AMD A10-7860K vs AMD PRO A12-9800E Comparison

The AMD PRO A12-9800E and the AMD A10-7860K are two quad-core desktop processors that appear nearly identical on paper but are separated by architecture, platform, and a consistent performance gap. The data shows the A10-7860K, built on the older Steamroller architecture and using the FM2+ socket, wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. However, the PRO A12-9800E, based on the newer Excavator architecture for the AM4 platform, offers a dramatically lower power envelope and newer memory support, raising the question of whether raw speed or platform longevity is the more critical factor for a prospective builder.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD A10-7860K wins every multi-core test. It scores 279 versus 266 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 1166 versus 1111 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 2778 versus 2646 in Cinebench R23 multicore, representing a consistent 4.7% to 4.8% lead.

Q: Is the single-core performance advantage for the A10-7860K as large as its multi-core lead?

A: Yes, the gap is nearly identical. The A10-7860K leads by 4.9% in Cinebench R20 single-core (164 vs 156) and by 4.8% in Cinebench R23 single-core (392 vs 373), showing the advantage is uniform across all core-count scenarios.

Q: Do these processors support the same type of memory?

A: No. The AMD PRO A12-9800E supports DDR4 memory, while the AMD A10-7860K supports DDR3 memory. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but only the A10-7860K has a listed memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s in the data.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two?

A: The PRO A12-9800E has a TDP of 35 watts, while the A10-7860K has a TDP of 65 watts. This makes the PRO A12-9800E significantly more power-efficient, using nearly half the thermal design power of its rival.

Q: Are both processors compatible with the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The AMD PRO A12-9800E uses the AMD Socket AM4, while the AMD A10-7860K uses the AMD Socket FM2+. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which processor has a higher base and boost clock speed?

A: The AMD A10-7860K has higher clock speeds, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The AMD PRO A12-9800E operates at a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations of AMD's design philosophy, separated by a shift in socket and memory technology. The AMD PRO A12-9800E is built on the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, and is part of the A12 (Bristol Ridge) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process node at GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 250 mm² and 3,100 million transistors. Its cache layout includes a larger 320 KB L1 cache but a smaller 2 MB L2 cache, with no L3 cache present. The platform shift to AM4 brings support for DDR4 memory, though it provides only 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU.

In contrast, the AMD A10-7860K uses the older Steamroller architecture, codenamed Godaveri, and belongs to the A10 (Godaveri) generation. It is also built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, but with a slightly smaller die size of 245 mm² and fewer transistors at 2,411 million. Its cache hierarchy is the inverse of its rival, with a smaller 256 KB L1 cache but a larger 4 MB L2 cache. The A10-7860K is designed for the FM2+ socket and supports DDR3 memory, with a listed memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s and a full 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU. Both chips integrate Radeon R7 graphics and do not support ECC memory, but the A10-7860K has an unlocked multiplier while the PRO A12-9800E does not.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD A10-7860K is the faster processor in every measured workload. It wins all five head-to-head tests, with a consistent delta of roughly 4.7% to 4.9% across both single-core and multi-core Cinebench scenarios. If the sole criterion is computational performance, the A10-7860K is the clear choice, offering a measurable advantage in rendering and CPU-intensive tasks. Its higher base and boost clocks, coupled with a larger L2 cache, appear to offset the architectural advantages of the newer Excavator design.

However, the PRO A12-9800E makes a compelling counter-argument based on platform and efficiency. Its 35-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the 65-watt TDP of the A10-7860K, making it a superior option for compact, low-power, or thermally constrained systems. Furthermore, its AM4 socket and DDR4 memory support provide a more modern foundation, potentially offering a clearer upgrade path within that platform, whereas the FM2+ socket of the A10-7860K is end-of-life. The choice hinges on whether the user prioritizes maximum speed from existing components or a more power-efficient, modern platform with slightly lower performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. The PRO A12-9800E has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, whereas the A10-7860K runs at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The TDP is a major differentiator, with the PRO A12-9800E rated at 35 watts and the A10-7860K at 65 watts. They use different sockets (AM4 vs FM2+) and different architectures (Excavator vs Steamroller), with codenames Bristol Ridge and Godaveri, respectively.

The cache configurations are also reversed: the PRO A12-9800E features 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, while the A10-7860K features 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache; neither has L3 cache. Memory support differs, with the PRO A12-9800E using DDR4 and the A10-7860K using DDR3, the latter also having a specified memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. PCIe lane counts differ as well, with the PRO A12-9800E providing 8 lanes and the A10-7860K providing 16 lanes from the CPU. The transistor count and die size also vary, with the PRO A12-9800E having 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die and the A10-7860K having 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die. Finally, the A10-7860K has an unlocked multiplier, while the PRO A12-9800E does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results paint a picture of consistent, if modest, dominance by the AMD A10-7860K. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the A10-7860K scores 279 against the PRO A12-9800E's 266, a delta of -4.7% from the perspective of the PRO chip. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the A10-7860K scores 1166 versus 1111, again a 4.7% difference. The margin narrows slightly in single-core tests but remains significant: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the A10-7860K leads 164 to 156, a 4.9% gap.

The most recent benchmark, Cinebench R23, confirms the trend. In multi-core, the A10-7860K scores 2778 compared to the PRO A12-9800E's 2646, a 4.8% advantage. In single-core, the A10-7860K scores 392 versus 373, also a 4.8% lead. The consistency of these numbers—hovering around 4.7% to 4.9% across all tests—suggests the performance difference is not workload-dependent but rather a fundamental characteristic of the two chips' clock speeds and architectural efficiency. The PRO A12-9800E wins zero benchmarks in this comparison, while the A10-7860K wins all five.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A10-7860K is the undisputed winner in raw performance. Its victory across every Cinebench test indicates that it will handle compute-intensive tasks like video rendering and 3D modeling with greater speed. The data shows a 4.8% lead in the latest Cinebench R23 multicore test, which translates to noticeably faster completion times for heavily threaded workloads. Additionally, its 4.8% to 4.9% advantage in single-core tests suggests better responsiveness in lightly threaded applications, such as everyday desktop use and older games that rely on fewer cores. The A10-7860K also benefits from an unlocked multiplier, allowing for user-initiated overclocking to push performance even further, and its 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes provide more bandwidth for add-in cards.

The AMD PRO A12-9800E wins in efficiency and platform modernity. Its 35-watt TDP is a massive advantage over the A10-7860K's 65-watt TDP, making it the clear choice for small form factor builds, home theater PCs, or systems where heat and power draw are primary concerns. While it loses on raw speed, the power savings are substantial, potentially allowing for quieter cooling solutions and lower electricity usage. The AM4 socket and DDR4 memory support indicate a newer platform, and while the data does not specify an upgrade path, the platform itself is not listed as end-of-life, unlike the A10-7860K's production status. For a user building a new, energy-efficient system with modern components, the PRO A12-9800E's platform advantages may outweigh its ~5% performance deficit.