AMD PRO A12-9800 vs AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data splits cleanly along workload type. The AMD Ryzen 3 1200 wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core and Cinebench R23 single-core, while the AMD PRO A12-9800 takes the Cinebench R23 multi-core test. This is not a uniform sweep; it is a case of each processor defending a different territory.

The Ryzen 3 1200 dominates single-threaded performance. Its R23 single-core score of 834 beats the PRO A12-9800’s 453 by 84.1%. That is a commanding margin, and it points to workloads that rely on one or two heavily loaded threads, such as older games, lightly threaded productivity apps, or responsiveness in daily desktop use. The R15 multi-core result reinforces this: 480 versus 323, a 48.6% advantage for the Ryzen 3 1200. In that older rendering test, the Ryzen chip is clearly faster across all cores.

The PRO A12-9800 wins only one benchmark, but it is a significant one: Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 3208 against the Ryzen 3 1200’s 3013, a 6.1% edge. This newer rendering workload favors the PRO part, likely due to its higher base and boost clocks (3.80 GHz and 4.20 GHz versus 3.10 GHz and 3.40 GHz). The data shows that in heavily threaded, modern rendering, the PRO A12-9800 pulls ahead despite losing the older R15 test.

The wins are not evenly distributed. The Ryzen 3 1200 takes two of three head-to-head tests, with the single-core win being particularly lopsided. The PRO A12-9800 counters with a narrower but real win in R23 multi-core. For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness or compatibility with older rendering benchmarks, the Ryzen 3 1200 is the clear choice. For those running the latest multi-threaded Cinebench version, the PRO A12-9800 has a measurable advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 1200 is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 834 versus 453 for the AMD PRO A12-9800, a 84.1% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD PRO A12-9800 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 3208, beating the Ryzen 3 1200’s 3013 by 6.1%.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R15 multi-core?

A: The Ryzen 3 1200 wins decisively, scoring 480 versus 323 for the PRO A12-9800, a 48.6% difference.

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

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 4 threads. The difference lies in architecture, clock speeds, and cache layout, not core count.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800 has a higher boost clock at 4.20 GHz, compared to 3.40 GHz for the Ryzen 3 1200. Its base clock is also higher at 3.80 GHz versus 3.10 GHz.

Q: Is there a difference in integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The AMD PRO A12-9800 includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics, while the Ryzen 3 1200 has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains three direct comparisons. The largest margin belongs to the Ryzen 3 1200 in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 834 against 453 for the PRO A12-9800. That 84.1% delta is the single biggest gap in any test, and it underscores a fundamental difference in per-core efficiency. The Ryzen 3 1200, built on the Zen architecture, delivers far more work per clock in single-threaded tasks despite having a lower boost clock (3.40 GHz versus 4.20 GHz).

The second win for the Ryzen 3 1200 is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, with a score of 480 versus 323. The 48.6% advantage here is nearly as large as the single-core gap. This older benchmark apparently responds strongly to the Ryzen architecture’s IPC advantage, as the clock speed difference cannot explain a result of this magnitude. The PRO A12-9800’s higher clocks (3.80 GHz base, 4.20 GHz boost) do not compensate for the architectural deficit.

The PRO A12-9800’s sole victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 3208, edging out the Ryzen 3 1200’s 3013. The 6.1% delta is modest compared to the Ryzen’s wins, but it is consistent and repeatable in the data. This newer rendering workload appears to scale better with the PRO part’s higher clock speeds, possibly because the Excavator architecture handles the newer instruction mix more efficiently than expected. The result is notable: despite losing R15 multi-core by a wide margin, the PRO A12-9800 flips the result in R23 multi-core.

Looking at the overall average benchmark scores, the two are nearly identical. The Ryzen 3 1200 has an average benchmark score of 1116, while the PRO A12-9800 sits at 1104. Both occupy the 31st percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals for the Ryzen 3 1200 include the Intel Core i3-7300 at 1115 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i5-3550S at 1118 (-0.2% delta). The PRO A12-9800’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 at 1103 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Pentium Gold G6605 at 1103 (0.1% delta). These figures confirm that both processors sit in a similar performance tier overall, but the distribution of wins is highly uneven.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Ryzen 3 1200 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, while the PRO A12-9800 runs at 3.80 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. The PRO part is clocked higher in both states, yet it loses the single-core test, indicating that raw clock speed is not the determining factor.

Memory bandwidth differs as well. The Ryzen 3 1200 supports 42.7 GB/s, while the PRO A12-9800 is rated at 38.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel DDR4, but the Ryzen chip has a 4.3 GB/s advantage. The Ryzen 3 1200 also supports ECC memory, while the PRO A12-9800 does not.

PCIe lane count is another distinction. The Ryzen 3 1200 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the PRO A12-9800 offers Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Ryzen part twice the PCIe connectivity for discrete GPUs or NVMe storage.

The Ryzen 3 1200 has an unlocked multiplier, while the PRO A12-9800 is locked. This matters for overclocking potential, though the database does not provide overclocking benchmark data. The launch MSRP for the Ryzen 3 1200 is $109; the PRO A12-9800 has no launch MSRP listed.

The Ryzen 3 1200 was released on 2017-07-26, while the PRO A12-9800 came earlier on 2016-10-02. Both are currently marked as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is substantial. The Ryzen 3 1200 uses the Zen architecture (codename Zen, Summit Ridge) on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The PRO A12-9800 uses the Excavator architecture (codename Bristol Ridge) on a 28 nm process, also from GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm means the Ryzen chip uses smaller transistors, which typically improves power efficiency and density.

Transistor counts reflect the node difference. The Ryzen 3 1200 packs 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The PRO A12-9800 has 3,100 million transistors on a larger 250 mm² die. The Ryzen chip fits more transistors into a smaller area, which contributes to its higher performance per clock.

Cache layouts are entirely different. The Ryzen 3 1200 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The PRO A12-9800 has 320 KB of L1 total and 2 MB of L2 total, with no L3 cache listed. The Ryzen’s large shared L3 cache is a major architectural advantage for workloads that benefit from frequent data reuse across cores.

The PRO A12-9800 includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics, while the Ryzen 3 1200 has none. This is a functional difference: the PRO part can output video without a discrete GPU, but the Ryzen chip requires a separate graphics card. The PRO A12-9800 also has a higher base and boost clock, as noted earlier, but the Excavator architecture is older and less efficient per clock.

The Ryzen 3 1200 belongs to the 1000 series, with the generation listed as Ryzen 3 (Zen, Summit Ridge). The PRO A12-9800 is listed as A12 (Bristol Ridge). The part numbers differ: YD1200BBM4KAEYD1200BBAEBOX for the Ryzen and AD980BAUM44AB for the PRO.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. The AMD Ryzen 3 1200 is the better choice for single-threaded tasks and older multi-threaded benchmarks. Its 84.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 48.6% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core are decisive. Users running legacy applications, lightly threaded software, or games that depend on single-core speed should choose the Ryzen 3 1200. It also offers more PCIe lanes (16 versus 8), ECC memory support, and an unlocked multiplier, all of which are structural advantages.

The AMD PRO A12-9800 is the better choice for the latest multi-threaded rendering workload. Its 6.1% win in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while modest, is the only test where it leads. Users who run that specific benchmark, or workloads with similar characteristics, will see a real benefit. The PRO part also includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, which makes it a more complete package for systems without a discrete GPU.

The average benchmark scores are nearly tied: 1116 for the Ryzen 3 1200 versus 1104 for the PRO A12-9800. Both sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs. The Ryzen 3 1200 wins two of three head-to-head tests, and its wins are far larger in percentage terms than the PRO’s single win. The Ryzen 3 1200 also has a newer architecture (Zen on 14 nm versus Excavator on 28 nm), a larger cache hierarchy, and a lower launch MSRP of $109.

Given the data, the Ryzen 3 1200 is the stronger overall processor. It wins more benchmarks, wins by larger margins, and offers architectural advantages that are likely to persist across future workloads. The PRO A12-9800 is a viable alternative only for users who specifically need its R23 multi-core performance or its integrated graphics. For any other use case, the recorded benchmarks favor the Ryzen 3 1200.