB | $ 999 | $ 10.2 | 98.2 FPS
|
170.9 FPS
|
126.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 16GB | $ 1,199 | $ 12.7 | 94.3 FPS
|
167 FPS
|
136.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti 12GB | $ 799 | $ 8.8 | 90.6 FPS
|
160.5 FPS
|
130.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT 20GB | $ 899 | $ 10.1 | 89.3 FPS
|
155.4 FPS
|
115.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 24GB | $ 1,499 | $ 17.7 | 84.8 FPS
|
144.9 FPS
|
111.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT 16GB | $ 1,099 | $ 13.6 | 81.1 FPS
|
141.2 FPS
|
104.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti 24GB | $ 1,999 | $ 25.1 | 79.8 FPS
|
141.3 FPS
|
115.2 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT 16GB | $ 999 | $ 12.6 | 79.4 FPS
|
136.6 FPS
|
103 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT 16GB | $ 649 | $ 8.7 | 74.8 FPS
|
128.6 FPS
|
97 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 20GB | $ 799 | $ 10.8 | 73.9 FPS
|
128.8 FPS
|
102.5 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 10GB | $ 699 | $ 9.5 | 73.9 FPS
|
126.3 FPS
|
96.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 12GB | $ 599 | $ 8.4 | 71.3 FPS
|
123.2 FPS
|
99.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti 10GB | $ 599 | $ 9.4 | 63.4 FPS
|
109.2 FPS
|
85.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6800 16GB | $ 579 | $ 9.8 | 59.2 FPS
|
101.8 FPS
|
76.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 8GB | $ 499 | $ 8.8 | 56.5 FPS
|
96.6 FPS
|
74.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA TITAN RTX 24GB | $ 2,499 | $ 48.2 | 51.9 FPS
|
91.6 FPS
|
70.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB | $ 1,299 | $ 25.7 | 50.5 FPS
|
89.2 FPS
|
68.8 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB | $ 479 | $ 9.6 | 49.9 FPS
|
86.3 FPS
|
64.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB 8GB | $ 399 | $ 8.1 | 49 FPS
|
85.9 FPS
|
67.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB | $ 399 | $ 8.6 | 46.3 FPS
|
81.3 FPS
|
63.5 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8GB | $ 699 | $ 15.3 | 45.8 FPS
|
80.1 FPS
|
61.5 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT 8GB | $ 399 | $ 9 | 44.2 FPS
|
76.9 FPS
|
58.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA TITAN V 12GB | $ 2,999 | $ 68.3 | 43.9 FPS
|
77.6 FPS
|
61.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 8GB | $ 299 | $ 6.8 | 43.9 FPS
|
77.3 FPS
|
61.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 7600 8GB | $ 269 | $ 6.1 | 43.9 FPS
|
76.4 FPS
|
57.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 8GB | $ 699 | $ 16.1 | 43.3 FPS
|
75 FPS
|
57.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT 8GB | $ 379 | $ 9.1 | 41.5 FPS
|
71.8 FPS
|
54.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB | $ 759 | $ 18.7 | 40.6 FPS
|
71.5 FPS
|
54.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER 8GB | $ 499 | $ 12.4 | 40.4 FPS
|
69 FPS
|
52.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA TITAN Xp 12GB | $ 1,199 | $ 30.1 | 39.8 FPS
|
69 FPS
|
54.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon VII 16GB | $ 699 | $ 17.6 | 39.8 FPS
|
68.5 FPS
|
51.7 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB | $ 399 | $ 10.3 | 38.8 FPS
|
66.7 FPS
|
50.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 8GB | $ 499 | $ 13 | 38.3 FPS
|
64.5 FPS
|
50 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 8GB | $ 200 | $ 5.2 | 38.3 FPS
|
66.7 FPS
|
52.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 12GB | $ 329 | $ 8.7 | 38 FPS
|
65.1 FPS
|
50.4 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER 8GB | $ 400 | $ 11 | 36.2 FPS
|
60 FPS
|
45.8 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5700 8GB | $ 349 | $ 9.8 | 35.5 FPS
|
61.2 FPS
|
46 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB | $ 499 | $ 14.5 | 34.5 FPS
|
58.5 FPS
|
44.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB | $ 350 | $ 10.3 | 34.1 FPS
|
55.2 FPS
|
41.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT 6GB | $ 279 | $ 8.3 | 33.5 FPS
|
57.2 FPS
|
43 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 295X2 4GB | $ 1,499 | $ 46.4 | 32.3 FPS
|
54 FPS
|
43.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB | $ 499 | $ 15.5 | 32.2 FPS
|
55.5 FPS
|
41.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB | $ 409 | $ 12.8 | 32 FPS
|
54.1 FPS
|
40.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti 6GB | $ 249 | $ 8 | 31.3 FPS
|
52.6 FPS
|
40.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB | $ 999 | $ 32.1 | 31.1 FPS
|
52 FPS
|
39.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB | $ 279 | $ 9.2 | 30.4 FPS
|
51.5 FPS
|
38.8 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB | $ 399 | $ 13.2 | 30.2 FPS
|
51.9 FPS
|
39 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 8GB | $ 399 | $ 13.6 | 29.4 FPS
|
49.4 FPS
|
36.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6GB | $ 229 | $ 8 | 28.7 FPS
|
48.6 FPS
|
36.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB | $ 649 | $ 24 | 27 FPS
|
45.6 FPS
|
34.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 6GB | $ 220 | $ 8.1 | 27 FPS
|
45.7 FPS
|
34.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 590 8GB | $ 279 | $ 10.9 | 25.6 FPS
|
42.1 FPS
|
31 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 FURY X 4GB | $ 649 | $ 26.4 | 24.6 FPS
|
43.3 FPS
|
33.5 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER 4GB | $ 160 | $ 6.8 | 23.5 FPS
|
39.7 FPS
|
29.8 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB 8GB | $ 199 | $ 8.5 | 23.3 FPS
|
38.3 FPS
|
28.1 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 4GB | $ 549 | $ 23.7 | 23.2 FPS
|
38.6 FPS
|
29.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB | $ 229 | $ 10.1 | 22.7 FPS
|
37.3 FPS
|
27.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 Nano 4GB | $ 649 | $ 29.1 | 22.3 FPS
|
38.7 FPS
|
29.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK 6GB | $ 999 | $ 46 | 21.7 FPS
|
35.8 FPS
|
28.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 FURY 4GB | $ 549 | $ 26 | 21.1 FPS
|
36.5 FPS
|
27.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB | $ 254 | $ 12 | 21.1 FPS
|
34.9 FPS
|
26.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB 4GB | $ 169 | $ 8.1 | 20.9 FPS
|
34.4 FPS
|
25.2 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 390X 8GB | $ 429 | $ 21.1 | 20.3 FPS
|
35 FPS
|
26.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB | $ 170 | $ 8.5 | 20 FPS
|
33.2 FPS
|
25 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4GB | $ 329 | $ 16.8 | 19.6 FPS
|
32.3 FPS
|
25.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB | $ 400 | $ 20.9 | 19.1 FPS
|
32.6 FPS
|
25.1 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 390 8GB | $ 329 | $ 17.3 | 19 FPS
|
31.9 FPS
|
22.9 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 570 4GB | $ 169 | $ 9 | 18.7 FPS
|
31.5 FPS
|
23.2 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 4GB | $ 149 | $ 8.3 | 17.9 FPS
|
30.1 FPS
|
22.6 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB | $ 179 | $ 10.7 | 16.7 FPS
|
28.2 FPS
|
21.2 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 380X 4GB | $ 229 | $ 16.2 | 14.1 FPS
|
23.5 FPS
|
18 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 285 2GB | $ 249 | $ 19.8 | 12.6 FPS
|
21.2 FPS
|
15.3 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 380 2GB | $ 199 | $ 15.9 | 12.5 FPS
|
21 FPS
|
15.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB | $ 169 | $ 13.7 | 12.3 FPS
|
20.7 FPS
|
15.6 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R9 280 3GB | $ 279 | $ 22.9 | 12.2 FPS
|
20.7 FPS
|
14.7 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 2GB | $ 199 | $ 16.4 | 12.1 FPS
|
20.1 FPS
|
14.9 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3GB | $ 169 | $ 16.1 | 10.5 FPS
|
17.5 FPS
|
12.9 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 560 4GB | $ 99 | $ 10.2 | 9.7 FPS
|
16 FPS
|
11.8 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 2GB | $ 159 | $ 16.7 | 9.5 FPS
|
15.6 FPS
|
12 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R7 370 2GB | $ 149 | $ 15.9 | 9.4 FPS
|
14.7 FPS
|
11.4 FPS
|
AMD Radeon R7 265 2GB | $ 149 | $ 16 | 9.3 FPS
|
14.2 FPS
|
11 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB | $ 140 | $ 16.3 | 8.6 FPS
|
14.2 FPS
|
10.6 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB | $ 149 | $ 18 | 8.3 FPS
|
12.2 FPS
|
9.5 FPS
|
AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB | $ 79 | $ 11.6 | 6.8 FPS
|
11.3 FPS
|
8.3 FPS
|
NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 2GB | $ 79 | $ 12.2 | 6.5 FPS
|
10.7 FPS
|
7.6 FPS
|
Jul 12, 2020 - A rivalry for the ages, and a question often asked and wondered about. Whenever you want to build or upgrade your PC, you have to make a decision: Buy an Intel or AMD processor?
Jul 5, 2020 - Does RAM size and speed affect your gaming performance? should you invest in a high performance RAM kit? Find out here.
Jul 24, 2023 No evil entity is more scary than Lilith herself, shrouded in darkness.
Jun 23, 2020 - Mid- and high-range builds perform very well for their price, and are better than the entry-level in terms of power, longevity, and reliability, and they offer more bang for your buck especially when looking at their price-by-year advantage.
Jun 11, 2020 - Pre-built systems are an attractive option for those who are less concerned with the minute details of every component in their build. Building your own PC is the best solution for those who want full control over every aspect of their build. It provides the most thorough customization options, from the CPU to the fans and lighting.
Jun 2, 2020 - How to find the Right CPU? Whether you’re building or upgrading a PC, the processor matters a lot. CPUAgent is the right tool to help you find and choose the right CPU for your needs.
Sep 03, 2020 - Save your CPU money and invest it in a powerful GPU instead. So, which affordable yet powerfulrt CPU strikes the best performance-price balance with the NVIDIA RTX 3070?
May 23, 2020 - The best performance to price value mid-range cpus are here. Find out more in this comprehensive review and summary of the Core i5-10600K vs Ryzen 5 3600X's capabilities.
May 22, 2020 - Which one is worth it, Core i7-10700K or Ryzen 7 3700X? Find out in this comprehensive review and summary of the Core i7-10700K vs Ryzen 7 3700X's capabilities.
May 21, 2020 - 10 cores vs 12 cores. Top-of-the-line very high-end cpus duke it out.
May 21, 2020 - In this massive comparison across 8 generations of Intel Core i5 series CPUs, we explore the performance improvements by generation and whether it is reasonable or not to upgrade to Intel's latest.