OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD A12-9800E review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:3416N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD A12-9800E Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD A12-9800E
5.2/10

Overall score

Score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

40%

4.1

Technical score

25%

4.1

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 94% of processors
6.6

Value for money

Value for money
6.6/ 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 86% of models
Score components

70%

5.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 86%
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

60%

3.5

Performance

18%

3.1

Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 83%
4.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

4.1

Mark 6.9 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 89%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-a12-9800e
  • amd-a12-9800e
  • amd-a12-9800e
amd-a12-9800e
amd-a12-9800e
amd-a12-9800e
Where to buy
*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 A12-9800E

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

60%

3.5

Performance

18%

3.1

Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

4.1
Reviews score
4.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.6/ 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 86% of models
Score components:

70%

5.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.6
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 75.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
X370, B350, A320
This processor supports X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 66.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, TBM, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, FMA4, AES, BMI1, BMI2, XOP, TBM, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 97.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.1 GHz which is lower than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,416
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,416 in PassMark, which is lower than 82.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
28 nm
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 2.8% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 28 nm
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 2.8% of processors.
L3 cache
0 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.9% of processors and equal to that of 6.1% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
320 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 320 KB which is smaller than that of 56.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Radeon R7
Integrated GPU model
Radeon R7
This processor uses the Radeon R7 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 80.2% of processors and equal to that in 1.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
8
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 8 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 73.9% of processors and equal to 7.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
800 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 800 MHz which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 57.2% of processors and equal to 9.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD A12-9800E vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    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
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Broader instruction support
    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, AMD-V).
    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, AMD-V
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 2.29x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (800 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 2.78x cheaper
    AMD A12-9800E is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • 2.78x cheaper
    AMD A12-9800E is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • Broader instruction support
    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, AMD-V).
    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, AMD-V
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    3 vs 2
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2.29x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (800 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    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
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 38.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

    4.1

    Mark 6.9 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.1 vs 6.7
  • 70.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,416 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,416 vs 11,469
  • 38.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,566 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,566 vs 2,558
  • 70.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,552 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,552 vs 5,209
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    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
    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
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 38.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

    4.1

    Mark 6.9 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.1 vs 6.7
  • 9.6% worse value for money
    AMD A12-9800E has worse value for money than the average processor (6.65 vs 7.3).
    6.65 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    July 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 70.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,416 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,416 vs 11,469
  • 38.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,566 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,566 vs 2,558
  • 70.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,552 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,552 vs 5,209
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 93.8% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (24.8 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    24.75 vs 398.015
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    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
    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
    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
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • Less advanced foundry
    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
  • 37.4% fewer transistors
    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
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    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
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 10 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

5.0
ixbt.com
≈ estimated
01/09/2017
Lab test · Low-power desktop chip
Verdict
The AMD A12-9800E is a 35 W desktop chip that uses much less power than older APUs, though it went above its rated power in tests.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD A12-9800E

  • Efficient 35W TDP makes it ideal for low-power, cool-running HTPC or small form factor builds
  • Uses the modern AM4 socket, providing a clear upgrade path to more powerful Ryzen processors
  • Integrated Radeon R7 graphics perform better than Intel's budget HD graphics from the same era
  • Capable of handling everyday office tasks, web browsing, and 1080p video playback smoothly
  • Good for budget-conscious users who want to play light eSports titles at 720p/900p without a dedicated GPU

What customers don't like about AMD A12-9800E

  • Based on older 'Excavator' architecture, resulting in poor CPU performance compared to Ryzen or modern Intel i3 chips
  • Performance is roughly 30% slower than the standard 65W version (A12-9800) due to power constraints
  • Struggles significantly with CPU-intensive tasks like video encoding, rendering, or complex multitasking
  • Memory support is limited to DDR4-2400, which can bottleneck the integrated graphics performance
  • Poor value proposition compared to newer entry-level APUs like the Ryzen 3 2200G which offer much higher performance for a similar price

Verdict

The AMD A12-9800E is a 7th Generation Bristol Ridge desktop APU built on a 28nm Excavator architecture for the AM4 socket. It features 4 CPU cores with a base clock of 3.1 GHz (boosting up to 3.8 GHz) and integrated Radeon R7 graphics with 512 shading units operating at 900 MHz. Its primary strengths are a low 35W TDP, making it highly energy-efficient for compact systems, and an unlocked multiplier that allows for straightforward overclocking. However, it suffers from dated architecture that results in poor single-threaded performance compared to contemporary Ryzen or Intel alternatives, lacks L3 cache, and is limited to slower DDR4-2400 memory speeds.

Compare AMD A12-9800E 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 A12-9800E and other processors

No results found