AMD A12-9800E vs AMD PRO A10-8770 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data is unusually one-sided. The AMD PRO A10-8770 wins all five head-to-head comparisons in the Cinebench suite, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads. The AMD A12-9800E does not record a single benchmark victory in the database, which makes the use-case split straightforward: the PRO A10-8770 is the stronger performer across every measured workload.

Breaking down the wins by workload type, the PRO A10-8770 leads in synthetic rendering tests that stress all cores simultaneously. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it posts 306 points against 297 for the A12-9800E, a 3% advantage. The same margin appears in Cinebench R20 multicore with 1276 versus 1239, again 3%. For Cinebench R23 multicore, the PRO chip scores 3040 versus 2950, a 3.1% lead. These are not large gaps, but they are consistent and reproducible across all three generations of the Cinebench test.

Single-core performance follows the same pattern with slightly larger margins. The PRO A10-8770 scores 180 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 174 for the A12-9800E, a 3.4% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the numbers are 429 and 416, a 3.1% lead. This suggests the PRO variant extracts more performance per thread, a result that aligns with its higher base clock.

The A12-9800E does have one advantage in the database: it includes Geekbench results (1521 multicore, 631 single-core) that the PRO A10-8770 lacks. However, since there is no corresponding Geekbench score for the PRO chip, no direct comparison can be drawn from those numbers. The absence of a head-to-head Geekbench record means the A12-9800E's extra benchmarks cannot be interpreted as a win; they simply exist as standalone data points.

For users prioritizing any measured rendering workload, the PRO A10-8770 is the clear choice. The A12-9800E's only differentiation comes from its lower power envelope, which the benchmark section does not quantify in performance terms.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same underlying Excavator architecture, but they come from different codename families. The PRO A10-8770 uses the Carrizo generation, while the A12-9800E uses Bristol Ridge. Both are built on GlobalFoundries' 28 nm process node with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The core counts are identical: 4 cores and 4 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading on either chip.

The cache hierarchy is also identical. Both have 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present on either processor. Memory support matches as well: both use DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus. The PRO A10-8770 lists a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the A12-9800E's memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database. This is a notable difference in the recorded specifications, though it does not appear in any benchmark result.

Clock speeds separate the two. The PRO A10-8770 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The A12-9800E starts lower at 3.10 GHz base but reaches the same 3.80 GHz boost. The higher base clock is the most likely source of the PRO chip's benchmark advantage, particularly in single-threaded workloads where sustained frequency matters more.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The PRO A10-8770 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the A12-9800E draws only 35 watts. This 30-watt gap suggests the A12-9800E is tuned for efficiency, sacrificing base frequency to reduce heat and power draw. Both chips use AMD Socket AM4 and support PCIe Gen 3, though the A12-9800E specifically lists 8 lanes for CPU-only PCIe while the PRO chip's lane count is not specified.

Integrated graphics are the same: both feature Radeon R7. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The release date is recorded only for the A12-9800E (July 26, 2017); the PRO A10-8770's release date is not in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains five direct comparisons, all from the Cinebench suite. Every one favors the PRO A10-8770.

Starting with Cinebench R15 multicore, the PRO A10-8770 scores 306 against the A12-9800E's 297. The delta is 3%, meaning the PRO chip renders approximately three percent faster in this older test. This is the smallest absolute gap in points (9 points) but the same percentage margin as the R20 multicore test.

Cinebench R20 multicore shows 1276 versus 1239, again a 3% delta. The point gap here is 37, larger in absolute terms but proportionally identical to R15. Moving to Cinebench R23 multicore, the PRO chip scores 3040 versus 2950, a 3.1% delta. The point gap grows to 90, yet the percentage remains nearly constant across all three multicore tests. This consistency indicates the performance difference scales linearly with workload duration and complexity.

Single-core results show a slightly larger relative gap. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the PRO A10-8770 scores 180 versus 174, a 3.4% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core gives 429 versus 416, a 3.1% delta. The single-core margins are marginally higher than the multicore ones, which suggests the PRO chip's base clock advantage (3.50 GHz versus 3.10 GHz) matters more when only one thread is active.

The average benchmark score in the database aggregates broader performance across multiple tests. The PRO A10-8770 has an average score of 1046, while the A12-9800E sits at 1033. That is a 13-point difference, roughly 1.3%. The PRO chip also holds a slightly higher percentile rank: 29th percentile versus 28th among all CPUs. Both chips sit near the low end of the performance spectrum, which is consistent with their 4-core, 4-thread Excavator design.

Looking at nearest rivals for context, the PRO A10-8770 matches the Intel Core i5-6350HQ exactly (both 1046 average, 0% delta). It also trades nearly evenly with the AMD Athlon X4 950 (1047, -0.1%) and the AMD PRO A10-9700 (1045, +0.1%). The A12-9800E's nearest rivals include the AMD A10-9700 (1034, -0.1%), Intel Pentium G4560 (1031, +0.2%), AMD A10-7890K (1035, -0.2%), and AMD A8-7680 (1036, -0.3%). Neither chip separates itself meaningfully from its immediate competition.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It leads by 3% in Cinebench R15 (306 vs 297) and R20 (1276 vs 1239), and by 3.1% in R23 (3040 vs 2950).

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD A12-9800E wins?

A: No. The database records five head-to-head benchmarks, all from Cinebench, and the PRO A10-8770 wins all five. The A12-9800E has two additional Geekbench scores, but the PRO chip has no corresponding Geekbench result, so no comparison is possible.

Q: How do the clock speeds differ?

A: The PRO A10-8770 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The A12-9800E starts at 3.10 GHz base but boosts to the same 3.80 GHz. The higher base clock likely explains the PRO chip's consistent lead.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The PRO A10-8770 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the A12-9800E has a TDP of 35 watts. The A12-9800E draws significantly less power, which makes it a lower-heat option, but the benchmark data shows no performance benefit from that efficiency.

Q: Are these processors architecturally the same?

A: Both use the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process with 4 cores, 4 threads, 320 KB L1 cache, and 2 MB L2 cache. The PRO A10-8770 uses the Carrizo codename, while the A12-9800E uses Bristol Ridge. Both have Radeon R7 integrated graphics and support dual-channel DDR4 memory.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The PRO A10-8770 matches the Intel Core i5-6350HQ exactly at an average score of 1046, and sits within 0.1% of the AMD Athlon X4 950 and AMD PRO A10-9700. The A12-9800E is within 0.3% of its nearest rivals, including the AMD A10-9700 and Intel Pentium G4560.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear but modest winner. The AMD PRO A10-8770 outperforms the AMD A12-9800E in every measured Cinebench test, with margins ranging from 3% to 3.4%. The advantage is consistent across single-core and multi-core workloads, which means the PRO chip is the better choice for any application that relies on raw CPU throughput.

The A12-9800E's case rests entirely on efficiency. Its 35-watt TDP is nearly half the PRO chip's 65-watt TDP. For systems where heat output and power draw are the primary constraints, the A12-9800E offers a meaningful advantage in thermal management. However, the database contains no performance metric where the A12-9800E leads, so the efficiency gain comes at the cost of measurable performance in every recorded benchmark.

The percentile rankings reinforce the narrow gap: 29th percentile for the PRO chip versus 28th for the A12-9800E. Both processors sit in the lower quartile of all CPUs, so neither should be considered a high-performance part. Within the Excavator family, the PRO A10-8770 is the stronger silicon, and the data supports choosing it whenever performance matters more than power draw.

For users building a low-power desktop or a system where cooling is limited, the A12-9800E's 35-watt TDP is the deciding factor. For everyone else, the PRO A10-8770's consistent 3% lead across all five benchmarks makes it the default recommendation from the recorded data.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD PRO A10-8770 | AMD A12-9800E |

|---|---|---|

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 35 W |

| Codename | Carrizo | Bristol Ridge |

| Generation | A10 (Carrizo) | A12 (Bristol Ridge) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | Not recorded | 2017-07-26 |

| Part Number | AD877BAGM44AB | AD9800AHM44AB |

| Average Benchmark Score | 1046 | 1033 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 29 | 28 |