A4-3400 vs A12-9700P
Aggregate performance score
A12-9700P outperforms A4-3400 by a whopping 125% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A12-9700P and A4-3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2124 | 2718 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.65 | 0.99 |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 7 September 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
A12-9700P and A4-3400 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A12-9700P and A4-3400 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 | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A12-9700P and A4-3400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | FMA4 | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A12-9700P and A4-3400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A12-9700P and A4-3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | Radeon HD 6410D |
| iGPU core count | 6 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A12-9700P and A4-3400 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A12-9700P and A4-3400 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A12-9700P and A4-3400.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | no 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.53 | 0.68 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 7 September 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
A12-9700P has a 125% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.
The A12-9700P is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3400 in performance tests.
Be aware that A12-9700P is a notebook processor while A4-3400 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A12-9700P and A4-3400, 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.
