AMD A12-9800E

The AMD A12-9800E is a 4-core, 4-thread desktop processor built on the 28 nm Excavator architecture, code-named Bristol Ridge, and designed for the AMD Socket AM4 platform. It operates with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, and it integrates Radeon R7 graphics. With an average benchmark score of 1033, this chip sits at the 28th percentile among all CPUs, placing it firmly in entry-level territory for everyday computing rather than demanding productivity or gaming workloads.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The benchmark data reveals a significant disparity between single-core and multi-core performance, which directly influences how this processor handles different types of software. In Cinebench R23, the A12-9800E scores 416 points in single-core and 2950 points in multi-core. The multi-core score is roughly 7.1 times the single-core score, which is unusually high for a 4-thread part; most modern quad-core chips show a ratio closer to 3.5–4.0. This anomaly suggests that the multi-core test benefits from the processor’s ability to sustain boost clocks across all cores, while single-core performance is held back by the older Excavator architecture’s relatively low instructions-per-clock.

In Cinebench R20, the single-core score is 174, while the multi-core score reaches 1239, a ratio of about 7.1 again. Geekbench tells a similar story: single-core 631, multi-core 1521, with a ratio of 2.4. The variance between Cinebench and Geekbench ratios highlights that the A12-9800E’s scaling depends heavily on the workload’s memory access patterns and instruction mix. For real workloads, this means web browsing, office documents, and light media playback—which rely mostly on single-threaded responsiveness—will feel sluggish compared to even low-end Intel parts. Conversely, tasks that can utilize all four threads, such as video encoding in older software or batch photo processing, will see relatively better throughput, though the absolute scores remain modest.

The lack of SMT (simultaneous multithreading) means the processor can only handle four threads at once. For modern applications that expect at least six threads for smooth operation, this creates a bottleneck. The data indicates that the A12-9800E is best suited for single-thread-light, multi-thread-moderate scenarios, such as a home server running a few background tasks or a basic HTPC. In contrast, any workload that demands strong per-core performance—like spreadsheet calculations with complex formulas or JavaScript-heavy web apps—will expose the chip’s weaknesses.

Power and Thermals

The A12-9800E carries a TDP of 35 W, which classifies it as a low-power part within the desktop landscape. This TDP figure is notably lower than the typical 65 W or higher seen in most desktop CPUs, meaning the processor generates significantly less heat under load. The 28 nm process node from GlobalFoundries is not modern by modern standards, but the modest clock speeds and low TDP help keep thermal output manageable.

For cooling, this TDP class implies that a stock or basic air cooler is more than sufficient. The data does not include specific cooler requirements, but a 35 W processor can typically be handled by a small, low-profile heatsink or even a fanless solution in a well-ventilated case. Users who plan to install this in a compact or mini-ITX chassis will find that thermal constraints are not a concern. The low power draw also means that the surrounding components, such as the VRM (voltage regulator module) on the motherboard, do not need to be robust, making this chip compatible with entry-level AM4 boards.

The absence of a large L3 cache—the cache configuration shows 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3—means that the processor relies more heavily on memory bandwidth. With DDR4 dual-channel support, the memory subsystem can feed the cores adequately for the low clock speeds, but the lack of L3 will show up in cache-sensitive workloads. In practice, the 35 W TDP allows the processor to sustain its 3.80 GHz boost clock across all cores without significant throttling, as indicated by the stable multi-core scores in Cinebench R20 and R23. However, sustained heavy loads may still cause the chip to drop to the 3.10 GHz base clock if the cooling solution is inadequate, though this is unlikely with any standard cooler.

How It Compares

AMD A10-9700: The A12-9800E and the A10-9700 are nearly identical in performance, with the A12-9800E having an average score of 1033 versus 1034 for the A10-9700, a delta of -0.1%. This puts the two chips in a statistical tie. Both are Excavator-based parts, but the A12-9800E’s lower TDP (35 W vs. the A10-9700’s unspecified but likely higher) gives it an efficiency edge without sacrificing any measurable performance. In real-world terms, users would not notice any difference between these two processors in daily tasks.

Intel Pentium G4560: The G4560 scores 1035 on average, just 0.2% higher than the A12-9800E. This margin is negligible, but the G4560 is a dual-core with hyper-threading, while the A12-9800E has four physical cores. The benchmark data shows that the A12-9800E’s multi-threaded performance can match the G4560’s, but the G4560’s stronger single-core performance—evident in higher single-core scores in Cinebench R23 (not directly listed, but implied by the overall score distribution)—makes it more responsive in everyday use. The A12-9800E’s integrated Radeon R7 graphics, however, provide a significant advantage over the G4560’s integrated Intel HD Graphics for light gaming or video playback.

Intel Core i3-1000NG4: This Intel part also scores 1035, a 0.2% delta over the A12-9800E. The i3-1000NG4 is a low-power mobile-derived chip with a much newer architecture, yet the benchmark data shows it performs virtually identically to the A12-9800E in aggregate. This is surprising given the generational gap, but it highlights that the A12-9800E’s four cores can hold their own against a dual-core with hyper-threading in multi-threaded workloads. The i3-1000NG4 likely has better single-core performance, but the A12-9800E’s higher base clock (3.10 GHz vs. the i3’s lower clocks) compensates in some tests.

AMD A10-7890K: The A10-7890K, a slightly older flagship Excavator part, scores 1035, again just 0.2% above the A12-9800E. The A10-7890K has higher clock speeds, but the A12-9800E’s newer Bristol Ridge architecture and lower TDP allow it to match performance while consuming less power. This demonstrates that the A12-9800E is not a performance downgrade from its higher-tier predecessor, merely a more efficient variant. In practice, the A12-9800E offers the same experience as the A10-7890K for most applications, making it a smarter choice for builds where power consumption matters.

FAQ

Q: What is the TDP of the AMD A12-9800E?

A: The processor has a TDP of 35 W, making it a low-power desktop chip suitable for basic air cooling.

Q: How many cores and threads does the A12-9800E have?

A: It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with no SMT support, so it can process four threads simultaneously.

Q: What integrated graphics does it include?

A: The chip features Radeon R7 integrated graphics, which provides basic display output and light 3D acceleration.

Q: What is the boost clock speed?

A: The boost clock is 3.80 GHz, while the base clock is 3.10 GHz, allowing for higher performance under load.

Q: Does the A12-9800E support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported. It uses dual-channel DDR4 memory.

Q: How does it compare to the Intel Pentium G4560?

A: The A12-9800E has an average benchmark score of 1033, which is 0.2% lower than the G4560’s 1035, placing them at performance parity.

Benchmark Performance

The average benchmark score of 1033 places the A12-9800E at the 28th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms roughly a quarter of the processors in the database. In Cinebench R15, the multi-core score is 297, which is modest but functional for older software. Cinebench R20 multi-core reaches 1239, and Cinebench R23 multi-core hits 2950, showing that the chip scales reasonably well across different versions of the same test. The single-core scores in R20 and R23 are 174 and 416, respectively, which are low enough to indicate that single-threaded applications will see noticeable lag compared to modern budget chips.

Geekbench results show a multi-core score of 1521 and a single-core score of 631. The multi-core score is only about 2.4 times the single-core score, which is lower than the Cinebench ratios, suggesting that Geekbench’s workload is more sensitive to memory latency and cache misses. Since the A12-9800E lacks L3 cache, this makes sense—the processor must frequently fetch data from main memory, which is slower than on-chip cache.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the A12-9800E is effectively tied with all four. The delta percentages are -0.1% vs. the A10-9700 (1034), -0.2% vs. the Intel Pentium G4560 (1035), -0.2% vs. the Core i3-1000NG4 (1035), and -0.2% vs. the A10-7890K (1035). These differences are within a single point, meaning that in any blind test, the A12-9800E would be indistinguishable from these competitors. The practical implication is that the A12-9800E’s value comes not from raw performance, but from its combination of low power draw, integrated graphics, and AM4 socket compatibility.

In absolute terms, the multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 2950 is roughly 7.1 times the single-core score of 416, which is an unusually high scaling factor. This suggests that the processor’s single-core performance is severely limited by the Excavator architecture’s low IPC, while multi-core performance benefits from the fact that all four cores can run at boost clocks simultaneously. For users upgrading from an older dual-core, the A12-9800E will feel like a step up in multi-threaded tasks, but not in single-threaded responsiveness. The data indicates that this chip is best used in scenarios where power efficiency is prioritized over speed, and where the integrated Radeon R7 graphics can replace a discrete GPU for basic needs.