FX-4350 vs A12-9800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A12-9800
2017
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
2.36
+8.8%

A12-9800 outperforms FX-4350 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A12-9800 and FX-4350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18031875
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.59no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency3.311.58
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release date27 July 2017 (7 years ago)29 April 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$139no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A12-9800 and FX-4350 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed3.8 GHz4.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz4.3 GHz
L2 cache2048 KB4096 KB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size246 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C61 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier-+
P0 Vcore voltageno dataMin: 1.275 V - Max: 1.4 V

Compatibility

Information on A12-9800 and FX-4350 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 configuration11
SocketAM4AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A12-9800 and FX-4350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A12-9800 and FX-4350 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A12-9800 and FX-4350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR3
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R7 GraphicsOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)
iGPU core count8no data
Enduro+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A12-9800 and FX-4350 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A12-9800 and FX-4350 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A12-9800 and FX-4350.

PCIe version3.0n/a
PCI Express lanes8no data

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 2.36
+8.8%
FX-4350 2.17

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.

A12-9800 3611
+9%
FX-4350 3314

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.

A12-9800 702
+55.7%
FX-4350 451

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.

A12-9800 1676
+46%
FX-4350 1148

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.36 2.17
Recency 27 July 2017 29 April 2013
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 125 Watt

A12-9800 has a 8.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A12-9800 and FX-4350.


Should you still have questions on choice between A12-9800 and FX-4350, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A12-9800
A12-9800
AMD FX-4350
FX-4350

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3 195 votes

Rate A12-9800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 545 votes

Rate FX-4350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A12-9800 or FX-4350, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.