i3-10100F vs A12-9720P
Aggregate performance score
Core i3-10100F outperforms A12-9720P by a whopping 230% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A12-9720P and Core i3-10100F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2070 | 1161 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 20 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 20.98 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.54 | 8.02 |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Comet Lake (2020) |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 12 October 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $122 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A12-9720P and Core i3-10100F 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 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 6 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 126 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on A12-9720P and Core i3-10100F 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | FP4 | FCLGA1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A12-9720P and Core i3-10100F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
A12-9720P and Core i3-10100F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A12-9720P and Core i3-10100F are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A12-9720P and Core i3-10100F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 41.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 758 MHz) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A12-9720P and Core i3-10100F.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.67 | 5.51 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 12 October 2020 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
A12-9720P has 333.3% lower power consumption.
i3-10100F, on the other hand, has a 229.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Core i3-10100F is our recommended choice as it beats the A12-9720P in performance tests.
Be aware that A12-9720P is a notebook processor while Core i3-10100F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A12-9720P and Core i3-10100F, 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.
