AMD A12-9800E vs AMD PRO A10-9700 Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-9700 and the AMD A12-9800E are two desktop processors that share a great deal of underlying technology, yet they are positioned differently within the same family. Both are four-core, four-thread parts built on the Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename, and both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The database records show a clear pattern: the PRO A10-9700 wins every single benchmark comparison between the two, but the A12-9800E has a distinct advantage in power consumption. The measured data indicates a 65 W TDP for the PRO A10-9700 versus a 35 W TDP for the A12-9800E, which is a substantial difference that shapes how each processor should be evaluated. The benchmark results are close, but not identical, and the differences in clock speeds and power targets explain the outcomes. This analysis examines where each processor excels, what the recorded scores mean in context, and what the architecture and specification sheets reveal about their intended roles.

Where Each One Wins

The PRO A10-9700 is the winner in every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. It takes five wins out of five possible tests, with no wins recorded for the A12-9800E. The margins are consistent, hovering around 3 percent in most tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the PRO A10-9700 scores 306 against 297 for the A12-9800E, a 3 percent advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 1275 versus 1239, again a 2.9 percent gap. Single-core tests follow the same pattern: Cinebench R20 single-core shows 179 versus 174, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 428 versus 416. The largest absolute difference appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the PRO A10-9700 reaches 3037 and the A12-9800E reaches 2950.

The PRO A10-9700’s edge comes primarily from its higher base clock. The database lists a base clock of 3.50 GHz for the PRO A10-9700 and 3.10 GHz for the A12-9800E. Both processors share the same boost clock of 3.80 GHz, so the gap in sustained performance is explained by the lower idle and mid-range frequency of the A12-9800E. The A12-9800E is not without a win condition, however. Its 35 W TDP is nearly half that of the PRO A10-9700’s 65 W TDP. For systems where thermal output and energy draw are primary concerns, the A12-9800E is the more efficient choice. The data does not include power consumption measurements beyond TDP, but the TDP figures themselves are a strong indicator of the intended use case. The PRO A10-9700 is built for consistent throughput, while the A12-9800E is built for constrained environments.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this split. The PRO A10-9700 has an average benchmark score of 1045, while the A12-9800E sits slightly lower at 1033. The percentile rankings are close as well: the PRO A10-9700 lands in the 29th percentile of all CPUs, and the A12-9800E lands in the 28th. These numbers place both processors in the lower-middle range of the overall CPU landscape, but the PRO A10-9700 maintains a small but consistent lead across every workload category recorded.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the choice between these two processors depends entirely on the priority of the user. The PRO A10-9700 is the faster part in every benchmark test. It delivers higher multi-core and single-core scores across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, with margins between 2.9 and 3 percent. For anyone building a desktop system where raw CPU performance is the deciding factor, the PRO A10-9700 is the clear pick. Its 65 W TDP is higher, but the performance payoff is measurable and consistent.

The A12-9800E is the choice for systems where power efficiency matters more than peak performance. Its 35 W TDP is a major advantage, potentially enabling smaller cooling solutions, lower fan noise, and reduced electricity draw. The performance difference is not enormous: roughly 3 percent in most tests. The A12-9800E loses ground in every benchmark, but it does so while consuming significantly less power according to the TDP ratings. For an always-on system, a compact desktop, or a build where thermal management is a challenge, the A12-9800E offers a compelling trade-off. The data does not show the A12-9800E winning any benchmark, so users who need maximum performance should not choose it. Users who need a low-power four-core processor with decent single-threaded speed will find the A12-9800E acceptable, but they should expect the PRO A10-9700 to outperform it in every measured test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results in the database are remarkably consistent. Every test shows the PRO A10-9700 winning by a narrow margin. Cinebench R15 multi-core is the closest contest, with 306 versus 297, a 3 percent difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1275 versus 1239, a 2.9 percent gap. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 179 versus 174, also 2.9 percent. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 3037 versus 2950, again 2.9 percent. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 428 versus 416, and the delta is again 2.9 percent.

The consistency of these margins is notable. The PRO A10-9700’s advantage does not grow or shrink substantially across different workloads or Cinebench versions. This suggests that the performance difference is not workload-specific but rather a general frequency advantage. The base clock difference of 0.40 GHz appears to translate into a roughly 3 percent performance gain across the board. Because the boost clocks are identical at 3.80 GHz, the gap might narrow under boost conditions, but the recorded scores indicate that the A12-9800E does not catch up in any test.

The A12-9800E does have one additional benchmark in the database that the PRO A10-9700 lacks: Geekbench. The A12-9800E records a Geekbench multi-core score of 1521 and a single-core score of 631. These scores are not directly comparable to the PRO A10-9700 because the PRO A10-9700 does not have Geekbench results listed in the database. The presence of these extra scores does not change the head-to-head outcome, but it does provide additional context for the A12-9800E’s performance profile. The Geekbench numbers are not used in the win tally, which stands at 5 wins for the PRO A10-9700 and 0 wins for the A12-9800E.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, while the AMD A12-9800E has a base clock of 3.10 GHz. Both processors share the same boost clock of 3.80 GHz.

Q: How much faster is the PRO A10-9700 in multi-core workloads?

A: The PRO A10-9700 is ahead by 3 percent in Cinebench R15 multi-core and by 2.9 percent in Cinebench R20 and Cinebench R23 multi-core tests. The scores are 306 versus 297 in R15, 1275 versus 1239 in R20, and 3037 versus 2950 in R23.

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

A: The PRO A10-9700 has a TDP of 65 W, and the A12-9800E has a TDP of 35 W. The A12-9800E consumes significantly less power according to these ratings.

Q: Does the A12-9800E win any benchmark tests?

A: No. The database records 5 wins for the PRO A10-9700 and 0 wins for the A12-9800E in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How do these processors compare to other CPUs in the database?

A: The PRO A10-9700 has an average benchmark score of 1045 and sits in the 29th percentile of all CPUs. The A12-9800E has an average benchmark score of 1033 and sits in the 28th percentile. The PRO A10-9700 is closely matched with the Intel Pentium Gold G5620, which has the same average score of 1045.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the A12-9800E has data but the PRO A10-9700 does not?

A: Yes. The A12-9800E has Geekbench multi-core and single-core scores of 1521 and 631, respectively. The PRO A10-9700 does not have Geekbench results listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename. They share the same 28 nm process node, the same foundry at GlobalFoundries, and the same transistor count of 3,100 million. The die size is identical at 250 mm². The cache hierarchy is also the same: 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present on either part. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have the same PCIe configuration: Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU.

The integrated graphics are also identical in name: both feature Radeon R7 graphics. The memory support is DDR4 for both, and both use dual-channel memory. The PRO A10-9700 lists a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the A12-9800E does not have a memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database. This is the only architectural difference in the memory subsystem data, and it may be a reporting omission rather than a real difference, given that both processors share the same memory controller design.

The generation identifiers differ slightly: the PRO A10-9700 is listed under the A10 (Bristol Ridge) generation, and the A12-9800E is listed under the A12 (Bristol Ridge) generation. This is a naming distinction rather than an architectural one. The part numbers are different, as expected: AD970BAGM44AB for the PRO A10-9700 and AD9800AHM44AB for the A12-9800E. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported according to the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The base clock is the most obvious difference: 3.50 GHz for the PRO A10-9700 versus 3.10 GHz for the A12-9800E. The boost clock is the same at 3.80 GHz. The TDP is the second major difference: 65 W for the PRO A10-9700 versus 35 W for the A12-9800E. This is a substantial gap and likely the defining characteristic of the A12-9800E.

Memory bandwidth is listed as 38.4 GB/s for the PRO A10-9700, while the A12-9800E has no value recorded. The market segment is Desktop for both, and the production status is Active for both. The release date is the same for both: 2017-07-26. Neither processor has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The socket is identical: AMD Socket AM4 for both. The number of cores and threads is identical: 4 cores and 4 threads. The process node, foundry, transistor count, and die size are all the same. The cache configuration is the same. The memory support is the same. The PCIe configuration is the same. The integrated graphics are the same. The only meaningful differences in the specification sheet are the base clock, the TDP, and the memory bandwidth listing. These differences align perfectly with the benchmark results: the PRO A10-9700 is faster in every test, and the A12-9800E is more power-efficient by a wide margin.