CPU Comparison

The AMD FX-4320 and AMD PRO A12-9800E are two four-core desktop processors from different eras of AMD’s lineup, yet benchmark results show them landing in nearly the same performance tier. The FX-4320, built on the older Piledriver architecture, holds a slim but consistent lead across every Cinebench test in the data. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the FX-4320 scores 269 against the PRO A12-9800E’s 266, a 1.1% margin. That gap widens slightly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the FX-4320 posts 1124 versus 1111, a 1.2% advantage. Single-core results follow the same pattern: the FX-4320 leads by 1.3% in both R20 (158 vs 156) and R23 (378 vs 373). The largest absolute difference appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with the FX-4320 at 2677 and the PRO A12-9800E at 2646, again a 1.2% edge. Across the five head-to-head benchmarks, the FX-4320 wins all of them, though no single victory exceeds 1.3%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data paints a picture of two processors that are functionally interchangeable in raw compute, with the FX-4320 edging ahead by a hair in every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the FX-4320’s 269 score beats the PRO A12-9800E’s 266 by 1.1%. This is a negligible difference in real-world terms, but it is consistent. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the FX-4320 scores 1124, while the PRO A12-9800E manages 1111, a 1.2% lead. The single-core tests are where the FX-4320 shows its highest relative advantage: 1.3% in both Cinebench R20 (158 vs 156) and Cinebench R23 (378 vs 373). In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the FX-4320’s 2677 outpaces the PRO A12-9800E’s 2646 by 1.2%. None of these margins are large enough to change the character of a workload, but the FX-4320 wins all five head-to-head matchups. The average benchmark scores reflect this near-tie: the FX-4320 sits at 921, while the PRO A12-9800E sits at 910, a difference of roughly 1.2%. Both processors rank in the bottom quartile of all CPUs, with the FX-4320 at the 25th percentile and the PRO A12-9800E at the 24th percentile. The nearest rivals for the FX-4320 include the AMD PRO A10-9700E (average score 919, 0.2% slower) and the Intel Celeron G6900TE (average score 925, 0.4% faster). For the PRO A12-9800E, the closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U (908, 0.2% slower) and the Intel Xeon W3540 (913, 0.3% faster). This clustering shows that both chips are firmly in entry-level territory, with no meaningful separation between them.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct architectural lineages that explain their similar performance despite different designs. The FX-4320 uses AMD’s Piledriver architecture on the Vishera codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors into a 315 mm² die. The PRO A12-9800E, by contrast, uses the Excavator architecture on the Bristol Ridge codename, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at GlobalFoundries. This newer node crams 3,100 million transistors into a smaller 250 mm² die. The cache layouts diverge significantly. The FX-4320 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 4 MB of L2, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The PRO A12-9800E has a larger 320 KB L1, but only 2 MB of L2 and no L3 cache at all. This trade-off, more L1 and a smaller L2 versus a large shared L3, likely accounts for the near-parity in performance. The FX-4320 runs on AMD Socket AM3+ with DDR3 memory support in dual-channel mode, offering 29.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The PRO A12-9800E uses AMD Socket AM4 with DDR4 memory support, also dual-channel, though the fact pack does not list a memory bandwidth figure for it. The FX-4320 features PCIe Gen 2, while the PRO A12-9800E offers PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes on the CPU. The PRO A12-9800E includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, whereas the FX-4320 only has graphics available as a chipset feature on certain motherboards. The FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier, while the PRO A12-9800E does not. The FX-4320 was released on 2012-10-22 and is end-of-life, while the PRO A12-9800E launched on 2017-07-26 and remains active in production.

FAQ

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

A: The FX-4320 leads in every multi-core test. It scores 269 vs 266 in Cinebench R15, 1124 vs 1111 in Cinebench R20, and 2677 vs 2646 in Cinebench R23, with deltaPct values of 1.1%, 1.2%, and 1.2% respectively.

Q: Is there any test where the PRO A12-9800E wins?

A: No. Across the five head-to-head benchmarks, the PRO A12-9800E records zero wins. The closest result is Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the FX-4320 wins by just 1.1%.

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

A: The FX-4320’s average score of 921 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD PRO A10-9700E (919) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U (917), but 0.4% behind the Intel Celeron G6900TE (925). The PRO A12-9800E’s average of 910 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U (908) and Intel Core i3-10110Y (908), but 0.3% behind the Intel Xeon W3540 (913).

Q: What are the key cache differences?

A: The FX-4320 has 192 KB of L1, 4 MB of L2, and 4 MB of shared L3. The PRO A12-9800E has 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, but no L3 cache. The PRO A12-9800E’s larger L1 does not compensate for the missing L3.

Q: Which processor has a lower power draw?

A: The PRO A12-9800E has a TDP of 35 watts, while the FX-4320 has a TDP of 95 watts. This makes the PRO A12-9800E significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the FX-4320 and the PRO A12-9800E have ECC memory support listed as false.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ across nearly every core specification, though they share the same core and thread counts. The FX-4320 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the PRO A12-9800E runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The FX-4320’s TDP is 95 watts, compared to the PRO A12-9800E’s 35 watts. Sockets are incompatible: the FX-4320 uses AM3+, while the PRO A12-9800E uses AM4. The FX-4320 is built on a 32 nm process with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die; the PRO A12-9800E uses 28 nm with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. Cache configurations differ substantially, with the FX-4320 offering 192 KB L1, 4 MB L2, and 4 MB shared L3, versus the PRO A12-9800E’s 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 with no L3. Memory support splits by generation: the FX-4320 uses DDR3 with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the PRO A12-9800E uses DDR4 with no listed bandwidth. PCIe support also differs: the FX-4320 has Gen 2, while the PRO A12-9800E has Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes. The PRO A12-9800E includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, which the FX-4320 lacks as a native feature. The FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier; the PRO A12-9800E does not. Release dates are about five years apart, with the FX-4320 launching 2012-10-22 and the PRO A12-9800E launching 2017-07-26. The FX-4320 is end-of-life, while the PRO A12-9800E remains active.

Where Each One Wins

The FX-4320 wins on raw performance across the board. In every Cinebench test, R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core, it posts the higher score. The margins are tight, ranging from 1.1% to 1.3%, but they are uniform. The FX-4320 also offers an unlocked multiplier, which the data indicates as a feature for overclocking, and a larger L2 and L3 cache footprint. For users who need every bit of compute performance from these two specific chips, the FX-4320 is the pick. The PRO A12-9800E wins on efficiency and platform modernity. Its 35-watt TDP is a fraction of the FX-4320’s 95-watt draw, making it suitable for low-power builds. It supports DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3, both newer standards than the FX-4320’s DDR3 and PCIe Gen 2. The integrated Radeon R7 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems, which the FX-4320 cannot offer without a compatible motherboard chipset. The PRO A12-9800E is also an active product, while the FX-4320 is end-of-life, meaning the PRO A12-9800E remains available for new systems. The PRO A12-9800E’s advantage is not in speed but in lower power consumption, newer platform features, and integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear but narrow victory for the AMD FX-4320 in pure performance. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with its largest lead at 1.3% in single-core workloads and its smallest at 1.1% in Cinebench R15 multi-core. The average benchmark score difference, 921 vs 910, confirms that the FX-4320 is the faster chip, but the gap is so small that it will not be perceptible in most applications. Both processors sit in the bottom quarter of all CPUs, so neither is suited for demanding multi-threaded work. The FX-4320’s higher clock speeds (4.00 GHz base, 4.20 GHz boost) and larger cache (4 MB L2, 4 MB L3) give it the edge, but the PRO A12-9800E counters with a 35-watt TDP, DDR4 support, PCIe Gen 3, and integrated Radeon R7 graphics. For a builder prioritizing performance above all else and working with an AM3+ platform, the FX-4320 is the choice from these two options. For anyone building a new, low-power system on AM4, the PRO A12-9800E is the practical selection, offering nearly identical compute with far lower power draw and modern platform features. The data does not justify choosing the PRO A12-9800E for speed, but it does justify choosing it for efficiency and feature set. Pick the FX-4320 if you want the last bit of Cinebench score; pick the PRO A12-9800E if you want a quieter, cooler, and more modern system.