Apple M2 Pro vs A12-9720P
Aggregate performance score
Apple M2 Pro outperforms A12-9720P by a whopping 720% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A12-9720P and Apple M2 Pro processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2058 | 536 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | Apple Apple M-Series |
| Power efficiency | 10.54 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | no data |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 17 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
A12-9720P and Apple M2 Pro 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) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 2.424 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 3.3 MB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 36 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 24 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 40000 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on A12-9720P and Apple M2 Pro 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.
| Socket | FP4 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 2424 ‑ 3504 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A12-9720P and Apple M2 Pro. 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 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A12-9720P and Apple M2 Pro. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 758 MHz) | Apple M2 Pro 19-Core GPU |
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.67 | 13.70 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 17 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 12 |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 2424 Watt |
A12-9720P has 16060% lower power consumption.
Apple M2 Pro, on the other hand, has a 720.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Apple M2 Pro is our recommended choice as it beats the A12-9720P in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between A12-9720P and Apple M2 Pro, 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.
