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

These two AMD desktop processors share the same Excavator architecture, 28 nm process, and 35 W TDP, but the data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD PRO A12-9800E holds a decisive advantage across every benchmark recorded, while the AMD PRO A10-9700E counters with a slightly better standing among its closest rivals. Neither chip escapes the lower quartile of all CPUs, making them suited for basic productivity rather than demanding workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results offer a one-sided picture: the AMD PRO A12-9800E wins all five head-to-head tests. Its victories are consistent in margin, ranging from 2.6% to 2.7% over the A10-9700E. The A12-9800E leads in Cinebench R15 multicore with 266 points against 259, and in Cinebench R20 multicore with 1111 versus 1081. Single-core results follow the same trend, with the A12-9800E scoring 156 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 373 in Cinebench R23 single-core, compared to 152 and 363 for the A10-9700E.

The A10-9700E does not claim a single benchmark victory, but its aggregate profile is marginally stronger relative to its peers. It posts an average benchmark score of 919, which is 0.9% higher than the A12-9800E’s 910. That average is driven by Geekbench results, where the A10-9700E records 1430 multicore and 577 single-core; the A12-9800E has no Geekbench entries in the data. The A10-9700E also sits at the 25th percentile among all CPUs, one point above the A12-9800E’s 24th percentile. In practical terms, the A12-9800E is the faster processor for every measured workload, while the A10-9700E offers a slightly better competitive position against other low-end chips.

For users prioritizing raw compute, the A12-9800E is the unambiguous choice. Its higher base clock of 3.10 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz, versus 3.00 GHz and 3.50 GHz on the A10-9700E, translate directly into superior Cinebench scores. The A10-9700E’s edge is purely contextual: it matches or slightly exceeds the average score of rivals like the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G, which also scores 919, and the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U at 917. That makes the A10-9700E a more balanced entry in its own price-adjacent tier, even if it loses every direct comparison to its sibling.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: choose the AMD PRO A12-9800E for any task where processing speed matters. It outperforms the A10-9700E in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, covering both single-core and multicore workloads. The margins are small — roughly 2.6% to 2.7% — but they are uniform across every test, indicating a consistent clock-speed advantage rather than workload-specific quirks. The A12-9800E’s 3.80 GHz boost clock and 3.10 GHz base clock give it a structural lead that the A10-9700E cannot overcome.

The A10-9700E is the better pick only if the surrounding system or software relies on Geekbench-style metrics, where its 577 single-core and 1430 multicore scores provide data the A12-9800E lacks. That absence of Geekbench results for the A12-9800E is notable, but it does not compensate for the A12-9800E’s wins in the five tests where both chips are measured. For a neutral buyer, the A12-9800E is the faster part; the A10-9700E is a fallback for those who want a slightly better percentile ranking among all CPUs.

Neither processor is a performance leader. The A12-9800E sits at the 24th percentile of all CPUs, while the A10-9700E sits at 25th, meaning both are outclassed by roughly three-quarters of the market. The A12-9800E’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U and Intel Core i3-10110Y, both scoring 908 with a 0.2% delta, as well as the Intel Xeon W3540 at 913. The A10-9700E’s rivals are similarly positioned, with the AMD FX-4320 at 921 and Intel Pentium Gold G6405T at 915. In this company, the A12-9800E is the stronger sibling, but the gap between them is far smaller than the gap between either chip and a modern mid-range processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest measured win for the AMD PRO A12-9800E comes in Cinebench R23 multicore, where it scores 2646 against the A10-9700E’s 2574, a 2.7% advantage. That same 2.7% delta appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, with 373 versus 363. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 1111 against 1081, also a 2.7% gap, while Cinebench R20 single-core narrows slightly to 2.6% with 156 versus 152. Cinebench R15 multicore completes the sweep at 2.6%, with 266 versus 259.

These numbers tell a consistent story: the A12-9800E’s higher clocks deliver roughly the same percentage improvement across both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests. There is no workload in the dataset where the A10-9700E closes the gap or flips the result. The A10-9700E’s best showing is its Geekbench multicore score of 1430, but since the A12-9800E lacks a comparable Geekbench entry, that metric cannot be used for a direct comparison.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The A10-9700E averages 919 across all its benchmarks, while the A12-9800E averages 910. That difference is explained by the A10-9700E’s Geekbench scores, which are included in its average but absent from the A12-9800E’s tally. When restricted to the five shared Cinebench tests, the A12-9800E wins every time, with deltas that never exceed 2.7%. The practical takeaway is that the A12-9800E is the faster chip for rendering, encoding, and other Cinebench-style workloads, while the A10-9700E’s average is buoyed by a benchmark the A12-9800E does not contest.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800E wins all multi-core tests, scoring 2646 in Cinebench R23 multicore versus 2574 for the A10-9700E, and 1111 versus 1081 in Cinebench R20 multicore.

Q: Does the AMD PRO A10-9700E win any benchmark?

A: No. The A10-9700E has zero wins in the head-to-head data, losing all five Cinebench tests to the A12-9800E. Its only advantage is a higher average benchmark score of 919 versus 910, driven by Geekbench results.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The A12-9800E has a 3.10 GHz base clock and 3.80 GHz boost clock, while the A10-9700E has a 3.00 GHz base clock and 3.50 GHz boost clock.

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

A: The A10-9700E matches the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G at 919 average score and leads the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U by 0.2%. The A12-9800E leads the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U and Intel Core i3-10110Y by 0.2%, but trails the Intel Xeon W3540 by 0.3%.

Q: Do both processors have the same integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both feature Radeon R7 integrated graphics, along with the same 4 cores, 4 threads, 320 KB L1 cache, and 2 MB L2 cache.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each chip?

A: The A10-9700E sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, while the A12-9800E sits at the 24th percentile, placing both in the bottom quarter of the market.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename, using a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. They share identical transistor counts of 3,100 million and a die size of 250 mm². The cache hierarchy is also identical: 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present on either chip. Both use AMD Socket AM4, support DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration, and offer PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The core and thread configuration matches as well, with 4 cores and 4 threads on each processor. The integrated graphics are the same Radeon R7 solution. The only architectural difference in the data is the clock speeds: the A12-9800E runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, while the A10-9700E runs at 3.00 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. That 0.10 GHz base and 0.30 GHz boost advantage explains the A12-9800E’s consistent 2.6% to 2.7% lead in Cinebench tests.

Memory bandwidth differs in the data, with the A10-9700E listed at 38.4 GB/s while the A12-9800E has no bandwidth figure recorded. Both processors support DDR4 memory, and the dual-channel bus is the same, so the practical bandwidth should be similar, but the A10-9700E is the only one with a confirmed specification. The release dates also differ: the A10-9700E launched in October 2016, while the A12-9800E launched in July 2017. Both remain in active production, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. The part numbers are AD970BAHM44AB for the A10-9700E and AD980BAHM44AB for the A12-9800E, confirming their distinct identities within the same family.