AMD A12-9800 vs Intel Core i5-2380P Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The AMD A12-9800 runs at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boosts to 4.20 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-2380P has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread configuration?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i5-2380P and the AMD A12-9800 feature 4 cores and 4 threads, so neither supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The AMD A12-9800 includes a Radeon R7 integrated graphics unit, while the Intel Core i5-2380P has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD A12-9800 records an average benchmark score of 1081, placing it in the 30th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core i5-2380P has an average score of 1063, placing it in the 29th percentile.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Intel Core i5-2380P supports DDR3 memory, while the AMD A12-9800 supports DDR4 memory with a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core i5-2380P has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD A12-9800 has no L3 cache listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-2380P is built on the Sandy Bridge architecture, manufactured on a 32 nm process at Intel's foundry. The die contains 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. It uses the Intel Socket 1155 platform. The cache hierarchy is organized as 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a conventional four-core design with a shared last-level cache, which helps reduce memory latency across cores when working on shared data sets.

The AMD A12-9800 uses the Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die is larger at 250 mm² and packs 3,100 million transistors. It uses the AMD Socket AM4 platform. The cache configuration differs substantially: 320 KB of L1 total and 2 MB of L2 total, with no L3 cache present. This means the AMD part relies entirely on its L2 cache for on-die data staging, which places greater emphasis on memory controller efficiency and DRAM bandwidth.

Memory support is another clear point of divergence. The Intel part is limited to DDR3 in a dual-channel configuration, while the AMD part supports DDR4 in dual-channel with a measured memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The newer memory standard gives the AMD processor a bandwidth advantage for memory-intensive workloads, though the database does not list a comparable bandwidth figure for the Intel part.

PCI Express connectivity also differs. The Intel Core i5-2380P provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD A12-9800 provides Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part therefore offers double the PCIe lane count for discrete expansion, which can matter for multi-GPU setups or high-throughput add-in cards.

The integrated graphics situation is asymmetric. The AMD A12-9800 includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU, making it a complete APU solution. The Intel Core i5-2380P lists no integrated graphics at all, so a discrete GPU is mandatory for any display output. This is a major architectural difference that affects system design and power delivery.

Power draw also separates the two. The Intel part has a TDP of 95 watts, while the AMD part has a TDP of 65 watts. Despite the AMD part having a higher clock speed and integrated graphics, it draws less power according to the TDP figures, which reflects the different design goals and process characteristics of the two platforms.

Both processors are unlocked? No, neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is restricted on both platforms. The Intel part has the part number SR0G2, while the AMD part is listed as AD9800AUABBOXAD9800AUM44AB.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records five Cinebench comparisons between these two processors, and the AMD A12-9800 wins every single one. The margin is consistent at 1.6 percent in each test, which indicates a uniform performance advantage rather than a workload-specific one.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD A12-9800 scores 316 while the Intel Core i5-2380P scores 311. The 1.6 percent gap is small but consistent. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the AMD part scores 1318 versus 1297 for the Intel part, again a 1.6 percent difference. The absolute gap widens slightly with the newer test, but the relative margin stays exactly the same.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD A12-9800 scores 186 and the Intel part scores 183. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the scores are 443 versus 436. Every test shows the AMD processor ahead by the same relative margin. This consistency is notable because it suggests the AMD architecture's higher clock speeds translate directly into a steady throughput advantage across all Cinebench versions, both multi-threaded and single-threaded.

The most recent test, Cinebench R23 multi-core, shows scores of 3140 for the AMD part and 3090 for the Intel part. The gap of 50 points is the largest absolute difference in the benchmark set, but it still represents only a 1.6 percent advantage. The Intel part is never ahead in any recorded test, and the win count stands at 0 for the Intel processor and 5 for the AMD processor.

These results place the two processors very close in raw rendering performance. A 1.6 percent difference is within the range that could be influenced by memory configuration, cooling, or silicon variance in a real system, but the database shows a clear and repeatable trend: the AMD A12-9800 holds a narrow lead across the board.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on several key specifications. The base clock is 3.10 GHz for the Intel part and 3.80 GHz for the AMD part, a difference of 0.70 GHz. The boost clock is 3.40 GHz for the Intel part and 4.20 GHz for the AMD part, a difference of 0.80 GHz. The AMD part has a higher clock speed at both idle and load states.

The TDP is 95 watts for the Intel part and 65 watts for the AMD part, making the AMD processor more power-efficient on paper. The socket differs completely: Intel Socket 1155 for the Intel part versus AMD Socket AM4 for the AMD part, so these processors are not interchangeable in any system.

The process node is 32 nm for Intel and 28 nm for AMD, with the AMD part using a slightly newer node. The foundry is Intel for the Intel part and GlobalFoundries for the AMD part. Transistor count is 1,160 million for Intel versus 3,100 million for AMD, and die size is 216 mm² for Intel versus 250 mm² for AMD. The AMD die packs more transistors into a moderately larger area.

Cache configuration is fundamentally different. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has 320 KB of L1 total and 2 MB of L2 total, with no L3. The Intel part has a much larger total cache footprint when accounting for L3, while the AMD part relies on a smaller, faster L2 arrangement.

Memory support is DDR3 for Intel and DDR4 for AMD. The AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Intel part has no bandwidth figure listed. PCIe connectivity is Gen 3 with 16 lanes for Intel and Gen 3 with 8 lanes for AMD. The Intel part has double the CPU-attached PCIe lanes.

Integrated graphics are absent on the Intel part and present as Radeon R7 on the AMD part. The release dates are also far apart: the Intel Core i5-2380P launched in January 2012, while the AMD A12-9800 launched in July 2017. The production status is listed as active for the AMD part, with no status listed for the Intel part.

Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The market segment is Desktop for both. The Intel part has a generation label of Core i5 (Sandy Bridge), while the AMD part has a generation label of A12 (Bristol Ridge).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A12-9800 wins in every recorded Cinebench benchmark. It is ahead by 1.6 percent in multi-core and single-core tests across R15, R20, and R23. This makes it the stronger choice for rendering workloads that use Cinebench's ray-tracing engine, such as 3D scene creation, animation previews, and basic rendering tasks. The consistent margin suggests that the AMD part's higher clock speed and DDR4 memory support give it a small but reliable edge in these CPU-bound tasks.

The AMD part also wins on power efficiency. At 65 watts TDP versus 95 watts for the Intel part, it delivers higher benchmark scores while drawing less power. This matters for compact desktop builds, low-noise systems, or any scenario where thermal output is a concern. The integrated Radeon R7 graphics on the AMD part is another clear win: it allows a system to be built without a discrete GPU, which is a significant advantage for basic desktop use, media playback, or office productivity. The Intel part has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate graphics card for any display output.

The AMD part also wins on memory bandwidth, with a recorded 38.4 GB/s from its DDR4 support. This can benefit workloads that stream large data sets through memory, although the database does not include a direct comparison of memory-bound applications. The newer release date and active production status are additional advantages for the AMD part, as it remains available in the market while the Intel part is older and has no listed production status.

The Intel Core i5-2380P wins on PCIe lane count. With 16 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, it offers double the lane capacity of the AMD part's 8 lanes. This makes the Intel platform more suitable for configurations with multiple discrete GPUs, high-bandwidth storage controllers, or other expansion cards that need dedicated PCIe bandwidth. The larger L3 cache of 6 MB is also an advantage for workloads that exhibit high cache reuse, though the benchmark data does not show a corresponding win in the recorded tests.

The Intel part's architecture, Sandy Bridge, uses a shared L3 cache design that can reduce memory latency for multi-threaded workloads that share data. The AMD part's lack of L3 cache means it must rely on DRAM more heavily, which can hurt in cache-sensitive tasks. However, the recorded Cinebench results do not reflect this, as the AMD part wins all tests.

In practical terms, the AMD A12-9800 is the better all-around processor for the recorded benchmarks, with wins in every test, lower TDP, integrated graphics, and newer memory support. The Intel Core i5-2380P is preferable only in scenarios that demand more PCIe lanes or a larger last-level cache. For a typical desktop user, the AMD part offers a more complete package. For a system builder maximizing expansion capability, the Intel part's 16-lane PCIe connection is the deciding factor.

The database shows a narrow but uniform performance margin in favor of the AMD A12-9800. The 1.6 percent advantage across all Cinebench versions indicates that the higher clock speeds of the AMD part consistently translate into higher throughput, while the Intel part's larger cache and additional PCIe lanes do not produce any benchmark wins in the recorded data.