Celeron 725C vs A12-9800
Primary details
Comparing A12-9800 and Celeron 725C processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1823 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.45 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 3.31 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
A12-9800 and Celeron 725C 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2048 KB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1.5 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on A12-9800 and Celeron 725C 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | Intel BGA1023 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A12-9800 and Celeron 725C. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| PowerGating | + | - |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A12-9800 and Celeron 725C are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A12-9800 and Celeron 725C. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR3 |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) |
| iGPU core count | 8 | no data |
| Enduro | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A12-9800 and Celeron 725C integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by A12-9800 and Celeron 725C integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A12-9800 and Celeron 725C.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 27 July 2017 | 1 July 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 17 Watt |
A12-9800 has an age advantage of 6 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 725C, on the other hand, has 282.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between A12-9800 and Celeron 725C. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that A12-9800 is a desktop processor while Celeron 725C is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A12-9800 and Celeron 725C, 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.
