AMD A12-9800 vs Intel Core i3-9100HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, if narrow, victory for the AMD A12-9800 across every Cinebench workload in the comparison set. The Intel Core i3-9100HL does not secure a single win in any of the five head-to-head tests, with the AMD part taking all five. The margins are small, but they are uniform, which points to a stable performance characteristic rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD A12-9800 scores 316 against the Intel Core i3-9100HL's 311. That is a 1.6% advantage for AMD. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap narrows slightly: AMD posts 1318 versus Intel's 1299, a 1.4% lead. The single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, AMD scores 186 against Intel's 183, again a 1.6% difference. The Cinebench R23 suite reinforces the trend, with AMD leading 3140 to 3094 in multi-core (a 1.5% edge) and 443 to 436 in single-core (a 1.6% edge).

What these deltas reveal is that the AMD A12-9800 holds a small but repeatable advantage in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tasks. The largest margin is 1.6%, the smallest is 1.4%, and there is no test where the Intel processor closes the gap to a draw. For a user comparing these two specific chips, the data suggests that the AMD part is the slightly faster option in every benchmark measured, though the differences are within a range that would be hard to perceive without instrumentation.

The average benchmark score in the database corroborates this. The AMD A12-9800 carries an average score of 1081, while the Intel Core i3-9100HL sits at 1065. That is a 16-point difference, or roughly 1.5%, which aligns closely with the head-to-head delta values. The percentile ranking also favors AMD: the A12-9800 falls in the 30th percentile of all CPUs, while the i3-9100HL lands in the 29th percentile. Neither chip is a performance powerhouse by modern standards, but the AMD part edges out the Intel part in both aggregate and per-test measurements.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD A12-9800 wins every benchmark in this comparison. If the decision rests purely on measured performance, the AMD processor is the pick. It leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The margins are narrow, ranging from 1.4% to 1.6%, but they are consistent across all five tests. There is no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the Intel Core i3-9100HL comes out ahead.

That said, the Intel part is not without its own arguments. The Core i3-9100HL operates at a 25 watt TDP, which is substantially lower than the AMD A12-9800's 65 watt TDP. For a system builder prioritizing power efficiency, the Intel chip draws less than half the power budget of the AMD chip. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, while the AMD part does not, and the Intel part uses a newer 14 nm process node compared to AMD's 28 nm node. These are qualitative advantages that do not show up in the Cinebench scores but could matter in specific deployment scenarios.

For a user who needs maximum rendering performance from these two specific processors, the AMD A12-9800 is the clear choice. For a user who needs lower power consumption, ECC memory support, or a smaller process node, the Intel Core i3-9100HL offers those features, but at the cost of being slightly slower in every measured benchmark. The database shows a trade-off, not a landslide: AMD wins on speed, Intel wins on efficiency and features, and the buyer must weigh which factor matters more.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD A12-9800 has an average benchmark score of 1081, while the Intel Core i3-9100HL has an average score of 1065.

Q: How much faster is the AMD A12-9800 in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD A12-9800 scores 3140, while the Intel Core i3-9100HL scores 3094, a 1.5% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-9100HL support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i3-9100HL supports ECC memory. The AMD A12-9800 does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100HL has a TDP of 25 watts, and the AMD A12-9800 has a TDP of 65 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD A12-9800 has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the Intel Core i3-9100HL has a boost clock of 2.90 GHz.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have in the head-to-head tests?

A: The AMD A12-9800 wins all 5 head-to-head benchmark tests. The Intel Core i3-9100HL wins none.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The Intel Core i3-9100HL has a base clock of 1600 MHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. The AMD A12-9800 has a base clock of 3800 MHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The AMD part runs at significantly higher clock speeds, which explains its benchmark advantage despite the architectural differences.

Thermal design power also diverges sharply. The Intel part is rated at 25 watts, while the AMD part is rated at 65 watts. The Intel chip uses an Intel BGA 1440 socket, while the AMD chip uses an AMD Socket AM4. Process nodes differ as well: Intel uses a 14 nm node, while AMD uses a 28 nm node. The die size for Intel is 126 mm², while AMD's die is 250 mm². AMD's transistor count is listed at 3,100 million, while Intel's is not recorded.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel: 42.7 GB/s versus AMD's 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the Intel part but absent on the AMD part. PCIe lane counts also differ, with Intel offering Gen 3, 16 lanes (CPU only) and AMD offering Gen 3, 8 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: Intel has UHD Graphics 630, AMD has Radeon R7. The Intel part is end-of-life in production status, while the AMD part is active. The release dates also differ, with Intel launching in 2019 and AMD in 2017. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $225; no launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two chips is substantial. The Intel Core i3-9100HL is built on Coffee Lake architecture, a 14 nm design from Intel, with a die size of 126 mm². It features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a cache layout of 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part is based on the Core i3 (Coffee Lake Refresh) generation and uses a foundry process from Intel itself.

The AMD A12-9800 is built on Excavator architecture, a 28 nm design from GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 250 mm² and 3,100 million transistors. It also features 4 cores and 4 threads, but its cache structure is different: 320 KB of L1 cache total and 2 MB of L2 cache total, with no L3 cache listed. The AMD part is from the A12 (Bristol Ridge) generation.

The process node difference is a major factor. Intel's 14 nm node is denser and more power-efficient than AMD's 28 nm node, which helps explain why the Intel part achieves a 25 watt TDP despite having a lower clock speed. The AMD part, running on a larger node with higher clocks, consumes 65 watts. The cache hierarchies also differ in design philosophy: Intel spreads L1 and L2 per core with a shared L3 pool, while AMD uses a smaller total L2 and no L3 at all. The AMD part compensates with higher clock speeds, which is why it wins the benchmark tests.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives a clear win to the AMD A12-9800 in all measured rendering workloads. If the task is Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, whether single-core or multi-core, the AMD part comes out ahead. The margins are small, but they are consistent. A user running these specific rendering tests should expect the AMD processor to finish slightly faster every time.

The Intel Core i3-9100HL wins on the specification sheet in areas that do not appear in the benchmark scores. It has a much lower TDP of 25 watts versus 65 watts, making it the more power-efficient choice. It supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not. It has a smaller die size, a newer process node, and higher memory bandwidth. It also offers more PCIe lanes, 16 versus 8. For a system that prioritizes power draw, memory reliability, or expansion capability, the Intel part is the better fit.

The AMD A12-9800 wins on raw performance, higher clock speeds, and a larger transistor count. Its boost clock of 4.20 GHz is well above Intel's 2.90 GHz, and its base clock of 3.80 GHz is more than double Intel's 1.60 GHz. It also has an active production status, meaning it is still available, while the Intel part is end-of-life. A user who needs the fastest Cinebench scores from these two chips will take the AMD part. A user who needs a low-power, ECC-capable processor with a modern process node will take the Intel part. The database shows that the choice comes down to speed versus efficiency, not overall superiority.