A8-3500M vs FX-9800P

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-9800P
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.60
+81.8%
A8-3500M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.88

FX-9800P outperforms A8-3500M by an impressive 82% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-9800P and A8-3500M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20892544
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeAMD A-Series
Power efficiency10.092.38
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)14 June 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-9800P and A8-3500M 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 speed2.7 GHz1.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz2.4 GHz
L1 cache320 KB128 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per module)1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size250 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistors3,100 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on FX-9800P and A8-3500M 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
SocketFP4FS1
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9800P and A8-3500M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-9800P and A8-3500M are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9800P and A8-3500M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)AMD Radeon HD 6620G

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9800P and A8-3500M.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes8no data

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-9800P 1.60
+81.8%
A8-3500M 0.88

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-9800P 2543
+81.6%
A8-3500M 1400

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

FX-9800P 496
+115%
A8-3500M 231

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

FX-9800P 1119
+80.5%
A8-3500M 620

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

FX-9800P 14.4
+67.3%
A8-3500M 24.09

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

FX-9800P 3
+52.1%
A8-3500M 2

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.60 0.88
Integrated graphics card 1.95 0.88
Recency 31 May 2016 14 June 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

FX-9800P has a 81.8% higher aggregate performance score, 121.6% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The FX-9800P is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-3500M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9800P and A8-3500M, 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-9800P
FX-9800P
AMD A8-3500M
A8-3500M

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.


3.1 44 votes

Rate FX-9800P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 118 votes

Rate A8-3500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-9800P or A8-3500M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.