Ultra 9 288V vs A12-9800E

VS

Aggregate performance score

A12-9800E
2017
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
2.19
Core Ultra 9 288V
2024
8 cores / 8 threads, 30 Watt
12.30
+462%

Core Ultra 9 288V outperforms A12-9800E by a whopping 462% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1837620
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.82no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Power efficiency5.9238.80
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Lunar Lake (2024)
Release date27 July 2017 (7 years ago)24 September 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$105no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads48
Base clock speed3.1 GHz3.3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz5.1 GHz
Bus rateno data37 MHz
L1 cacheno data192 KB (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB2.5 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB12 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm3 nm
Die size246 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V 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
SocketAM4Intel BGA 2833
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt30 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V. 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+
TSX-+

Security technologies

A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR5
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R7 GraphicsArc 140V
iGPU core count8no data
Enduro+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes84

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.

A12-9800E 2.19
Ultra 9 288V 12.30
+462%

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.

A12-9800E 3471
Ultra 9 288V 19542
+463%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.19 12.30
Recency 27 July 2017 24 September 2024
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 4 8
Chip lithography 28 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 30 Watt

Ultra 9 288V has a 461.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 833.3% more advanced lithography process, and 16.7% lower power consumption.

The Core Ultra 9 288V is our recommended choice as it beats the A12-9800E in performance tests.

Note that A12-9800E is a desktop processor while Core Ultra 9 288V is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A12-9800E and Core Ultra 9 288V, 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 A12-9800E
A12-9800E
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V
Core Ultra 9 288V

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.


3.7 49 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 10 votes

Rate Core Ultra 9 288V on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A12-9800E or Core Ultra 9 288V, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.