AMD PRO A12-9800E vs AMD Ryzen 3 3250U Comparison

The AMD PRO A12-9800E and AMD Ryzen 3 3250U are two very different processors that happen to land at nearly the same average benchmark score. The PRO A12-9800E is a 35W desktop part built on the aging Excavator architecture, while the Ryzen 3 3250U is a 15W mobile chip using the newer Zen architecture. Their overall average scores are nearly identical—910 for the PRO A12 and 908 for the Ryzen 3—but the way they achieve those numbers could not be more different. The data shows a clear split: the Ryzen 3 dominates single-threaded workloads, while the PRO A12 takes the crown in one specific multi-threaded test.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results reveal a stark contrast in workload preferences. The Ryzen 3 3250U wins two of the three head-to-head comparisons, making it the stronger choice for most everyday tasks. Its biggest victory comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 776 against the PRO A12's 373—a massive 51.9% advantage. This single-thread performance is critical for everyday responsiveness, light productivity, and any software that doesn't scale well across many cores.

The Ryzen 3 also wins the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, scoring 353 versus 266 for the PRO A12, a 24.6% margin. This is notable because the PRO A12 has twice the physical cores (4 versus 2), yet the Ryzen 3 still wins thanks to its superior per-core efficiency.

The PRO A12-9800E's lone victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 2646 against the Ryzen 3's 2010—a 31.6% advantage. This is the only test where the PRO A12's four physical cores overcome the Ryzen 3's architectural advantage. For heavily threaded workloads that stress all cores simultaneously, the PRO A12 delivers meaningfully more throughput.

Looking at the broader picture, both chips sit at the 24th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they're entry-level performers. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical (910 vs 908), and the deltaPct between them is just 0.2%. This is a rare case where the "better" chip depends entirely on what you're doing.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two is substantial. The PRO A12-9800E uses the Excavator architecture on the Bristol Ridge codename, built on a 28nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. The Ryzen 3 3250U uses the Zen architecture on the Dali codename, built on a more modern 14nm process, with 3,500 million transistors in a smaller 148 mm² die.

The core configurations diverge significantly. The PRO A12 has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Ryzen 3 has only 2 cores but 4 threads thanks to simultaneous multithreading, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost of 3.50 GHz. Despite lower clock speeds, the Zen architecture's superior instruction-per-clock efficiency lets the Ryzen 3 win most tests.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The PRO A12 has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The Ryzen 3 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and crucially, 4 MB of shared L3 cache. That L3 cache is a major factor in the Ryzen 3's single-thread dominance.

The thermal envelope tells a story too. The PRO A12 has a 35W TDP, while the Ryzen 3 sips just 15W. The Ryzen 3 is a mobile chip in Socket FP5, while the PRO A12 is a desktop part for Socket AM4. Both support DDR4 dual-channel memory, but the Ryzen 3's memory bandwidth is rated at 38.4 GB/s—the PRO A12's bandwidth is not listed in the data. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results paint a clear picture of where each chip excels. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen 3 3250U wins decisively with 353 points against the PRO A12's 266, a 24.6% gap. This is remarkable because the PRO A12 has double the physical cores. The Zen architecture's efficiency simply overwhelms the Excavator design's core-count advantage in this older test.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the tables turn dramatically. The PRO A12-9800E scores 2646 versus the Ryzen 3's 2010, a 31.6% margin. This is the PRO A12's best result and shows that in the right workload—one that scales well across physical cores—the four-core design can pull ahead. The difference between the R15 and R23 results suggests that the newer Cinebench version is more sensitive to core count, while the older version favored the Ryzen's per-core strength.

The single-core comparison is the most lopsided. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ryzen 3 scores 776, more than double the PRO A12's 373. The 51.9% delta is the largest gap in any test. This single number explains why the Ryzen 3 feels snappier in everyday use—web browsing, office applications, and light multitasking all depend heavily on single-thread performance.

The average benchmark scores confirm these chips are peers overall: the PRO A12 averages 910, and the Ryzen 3 averages 908. The nearest rivals for the PRO A12 include the Ryzen 3 at 908 (0.2% delta), the Intel Core i3-10110Y at 908 (0.2%), and the Intel Core i3-4330T at 908 (0.2%). For the Ryzen 3, its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-4330T at 908 (0% delta), the Core i3-10110Y at 908 (0%), and the PRO A12 at 910 (-0.3%).

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals several key differences between these two processors:

• Cores: 4 (PRO A12) vs 2 (Ryzen 3)
• Threads: 4 (PRO A12) vs 4 (Ryzen 3)
• Base Clock: 3.10 GHz (PRO A12) vs 2.60 GHz (Ryzen 3)
• Boost Clock: 3.80 GHz (PRO A12) vs 3.50 GHz (Ryzen 3)
• TDP: 35W (PRO A12) vs 15W (Ryzen 3)
• Socket: AM4 (PRO A12) vs FP5 (Ryzen 3)
• Architecture: Excavator (PRO A12) vs Zen (Ryzen 3)
• Process Node: 28 nm (PRO A12) vs 14 nm (Ryzen 3)
• Transistors: 3,100 million (PRO A12) vs 3,500 million (Ryzen 3)
• Die Size: 250 mm² (PRO A12) vs 148 mm² (Ryzen 3)
• L1 Cache: 320 KB (PRO A12) vs 96 KB per core (Ryzen 3)
• L2 Cache: 2 MB (PRO A12) vs 512 KB per core (Ryzen 3)
• L3 Cache: None (PRO A12) vs 4 MB shared (Ryzen 3)
• Memory Bandwidth: Not listed (PRO A12) vs 38.4 GB/s (Ryzen 3)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 8 lanes CPU-only (PRO A12) vs Gen 3 (Ryzen 3)
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon R7 (PRO A12) vs Radeon Vega 3 (Ryzen 3)
• Market Segment: Desktop (PRO A12) vs Mobile (Ryzen 3)
• Release Date: 2017-07-26 (PRO A12) vs 2020-01-05 (Ryzen 3)

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The Ryzen 3 3250U is dramatically better in single-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 776 versus the PRO A12's 373, a 51.9% advantage. The Zen architecture's efficiency and the presence of 4 MB of L3 cache give it a decisive edge.

Q: Does the PRO A12's four cores make it better for multi-threaded work?

A: It depends on the test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the PRO A12 wins with 2646 versus 2010, a 31.6% margin. However, in the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Ryzen 3 wins with 353 versus 266, a 24.6% advantage. The newer test favors the extra physical cores; the older test favors the Ryzen's per-core efficiency.

Q: How do their overall average scores compare?

A: They are essentially tied. The PRO A12 has an average benchmark score of 910, while the Ryzen 3 sits at 908. The deltaPct between them is just 0.2%, and both rank at the 24th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What are the biggest architectural differences?

A: The PRO A12 uses the Excavator architecture on a 28nm process with no L3 cache, while the Ryzen 3 uses Zen on 14nm with 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen 3 also has a much smaller die (148 mm² vs 250 mm²) despite having more transistors (3,500 million vs 3,100 million).

Q: Is the Ryzen 3 more power-efficient?

A: Yes, significantly. The Ryzen 3 has a 15W TDP, while the PRO A12 is rated at 35W. Despite using less than half the power, the Ryzen 3 wins most benchmark comparisons.

Q: Are these processors suitable for gaming?

A: The data doesn't include gaming benchmarks, but both chips are entry-level performers at the 24th percentile. The Ryzen 3's superior single-core performance and more modern integrated graphics (Radeon Vega 3) suggest it would handle lighter games better, but neither is a gaming powerhouse.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear recommendation for most users: the Ryzen 3 3250U is the better all-around processor. It wins two of three head-to-head tests, including the most important single-core benchmark, while using less than half the power (15W vs 35W). Its 51.9% single-core advantage in Cinebench R23 will translate to a noticeably more responsive system for everyday tasks. The 4 MB of L3 cache and modern Zen architecture make it the more future-proof choice.

The PRO A12-9800E has one compelling argument in its favor: the 31.6% win in Cinebench R23 multi-core. If your workload is primarily heavily threaded applications that scale well across physical cores, the four-core design delivers more throughput. Its desktop socket (AM4) also offers upgrade potential that the mobile FP5 socket lacks. However, its 28nm process and lack of L3 cache are severe handicaps in most other scenarios.

The average scores are nearly identical—910 vs 908—so you're not gaining overall performance by choosing one over the other. You're choosing a trade-off: the Ryzen 3 for efficiency and single-thread speed, or the PRO A12 for multi-thread muscle in a desktop form factor. For a laptop user or anyone prioritizing everyday responsiveness, the Ryzen 3 is the obvious pick. For a budget desktop build where multi-threaded throughput is the priority, the PRO A12 has a legitimate claim—but its architectural age makes it a harder sell.