PRO A12-9800 vs FX-8300

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8300
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
3.36
+44.2%
PRO A12-9800
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
2.33

FX-8300 outperforms PRO A12-9800 by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8300 and PRO A12-9800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15771806
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency3.353.39
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)3 October 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-8300 and PRO 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads84
Base clock speed3.3 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz4.2 GHz
L2 cache8192 KB2048 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2250 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °C90 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million3,100 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8300 and PRO 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 configuration11
SocketAM3+AM4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8300 and PRO A12-9800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+
PowerTune-+
TrueAudio-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
Out-of-band client management-+
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8300 and PRO A12-9800 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8300 and PRO A12-9800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2400
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon R7 Graphics
iGPU core countno data8
Enduro-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-8300 and PRO A12-9800 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-8300 and PRO A12-9800 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8300 and PRO A12-9800.

PCIe versionn/a3.0
PCI Express lanesno data8

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.

FX-8300 3.36
+44.2%
PRO A12-9800 2.33

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.

FX-8300 5339
+44.1%
PRO A12-9800 3705

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.36 2.33
Recency 23 October 2012 3 October 2016
Physical cores 8 4
Threads 8 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

FX-8300 has a 44.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

PRO A12-9800, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The FX-8300 is our recommended choice as it beats the PRO A12-9800 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8300 and PRO A12-9800, 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 FX-8300
FX-8300
AMD PRO A12-9800
PRO A12-9800

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.


4.2 2395 votes

Rate FX-8300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 13 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8300 or PRO A12-9800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.