CPU Comparison

The AMD A10-7890K and AMD A12-9800E are both 4-core, 4-thread desktop processors from AMD, yet they represent two very different design philosophies and platform generations. The A10-7890K is a high-power, unlocked Steamroller part for Socket FM2+, while the A12-9800E is a low-power, locked Excavator part for Socket AM4. Benchmark data shows the A10-7890K holds a consistent, though narrow, lead across all Cinebench tests, while the A12-9800E counters with a dramatically lower 35W TDP and newer DDR4 memory support. The choice between them hinges on whether raw performance or platform efficiency takes priority.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The AMD A10-7890K wins all multi-core comparisons. It scores 303 in Cinebench R15 versus 297 for the A12-9800E (a 2% lead), 1263 in R20 versus 1239 (1.9% lead), and 3009 in R23 versus 2950 (2% lead).

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The A10-7890K also leads in single-core workloads. In Cinebench R20, it scores 178 against 174 for the A12-9800E, a 2.3% advantage. In R23, the scores are 424 and 416, respectively, a 1.9% difference.

Q: Do the two processors use the same CPU architecture?

A: No. The A10-7890K is based on the Steamroller architecture (codename Godaveri), while the A12-9800E uses the newer Excavator architecture (codename Bristol Ridge). Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries.

Q: What are the major platform differences?

A: The A10-7890K uses the AMD Socket FM2+ and supports DDR3 memory, while the A12-9800E uses the AMD Socket AM4 and supports DDR4 memory. The A10-7890K also offers 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), whereas the A12-9800E provides 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only).

Q: Is the A12-9800E more power-efficient?

A: Yes, significantly. The A12-9800E has a TDP of 35W, compared to 95W for the A10-7890K. This makes the A12-9800E a much more power-frugal option despite its slightly lower benchmark scores.

Q: Which processor has a larger L2 cache?

A: The A10-7890K has 4 MB of L2 cache, double the 2 MB found in the A12-9800E. The A10-7890K also has a smaller L1 cache at 256 KB versus 320 KB for the A12-9800E.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are separated by a generation of AMD core design. The A10-7890K employs the Steamroller architecture, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 245 mm² and 2,411 million transistors. In contrast, the A12-9800E uses the Excavator architecture, also on a 28 nm process, but with a slightly larger die at 250 mm² and a higher transistor count of 3,100 million. This transistor increase suggests a more complex design, but the A12-9800E is configured to run at much lower clock speeds.

The cache hierarchies differ notably. The A10-7890K features 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache. The A12-9800E has 320 KB of L1 cache but only 2 MB of L2 cache. Neither processor has any L3 cache. The smaller L2 cache on the A12-9800E is a potential bottleneck, though the Excavator architecture may compensate with other improvements.

Memory support marks a clear generational split. The A10-7890K is paired with DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, offering a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The A12-9800E moves to DDR4 memory, also dual-channel, though the FACT PACK does not list a specific bandwidth figure for it. The A12-9800E also has a different PCIe configuration, providing only 8 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) compared to 16 lanes on the A10-7890K.

Power and overclocking are major differentiators. The A10-7890K has a 95W TDP and an unlocked multiplier, allowing for manual overclocking. The A12-9800E, by contrast, is a 35W part with a locked multiplier, meaning it cannot be overclocked. The production status also differs: the A10-7890K is end-of-life, while the A12-9800E remains active.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if modest, performance winner: the AMD A10-7890K. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 1.9% to 2.3%. Its higher base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz, combined with double the L2 cache, give it an edge over the A12-9800E's 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost clocks.

However, the A12-9800E is not without merit. Its 35W TDP is a fraction of the A10-7890K's 95W, making it a far more efficient choice for compact or power-conscious systems. It also supports newer DDR4 memory and uses the modern AM4 socket, which may offer a more current platform. The A12-9800E's 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die also suggest a more advanced internal design.

For a user prioritizing maximum benchmark scores and who is willing to accept higher power draw, the A10-7890K is the superior choice. For a user building a low-power system or one that requires DDR4 support, the A12-9800E is the appropriate pick, given that its performance deficit is minimal. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 1035 for the A10-7890K and 1033 for the A12-9800E, a difference of only 0.2%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields:

• Base Clock: 4.00 GHz (A10-7890K) vs 3.10 GHz (A12-9800E)
• Boost Clock: 4.30 GHz (A10-7890K) vs 3.80 GHz (A12-9800E)
• TDP: 95W (A10-7890K) vs 35W (A12-9800E)
• Socket: AMD Socket FM2+ (A10-7890K) vs AMD Socket AM4 (A12-9800E)
• Architecture: Steamroller (A10-7890K) vs Excavator (A12-9800E)
• Codename: Godaveri (A10-7890K) vs Bristol Ridge (A12-9800E)
• Transistors: 2,411 million (A10-7890K) vs 3,100 million (A12-9800E)
• Die Size: 245 mm² (A10-7890K) vs 250 mm² (A12-9800E)
• L1 Cache: 256 KB (A10-7890K) vs 320 KB (A12-9800E)
• L2 Cache: 4 MB (A10-7890K) vs 2 MB (A12-9800E)
• Memory Support: DDR3 (A10-7890K) vs DDR4 (A12-9800E)
• Memory Bandwidth: 34.1 GB/s (A10-7890K) vs null (A12-9800E)
• PCIe Lanes (CPU only): 16 Gen 3 (A10-7890K) vs 8 Gen 3 (A12-9800E)
• Multiplier Unlocked: True (A10-7890K) vs False (A12-9800E)
• Production Status: End-of-life (A10-7890K) vs Active (A12-9800E)
• Release Date: 2016-01-10 (A10-7890K) vs 2017-07-26 (A12-9800E)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform: the A10-7890K wins every single benchmark, but by very narrow margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the A10-7890K scores 303 against 297 for the A12-9800E, yielding a 2% delta. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the scores are 1263 and 1239, a 1.9% difference.

Single-core tests tell the same story. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the A10-7890K at 178 and the A12-9800E at 174, a 2.3% lead for the A10-7890K. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the A10-7890K posts 424 versus 416, a 1.9% advantage. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test also favors the A10-7890K, with scores of 3009 and 2950, respectively, marking another 2% win.

The A12-9800E does have additional Geekbench scores in its benchmark list, 1521 multi-core and 631 single-core, but the A10-7890K has no corresponding Geekbench results. Therefore, no direct comparison can be made on that test. The A10-7890K's wins count stands at 5 out of 5 head-to-head tests, while the A12-9800E has zero wins.

Where Each One Wins

The A10-7890K wins in every benchmark category that can be directly compared. Its advantages are consistent across both single-core and multi-core workloads, with deltas between 1.9% and 2.3%. This makes it the clear choice for tasks that rely heavily on CPU computation, such as rendering or other multi-threaded applications, as well as for lightly-threaded tasks where its higher clock speeds provide an edge. Its unlocked multiplier also offers headroom for users willing to overclock, potentially extending its lead beyond stock figures.

The A12-9800E wins in the domain of power efficiency and platform modernity, though not in raw benchmark scores. Its 35W TDP is dramatically lower than the 95W of the A10-7890K, making it suitable for systems where heat and power consumption are primary concerns. It also supports DDR4 memory, which can be a decisive factor for users building a new system on the AM4 platform. While it loses every benchmark comparison, the performance gap is small enough that the A12-9800E remains a viable option for efficiency-focused builds. Its active production status also means it may be easier to source than the end-of-life A10-7890K.