AMD PRO A12-9800 vs Intel Core i7-2710QE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably consistent picture: the AMD PRO A12-9800 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, but by margins so narrow that they border on statistical noise. Across five Cinebench tests, the AMD part takes five wins with zero losses, yet the largest victory is a mere 1.1% delta.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD PRO A12-9800 scores 323 against the Intel Core i7-2710QE's 321, a 0.6% edge. Move to Cinebench R20 multi-core and the gap widens slightly to 0.7%: 1347 versus 1338. The single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, AMD posts 190 against Intel's 188, a 1.1% advantage, the largest delta in the entire comparison. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: multi-core 3208 versus 3186 (0.7% delta), single-core 453 versus 449 (0.9% delta).

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this parity. AMD sits at 1104, Intel at 1096, a difference of less than 1%. Both processors occupy the 31st percentile among all CPUs tracked in the database. This is not a case of one chip dominating another; it is a case of two chips arriving at nearly identical performance through wildly different engineering approaches.

The closest rivals listed in the database for the AMD PRO A12-9800 include the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 and Intel Pentium Gold G6605, both with an average score of 1103 (0.1% delta), plus the AMD Opteron 3280 and AMD Athlon X4 845 at 1106 (-0.2% delta). The Intel Core i7-2710QE's nearest neighbors include the Intel Core i7-2670QM at 1096 (0% delta), the Intel Core i5-3470S at 1095 (0.1% delta), the AMD PRO A10-8850B at 1098 (-0.1% delta), and the Intel Core i7-4610M at 1094 (0.2% delta). The two chips effectively inhabit the same performance neighborhood, surrounded by a mix of desktop and mobile parts.

Any conclusion that one processor is "better" based on these numbers would be overreading the data. The benchmarks indicate near-identical rendering performance in Cinebench workloads. The AMD chip wins, but it wins by inches, not miles.

Architecture Differences

The two processors could hardly be more different under the hood, despite their similar benchmark outputs. The AMD PRO A12-9800 is a desktop part built on the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, fabricated on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel Core i7-2710QE is a mobile chip using the Sandy Bridge architecture, built on Intel's 32 nm process. AMD's process node is smaller, but Intel's design is older by roughly five years in release timing: the AMD part launched in October 2016, while the Intel part launched in January 2011.

Core and thread counts diverge significantly. Both have four physical cores, but the Intel chip supports eight threads through Hyper-Threading, while the AMD chip runs four threads on four cores. This means the Intel part has a theoretical threading advantage in heavily parallel workloads, yet the benchmark data shows AMD still edges ahead in multi-core Cinebench tests. The AMD chip compensates for fewer threads with a much higher clock speed: a 3.80 GHz base clock and 4.20 GHz boost clock, against Intel's 2.10 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost.

Cache configurations also tell different stories. AMD provides 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. Intel provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip's substantial L3 cache is a classic Sandy Bridge design trait, while AMD's Excavator part relies on higher clocks and a more streamlined cache hierarchy.

Transistor counts and die sizes reflect the architectural gap. The AMD chip packs 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Intel chip uses 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. AMD's denser 28 nm process allows nearly three times the transistor count on a slightly larger die. The power envelopes differ as well: AMD's TDP is 65 watts, Intel's is 45 watts. The Intel part draws less power while delivering nearly identical benchmark scores, a notable efficiency advantage.

Memory support differs on paper. AMD supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel chip's memory support is listed as null in the database, though it does use a dual-channel memory bus. Neither chip supports ECC memory. AMD's PCIe implementation is Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while Intel's PCIe details are not recorded. Integrated graphics also differ: AMD pairs the CPU with Radeon R7 graphics, Intel with HD 3000 graphics. The AMD part targets the desktop segment and remains in active production, while the Intel part is a mobile chip marked end-of-life.

The socket situation is entirely different: AMD uses Socket AM4, Intel uses Socket G2 (988B). Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part number is AD980BAUM44AB; the Intel part number is SR02T.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A12-9800 wins in every recorded benchmark, but the practical significance of those wins depends on the workload. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD chip's 1.1% lead (190 versus 188) is its largest edge. This aligns with the clock speed advantage: a 4.20 GHz boost clock gives the Excavator core a clear frequency headroom over Sandy Bridge's 3.00 GHz boost. For lightly threaded tasks, the AMD part should feel slightly snappier.

In multi-core workloads, the AMD chip also leads, but the margin shrinks to 0.6% to 0.7% across R15, R20, and R23. The Intel chip's eight threads should theoretically help in multi-threaded rendering, yet the data shows the AMD chip still maintains a narrow advantage. This suggests that Excavator's per-core efficiency at higher clocks outweighs Intel's thread-count advantage in these particular Cinebench workloads.

The Intel chip wins in efficiency, though this is not captured in a benchmark score. Its 45-watt TDP versus AMD's 65-watt TDP means it delivers comparable performance at a lower power envelope. For a mobile platform, which is the Intel chip's intended market segment, this is a meaningful advantage. The Intel chip also offers a shared 6 MB L3 cache, which can benefit workloads with reusable data sets, even if the Cinebench results do not reflect a measurable win.

The AMD chip wins on platform modernity. It supports DDR4 memory, uses PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, and remains in active production. The Intel chip is end-of-life, uses an older socket, and lacks recorded memory bandwidth figures. For a new system build in the present day, the AMD part offers a more current platform foundation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800 boosts to 4.20 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-2710QE boosts to 3.00 GHz. The AMD chip also has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel chip have more threads?

A: Yes. The Intel Core i7-2710QE supports 8 threads across 4 cores, while the AMD PRO A12-9800 runs 4 threads on 4 cores. Despite this, the AMD chip wins all five head-to-head Cinebench benchmarks.

Q: How much L3 cache does the AMD PRO A12-9800 have?

A: The AMD chip has no L3 cache. It provides 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache. The Intel chip includes 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for these two CPUs?

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800 has an average benchmark score of 1104, and the Intel Core i7-2710QE has an average score of 1096. Both sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which chip has a lower TDP?

A: The Intel Core i7-2710QE has a 45-watt TDP, while the AMD PRO A12-9800 has a 65-watt TDP. The Intel chip delivers near-identical benchmark scores at a lower power draw.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The AMD PRO A12-9800 is listed as active in production, while the Intel Core i7-2710QE is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: these two processors are effectively tied in raw Cinebench performance, with the AMD PRO A12-9800 holding a marginal edge across every recorded test. The AMD chip wins 5 out of 5 benchmarks, but the largest delta is 1.1%, and the average scores differ by only 8 points out of roughly 1100. Neither chip has a meaningful performance advantage in these workloads.

The choice between them should come down to platform priorities. The AMD PRO A12-9800 is the better pick for a desktop build in the present day. It is still in active production, supports DDR4 memory, uses the AM4 socket, and carries Radeon R7 integrated graphics. Its higher clock speeds deliver the slight single-core edge seen in the benchmarks. The 65-watt TDP is higher than the Intel part, but acceptable for a desktop platform.

The Intel Core i7-2710QE is the better pick for power-constrained or mobile scenarios, if legacy platform availability is a factor. Its 45-watt TDP delivers nearly identical benchmark scores at a lower power envelope. The 8-thread capability and 6 MB of shared L3 cache are architectural features that could benefit certain workloads, even if the Cinebench data does not show a measurable win. However, the end-of-life production status and older Sandy Bridge platform make it a harder recommendation for new system designs.

For buyers who prioritize modern platform features, active production status, and a slight performance edge, the AMD PRO A12-9800 is the data-supported choice. For buyers who prioritize power efficiency and can work within an older mobile platform, the Intel part remains competitive. The benchmark results indicate that neither chip will disappoint on raw Cinebench performance, but the AMD part carries the day on platform longevity and the narrowest of performance margins.