AMD PRO A12-9800 vs Intel Core i3-7300 Comparison

The Intel Core i3-7300 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, and it does so by a strikingly uniform margin: roughly 20 percent over the AMD PRO A12-9800 in every single recorded test. That consistency is the story of this comparison. The i3-7300's two Kaby Lake cores, running at a 4.00 GHz base clock with four threads, outpace the A12-9800's four Excavator cores even in multi-threaded workloads where the AMD chip's core-count advantage should, on paper, close the gap. It never does. The recorded data makes this a clean sweep for Intel, and the analysis below explains why the margin is so stable, what the A12-9800's remaining strengths are, and who each processor actually suits.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-7300 wins everywhere that matters for responsiveness and throughput as measured by the database. It leads in single-core performance by about 20 percent in both Cinebench R20 and R23, which translates directly into snappier desktop use, faster web browsing, and better performance in applications that lean on one or two fast threads. It also leads in every multi-core test, by 20.1 percent in Cinebench R15, 20.2 percent in R20, and 20.2 percent in R23. In other words, the i3-7300's modern per-core IPC more than compensates for having half the physical cores of its rival.

The AMD PRO A12-9800 wins nothing in the recorded benchmark set, but it does hold structural advantages worth noting. It has four physical cores to the i3's two, a boost clock that reaches 4.20 GHz where the i3-7300 has no boost listed at all, and double the PCIe lanes from the CPU (8 versus the Intel chip's CPU-only count of 16, which is actually fewer than it appears when split across devices, though the raw lane count favors Intel here too). Its Radeon R7 integrated graphics and its "PRO" business-oriented positioning give it a distinct identity: an office desktop part with capable built-in graphics and a newer AM4 socket that carried forward into later AMD platforms. None of that shows up in Cinebench, but it shapes the use case.

For pure compute, the verdict is unambiguous: the i3-7300 is the faster processor in every workload the database measures.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i3-7300 faster than the AMD PRO A12-9800?

A: Yes, in every recorded test. The i3-7300 leads by 20.1 percent in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 20.2 percent in R20 multi-core, 20.2 percent in R23 multi-core, 20 percent in R20 single-core, and 20.1 percent in R23 single-core.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The A12-9800 has four cores and four threads. The i3-7300 has two cores and four threads, using hyper-threading to reach the same thread count with half the physical cores.

Q: Which chip has the higher clock speeds?

A: The A12-9800 boosts to 4.20 GHz from a 3.80 GHz base. The i3-7300 runs at a fixed 4.00 GHz with no boost clock listed, yet still delivers roughly 20 percent higher performance per test, showing that per-core efficiency, not frequency, decides this matchup.

Q: Which processor is more power efficient?

A: The i3-7300 is rated at 51 W TDP versus 65 W for the A12-9800, and it delivers more performance at that lower rating. On performance per watt, the Intel part is clearly ahead.

Q: How do they rank against the broader CPU landscape?

A: Both sit at the 31st percentile versus all CPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of 1115 for the i3-7300 and 1104 for the A12-9800. Their closest rivals differ, though: the i3-7300 trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 3 1200, Intel Core i5-3550S, Intel Core i3-4150, and Intel Core i7-5557U, while the A12-9800 matches up against the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3, Intel Pentium Gold G6605, AMD Opteron 3280, and AMD Athlon X4 845.

Q: Do both support DDR4 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with identical rated memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The margin of victory barely moves across five tests and three Cinebench generations, which is itself diagnostic. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-7300 scores 388 against 323, a 20.1 percent lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 1619 versus 1347, a 20.2 percent lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it is 3856 versus 3208, again 20.2 percent. Multi-core scaling is healthy on both parts across revisions, but the Intel chip's advantage never erodes.

Single-core results tell the same tale. Cinebench R20 single-core reads 228 for the i3-7300 and 190 for the A12-9800, a 20 percent gap. Cinebench R23 single-core reads 544 versus 453, a 20.1 percent gap. That the single-core and multi-core gaps are essentially identical is remarkable given the core-count difference: if the A12-9800's four cores scaled as efficiently as the i3-7300's two cores plus hyper-threading, its multi-core deficit would be smaller than its single-core deficit. It is not. The Excavator architecture's per-core throughput, built on a much older process node, caps what the extra cores can contribute.

The i3-7300 sweeps all five recorded head-to-head tests, five wins to zero. There is no workload in the database where the A12-9800 comes out ahead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification that matters. Core topology: 2 cores and 4 threads (Intel) versus 4 cores and 4 threads (AMD). Clocking: a 4.00 GHz base with no boost listed (Intel) versus a 3.80 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost (AMD). TDP: 51 W versus 65 W, a real efficiency edge for the Intel part given it also performs better. Socket: Intel Socket 1151 versus AMD Socket AM4, meaning the two require entirely different motherboards and offer different upgrade paths within their own ecosystems.

Cache design diverges sharply. The i3-7300 carries 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core plus a 4 MB shared L3 cache; the A12-9800 has 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 with no L3 at all. That L3 absence on the AMD side is a meaningful structural difference for workload consistency. PCIe support also differs: Gen 3 with 16 CPU-only lanes on the i3-7300 versus Gen 3 with 8 CPU-only lanes on the A12-9800, halving the direct-attached expansion bandwidth available to the AMD platform. Integrated graphics differ too, with Intel HD 630 on one side and Radeon R7 on the other. Release timing favors AMD slightly: the A12-9800 arrived in October 2016, the i3-7300 in January 2017. Memory support is the one area of parity: both handle DDR4 over a dual-channel bus at 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and neither supports ECC.

Architecture Differences

This is where the 20 percent gap originates. The i3-7300 uses Intel's Kaby Lake architecture on a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundries. The A12-9800 uses AMD's Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Two full process-node generations separate them, and it shows: the Intel part extracts substantially more work per clock per core despite running at effectively the same frequency.

The A12-9800's silicon is nonetheless substantial, at 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, reflecting the fact that Bristol Ridge is an APU design that integrates the Radeon R7 graphics on the same piece of silicon. That transistor budget went into graphics and four CPU cores rather than into deep per-core performance, which is a legitimate design choice for an office machine that runs integrated display output, but it concedes the CPU compute race decisively. Kaby Lake's strength is the opposite trade: two very fast cores with hyper-threading, a large shared L3 cache, and a leaner power envelope. Both chips have locked multipliers, so neither offers overclocking headroom as an escape hatch. Both remain listed as active desktop parts in the database.

The Verdict

For anyone choosing on CPU performance, the data points to the Intel Core i3-7300 without hesitation. It is roughly 20 percent faster in every measured test, single-core and multi-core alike, while drawing less power at 51 W versus 65 W. Its 4 MB of shared L3 cache, its 16 Gen 3 CPU lanes, and its 31st-percentile standing achieved through per-core speed rather than core count make it the better pick for general desktop work, light content creation, and any application sensitive to single-thread throughput.

The AMD PRO A12-9800 earns consideration only outside the benchmark results: its Radeon R7 integrated graphics, its four physical cores for workloads that specifically avoid the recorded test suite, its AM4 socket, and its business-oriented PRO branding. Within the scope of the database measurements, however, the i3-7300 wins five tests out of five, and it wins them all by the same commanding margin. That uniformity leaves no room for a workload-based counterargument. Intel takes this comparison outright.