EPYC 9135 vs A12-9800E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A12-9800E
2017
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
2.19
EPYC 9135
2024
16 cores / 32 threads, 200 Watt
36.56
+1569%

EPYC 9135 outperforms A12-9800E by a whopping 1569% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A12-9800E and EPYC 9135 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking185196
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.8329.26
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency5.9217.29
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Turin (2024)
Release date27 July 2017 (7 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$105$1,214

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9135 has 1499% better value for money than A12-9800E.

Detailed specifications

A12-9800E and EPYC 9135 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)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads432
Base clock speed3.1 GHz3.65 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz4.3 GHz
L1 cacheno data80 KB (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm4 nm
Die size246 mm22x 70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 million16,630 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on A12-9800E and EPYC 9135 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 configuration12
SocketAM4SP5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A12-9800E and EPYC 9135. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
VirusProtect+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A12-9800E and EPYC 9135 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A12-9800E and EPYC 9135. 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 GraphicsN/A
iGPU core count8no data
Enduro+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A12-9800E and EPYC 9135 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A12-9800E and EPYC 9135 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A12-9800E and EPYC 9135.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes8128

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
EPYC 9135 36.56
+1569%

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
EPYC 9135 58070
+1573%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.19 36.56
Recency 27 July 2017 10 October 2024
Physical cores 4 16
Threads 4 32
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 200 Watt

A12-9800E has 471.4% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9135, on the other hand, has a 1569.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9135 is our recommended choice as it beats the A12-9800E in performance tests.

Note that A12-9800E is a desktop processor while EPYC 9135 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A12-9800E and EPYC 9135, 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
AMD EPYC 9135
EPYC 9135

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

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9135 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A12-9800E or EPYC 9135, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.