PRO A12-9800E vs FX-4350

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-4350
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 125 Watt
2.17
+4.8%

FX-4350 outperforms PRO A12-9800E by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18741913
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.585.39
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date29 April 2013 (11 years ago)27 July 2017 (7 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed4.2 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed4.3 GHz3.8 GHz
L2 cache4096 KB2048 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2250 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °C90 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million3,100 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.275 V - Max: 1.4 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E 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
SocketAM3+AM4
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+
PowerTune-+
TrueAudio-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
Out-of-band client management-+
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2400
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon R7 Graphics
iGPU core countno data8
Enduro-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E.

PCIe versionn/a3.0
PCI Express lanesno data8

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.

FX-4350 2.17
+4.8%
PRO A12-9800E 2.07

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.

FX-4350 3314
+4.4%
PRO A12-9800E 3175

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.17 2.07
Recency 29 April 2013 27 July 2017
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 35 Watt

FX-4350 has a 4.8% higher aggregate performance score.

PRO A12-9800E, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4350 and PRO A12-9800E, 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 FX-4350
FX-4350
AMD PRO A12-9800E
PRO A12-9800E

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.


3.8 545 votes

Rate FX-4350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 11 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-4350 or PRO A12-9800E, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.