A4-9120C vs A8-3800

VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-3800
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
1.29
+139%
A4-9120C
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 6 Watt
0.54

A8-3800 outperforms A4-9120C by a whopping 139% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-3800 and A4-9120C processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22732841
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency1.888.52
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date30 June 2011 (13 years ago)6 January 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A8-3800 and A4-9120C 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.4 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.7 GHz1.6 GHz
Multiplierno data16
L1 cache128 KB (per core)160 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache0 KBno data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size228 mm2124.5 mm2
Number of transistors1,178 million1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A8-3800 and A4-9120C 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 configuration1no data
SocketFM1BGA
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3800 and A4-9120C. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataVirtualization,
AES-NI-+
AVX-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3800 and A4-9120C are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3800 and A4-9120C. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory bandwidthno data14.936 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6550DAMD Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge)

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.

A8-3800 1.29
+139%
A4-9120C 0.54

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.

A8-3800 2049
+141%
A4-9120C 850

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.29 0.54
Integrated graphics card 1.04 1.17
Recency 30 June 2011 6 January 2019
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 6 Watt

A8-3800 has a 138.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

A4-9120C, on the other hand, has 12.5% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 7 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 983.3% lower power consumption.

The A8-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-9120C in performance tests.

Note that A8-3800 is a desktop processor while A4-9120C is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3800 and A4-9120C, 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 A8-3800
A8-3800
AMD A4-9120C
A4-9120C

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.


3.4 70 votes

Rate A8-3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 77 votes

Rate A4-9120C on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A8-3800 or A4-9120C, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.