A12-9800 vs A10-5800K
Aggregate performance score
A12-9800 outperforms A10-5800K by a significant 22% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A10-5800K and A12-9800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1860 | 1696 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.20 | 2.79 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD A-Series (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Trinity (2012−2013) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (11 years ago) | 27 July 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $122 | $139 |
| Current price | $73 (0.6x MSRP) | $135 (1x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
A10-5800K has 15% better value for money than A12-9800.
Detailed specifications
A10-5800K and A12-9800 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2048 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on A10-5800K and A12-9800 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FM2 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-5800K and A12-9800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| FRTC | no data | 1 |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| PowerTune | no data | + |
| TrueAudio | no data | + |
| PowerNow | no data | + |
| PowerGating | no data | + |
| VirusProtect | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-5800K and A12-9800 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-5800K and A12-9800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2400 |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 7660D | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics |
| iGPU core count | no data | 8 |
| Enduro | no data | + |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A10-5800K and A12-9800 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A10-5800K and A12-9800 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-5800K and A12-9800.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
A12-9800 outperforms A10-5800K by 22% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
A12-9800 outperforms A10-5800K by 21% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
A12-9800 outperforms A10-5800K by 55% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
A12-9800 outperforms A10-5800K by 56% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.91 | 2.33 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 27 July 2017 |
| Cost | $122 | $139 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
The A12-9800 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-5800K in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A10-5800K and A12-9800, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
