OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD A12 9800 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark benchmark result:3703N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD A12 9800 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.6

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

90%

4.3

Technical score

10%

7.4

User score

â–¼Worse than 71% of processors
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

3.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 76% of processors
7.4

User score

User score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

70%

8.6

User ratings

30%

4.7

Number of reviews

Based on 16 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
â–¼Worse than 95% of processors
  • amd-a12-9800
  • amd-a12-9800
amd-a12-9800
amd-a12-9800

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD A12 9800

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components:

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

3.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated Graphics

4.3
User score
User score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

70%

8.6

User ratings

30%

4.7

Number of reviews

Based on 16 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
7.4
Popularity
Popularity
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models
Popularity:
AMD A12 9800 has a popularity score of 4.7 points, which is higher than that of 77.5% of products in this category.
4.7
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.6

Overall score

40%

9.9

Price

6.2
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
CPU socket
AM4
â–² Better than 77% of models
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 76.5% of processors and equal to that of 9.6% of processors.
Chipset
X370, B350, A320
Chipset
X370, B350, A320
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor supports X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 66.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 51.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.8 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.8 GHz
â–² Better than 55% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.8 GHz which is higher than that of 54.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
28 nm
Semiconductor size
28 nm
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 28 nm process node, which is older than that of 94.7% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 28 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 94.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
L3 cache
0 MB
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
L2 cache
2 MB
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 51% of processors and equal to that of 11.2% of processors.
L1 cache
320 KB
L1 cache
320 KB
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 320 KB which is smaller than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
2,400 MHz
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
2,400 MHz
â–² Better than 89% of models
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 88.7% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R7
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R7
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
This processor uses the Radeon R7 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 82.5% of processors and equal to that in 1.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,108 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,108 MHz
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,108 MHz which is higher than that of 95.2% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 56.2% of processors and equal to 9.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 69.9% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Base power (PL1)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 70.1% of processors and equal to that of 16.7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

AMD A12 9800 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    90 °C
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    AM4
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP4).
    AM4 vs FP4
  • 14.8% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,689
    â–² Better than 59% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,689 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,689 vs 1,471
  • 4.71x more popular
    AMD A12 9800 is more popular than the average processor (4.71 vs 1).
    4.71 vs 1
  • 3.17x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    1,108 MHz
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1108 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,108 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 4.71x more popular
    AMD A12 9800 is more popular than the average processor (4.71 vs 1).
    4.71 vs 1
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, TBM, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    AM4
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP4).
    AM4 vs FP4
  • 14.8% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,689
    â–² Better than 59% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,689 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,689 vs 1,471
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Turbo Core
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 10 higher clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    38
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (38 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    38 vs 28
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 3.17x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    1,108 MHz
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1108 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,108 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    90 °C
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 65% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,703
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,703 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,703 vs 10,572.5
  • 65% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,689
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,689 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,689 vs 4,829
  • 31.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,713
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,713 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,713 vs 2,500
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Bristol Ridge
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Bristol Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Bristol Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    28 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (28 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    28 nm vs 12 nm
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 7.6% lower user score
    User score
    7.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    ▼▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    AMD A12 9800
    the average processor
    AMD A12 9800 has a lower user score than the average processor (7.43 vs 8.000).
    7.43 vs 8
  • 5.3% worse value for money
    AMD A12 9800 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.23 vs 6.6).
    6.23 vs 6.56
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    July 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 65% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,703
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,703 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,703 vs 10,572.5
  • 31.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,713
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,713 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,713 vs 2,500
  • 65% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,689
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,689 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,689 vs 4,829
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 2.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.2 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 70.9% weaker overclocked performance
    PassMark overclocked benchmark result
    4,046
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <5.1k – >55k
    This processor has a lower overclocked performance than the average processor (4,046 vs 13,911). The average processor scores 13,911 in overclocked PassMark.
    4,046 vs 13,911
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Bristol Ridge
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Bristol Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Bristol Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    28 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (28 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    28 nm vs 12 nm
  • 41.2% larger die size
    Die size
    250 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (250 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    250 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    GlobalFoundries 28 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 28 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 28 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 20% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    2 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    2 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 37.4% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    3.1 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (3.1 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    3.1 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    8
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 18.2% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 16.2% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    38.4 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon R7
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Radeon R7 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon R7 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 10 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    90 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

T
techpowerup.com
30/12/2016
Summary of the review
AMD A12-9800 "Bristol Ridge" AM4 APU with ASUS A320M-C Tested
C
cpubenchmark.net
18/12/2024
Summary of the review
AMD A12-9800 - CPU Benchmarks
T
techspot.com
11/09/2017
Summary of the review
AMD A12-9800 Review: Infecting the AM4 Platform
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
23/03/2026
Summary of the review
UserBenchmark: AMD A12-9800 APU (2016 M.BR) AD9800AUABBOX
E
extreme.pcgameshardware.de
11/02/2017
Summary of the review
AMD A12-9800 (AM4) R7 iGPU Gaming Benchmarks Collection
(Translated)Show original
C
chip.de
27/10/2017
Summary of the review
AMD A12-9800 (CPU) Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshardware.fr
23/09/2016
Summary of the review
First tests of the AMD A12-9800 CPU: 20% more efficient, 10% faster
(Translated)Show original
N
noticias3d.com
13/09/2017
Summary of the review
Performance analysis of the AMD A12-9800 APU
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
30/12/2016
Summary of the review
Testing the AMD A12-9800 with an ASUS A320M-C Motherboard
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
16/07/2017
Summary of the review
HP EliteBook 755 G4 (AMD PRO A12-9800B) Laptop Review
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 16 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about AMD A12 9800

  • Strong integrated Radeon R7 graphics compared to contemporary Intel budget chips
  • Capable of light gaming on titles like Rocket League and CS:GO at 720p/low settings
  • Uses the AM4 socket, providing a path to future upgrades like Ryzen
  • Supports DDR4 memory, which was a modern standard at its release
  • Good value for budget builds if acquired at a low price

What we don't like about AMD A12 9800

  • Uses the aging 'Excavator' architecture, leading to poor single-core performance
  • Significant CPU bottlenecks when paired with discrete GPUs
  • High power consumption relative to its performance levels
  • Officially limited to DDR4-2400 memory speeds, which can starve the iGPU
  • Struggles with content creation tasks like video rendering and encoding
  • Largely overshadowed by newer budget options like the Athlon 200G and Ryzen 3 2200G

Verdict

The AMD A12-9800 is a 7th-generation 'Bristol Ridge' APU built on a 28nm process, featuring 4 CPU cores based on the Excavator architecture and 8 Radeon R7 graphics cores. It operates at a base clock speed of 3.8 GHz with a maximum boost of 4.2 GHz, supports dual-channel DDR4-2400 memory, and has a 65W TDP. Key advantages include its compatibility with the modern AM4 socket, providing an affordable entry point for the platform, and its integrated graphics which handle light gaming and 4K video playback better than contemporaneous budget Intel chips. However, it is hindered by its aging architecture which results in poor single-core performance, the lack of an L3 cache, and significantly lower efficiency compared to the newer Ryzen-based processors.

Compare AMD A12 9800 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD A12 9800 and other processors

No results found