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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD PRO A12-9800E wins every recorded head-to-head test against the AMD PRO A10-8770E. Across five Cinebench comparisons, the A12-9800E holds a consistent lead of roughly 3% in every workload, whether single-core or multi-core. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the A12-9800E scores 2646 against 2560, a 3.4% advantage. The other multi-core tests show the same pattern: Cinebench R15 multi-core favors the A12-9800E by 3.1% (266 vs. 258), and Cinebench R20 multi-core favors it by 3.3% (1111 vs. 1075). Single-core results are equally consistent, with the A12-9800E ahead by 3.3% in both Cinebench R20 (156 vs. 151) and Cinebench R23 (373 vs. 361).

The overall win tally is 5-0 in favor of the A12-9800E, with no recorded benchmark where the A10-8770E takes the lead. The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy: the A12-9800E averages 910, while the A10-8770E averages 895, a difference of 15 points. That gap places the A12-9800E in the 24th percentile of all CPUs, with the A10-8770E also at the 24th percentile, meaning both sit at the same performance tier overall. However, within that tier, the A12-9800E is consistently the faster part.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the A12-9800E sits alongside the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U and Intel Core i3-10110Y, both with an average score of 908, a delta of 0.2% in favor of the A12-9800E. The Intel Xeon W3540 scores 913, which is 0.3% higher. The A10-8770E, by comparison, matches the Intel Core i5-5300U and Intel Pentium G4600T exactly at 895, and is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 3200U (893) and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i3-6100 (888). These rival comparisons show that both PRO chips occupy a similar competitive band, but the A12-9800E edges slightly higher in the rankings.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same foundational Excavator architecture, but they come from different codename families. The A12-9800E is from the Bristol Ridge generation, while the A10-8770E is from the Carrizo generation. This distinction matters because Bristol Ridge represents a later refinement of the Excavator design, aimed at the AM4 platform with DDR4 memory support. Both chips use the same 28 nm process node at GlobalFoundries, with identical transistor counts of 3,100 million and identical die sizes of 250 mm². The core configuration is also identical: four cores, four threads, no simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies are exactly the same: 320 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache, and no L3 cache on either chip. Memory support is DDR4 on both, with dual-channel memory buses. The A10-8770E lists a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the A12-9800E does not have a recorded bandwidth figure in the database. Both integrate Radeon R7 graphics, and both lack ECC memory support. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a feature on either chip.

The key architectural difference lies in the PCIe implementation. The A12-9800E specifies PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the A10-8770E lists simply PCIe Gen 3 without a lane count. This suggests the A12-9800E has a more precisely defined PCIe pathway for CPU-attached devices. Clock speeds also differ: the A12-9800E runs at a 3.10 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.80 GHz, while the A10-8770E runs at 2.80 GHz base and boosts to 3.50 GHz. Both are 35 W TDP parts, making them equally power-efficient on paper.

The release dates differ as well. The A12-9800E has a recorded release date of July 26, 2017, while the A10-8770E has no release date in the database. Both are currently marked as Active in production status, and both use the AMD Socket AM4. The part numbers are AD980BAHM44AB for the A12-9800E and AD877BAHM44AB for the A10-8770E.

Where Each One Wins

The A12-9800E is the clear winner across every recorded benchmark category. In multi-threaded workloads, its 3.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3.3% lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core show that the higher base and boost clocks translate directly into sustained performance. For users running CPU-heavy tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, or batch processing, the A12-9800E is the better choice based on the data.

Single-threaded performance is also in the A12-9800E's favor. The 3.3% advantage in both Cinebench R20 single-core and Cinebench R23 single-core indicates that the higher 3.80 GHz boost clock delivers measurable gains in lightly threaded applications, such as everyday desktop responsiveness, web browsing, or office productivity. The A12-9800E also holds a 3.1% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the oldest test in the comparison, showing that its advantage is not limited to newer benchmark versions.

The A10-8770E, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark wins in this head-to-head dataset. Its only unique data point is a Geekbench result, with 1291 in multi-core and 572 in single-core, but no corresponding Geekbench score exists for the A12-9800E, so no direct comparison is possible. The A10-8770E does have a documented memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, which is a specification advantage in the database, but benchmark results do not show this translating into performance wins.

For a buyer deciding purely on benchmark data, the A12-9800E wins every category that has a head-to-head result. The A10-8770E remains a viable part for systems where a specific PCIe configuration or the Carrizo generation is required, but its performance ceiling is lower in every measured test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields, while sharing many others. The most significant differences are in clock speeds. The A12-9800E has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, compared to the A10-8770E's 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. Both are 35 W TDP parts.

The codename and generation differ: the A12-9800E is Bristol Ridge (generation A12), while the A10-8770E is Carrizo (generation A10). The release date is recorded only for the A12-9800E, which launched on July 26, 2017. The A10-8770E has no release date in the database.

PCIe specifications differ: the A12-9800E lists PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the A10-8770E lists just PCIe Gen 3 with no lane count. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the A10-8770E at 38.4 GB/s; the A12-9800E has no memory bandwidth figure.

The part numbers are distinct: AD980BAHM44AB for the A12-9800E and AD877BAHM44AB for the A10-8770E. The average benchmark scores also differ: 910 for the A12-9800E and 895 for the A10-8770E.

All other specification fields are identical: both have 4 cores, 4 threads, 28 nm process, 3,100 million transistors, 250 mm² die size, 320 KB L1 cache, 2 MB L2 cache, no L3 cache, DDR4 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, no ECC support, Radeon R7 integrated graphics, Desktop market segment, Active production status, and locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800E has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the AMD PRO A10-8770E boosts to 3.50 GHz.

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

A: The A12-9800E scores 2646 versus 2560 for the A10-8770E, a lead of 3.4%.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The A12-9800E has an average score of 910, while the A10-8770E has an average score of 895.

Q: Which processor has a documented memory bandwidth figure?

A: Only the AMD PRO A10-8770E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The A12-9800E does not have a memory bandwidth figure in the database.

Q: Are these processors from the same architecture generation?

A: Both use the Excavator architecture, but the A12-9800E is from the Bristol Ridge codename, while the A10-8770E is from the Carrizo codename.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD PRO A12-9800E is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all five head-to-head tests with margins between 3.1% and 3.4%, and its average benchmark score of 910 is 15 points higher than the A10-8770E's 895. The higher base and boost clocks, 3.10/3.80 GHz versus 2.80/3.50 GHz, are the most likely drivers of this consistent advantage.

For users building a desktop on AMD Socket AM4 with a 35 W TDP limit, the A12-9800E is the clear choice if performance is the priority. Its Bristol Ridge generation and PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only) make it a more modern platform fit, and its release date of July 26, 2017 gives it a defined place in the product timeline. The A10-8770E, while sharing the same core count, cache size, process node, and power envelope, offers no benchmark advantage anywhere in the recorded data.

The only reason to select the A10-8770E would be a specific requirement for the Carrizo generation or the need for a documented memory bandwidth specification of 38.4 GB/s, which the A12-9800E lacks in the database. For all general-purpose computing tasks, from single-threaded desktop work to multi-threaded rendering, the A12-9800E delivers measurably higher performance. The database records 5 wins for the A12-9800E and 0 for the A10-8770E, and that asymmetry defines the verdict.