PRO A12-9800B vs FX-8350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8350
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.84
+121%

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by a whopping 121% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8350 and PRO A12-9800B processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking13901943
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.13no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD FX-Series (Desktop)AMD Bristol Ridge
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date23 October 2012 (11 years ago)1 June 2016 (8 years ago)
Current price$162 $676

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-8350 and PRO A12-9800B 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 speed4 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz3.6 GHz
L2 cache8192 KB2048 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2250 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °C90 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million3100 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierYesNo
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8350 and PRO A12-9800B 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 configuration1no data
SocketAM3+FP4
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and PRO A12-9800B. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, AMD64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, CLMUL, CVT16, EVP, FMA4, XOP, Turbo Core, HT3.1Dual-Channel DDR3/DDR4-1866 Memory Controller, PCIe 3.0 x8
AES-NI+1
FMA+FMA4
AVX+AVX
FRTCno data1
FreeSyncno data1
PowerTuneno data+
DualGraphicsno data1
TrueAudiono data+
PowerNowno data+
PowerGatingno data+
Out-of-band client managementno data+
VirusProtectno data+
RAIDno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and PRO A12-9800B are enumerated here.

AMD-V+1
IOMMU 2.0no data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and PRO A12-9800B. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3, DDR4-1866
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
Endurono data+
Switchable graphicsno data1
UVDno data+
VCEno data+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-8350 and PRO A12-9800B integrated GPUs.

DisplayPortno data+
HDMIno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-8350 and PRO A12-9800B integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkanno data1

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and PRO A12-9800B.

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-8350 3.84
+121%
PRO A12-9800B 1.74

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 121% based on our aggregate 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%

FX-8350 5936
+121%
PRO A12-9800B 2691

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 121% 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%

FX-8350 489
PRO A12-9800B 545
+11.5%

PRO A12-9800B outperforms FX-8350 by 11% 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%

FX-8350 1994
+72.3%
PRO A12-9800B 1157

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 72% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

FX-8350 3201
+23.5%
PRO A12-9800B 2593

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 23% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

FX-8350 16904
+140%
PRO A12-9800B 7056

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 140% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

FX-8350 6648
+105%
PRO A12-9800B 3249

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 105% in 3DMark06 CPU.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

FX-8350 8.34
+65.5%
PRO A12-9800B 13.8

PRO A12-9800B outperforms FX-8350 by 65% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

FX-8350 7
+166%
PRO A12-9800B 3

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 166% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

FX-8350 636
+183%
PRO A12-9800B 225

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 183% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

FX-8350 97
+29.3%
PRO A12-9800B 75

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 29% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

FX-8350 1.1
+25%
PRO A12-9800B 0.88

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 25% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-8350 3.6
+100%
PRO A12-9800B 1.8

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 100% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-8350 4562
+230%
PRO A12-9800B 1383

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 230% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-8350 44
+164%
PRO A12-9800B 17

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 164% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-8350 139
+80.2%
PRO A12-9800B 77

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 80% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Geekbench 2

Benchmark coverage: 5%

FX-8350 11198
+96.3%
PRO A12-9800B 5705

FX-8350 outperforms PRO A12-9800B by 96% in Geekbench 2.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.84 1.74
Recency 23 October 2012 1 June 2016
Physical cores 8 4
Threads 8 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 15 Watt

The FX-8350 is our recommended choice as it beats the PRO A12-9800B in performance tests.

Note that FX-8350 is a desktop processor while PRO A12-9800B is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and PRO A12-9800B, 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-8350
FX-8350
AMD PRO A12-9800B
PRO A12-9800B

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 3433 votes

Rate FX-8350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 24 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8350 or PRO A12-9800B, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.