A12-9800E vs Xeon E5-2640

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2640 and A12-9800E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking	1425	1835
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.68	1.84
Market segment	Server	Desktop processor
Power efficiency	3.95	5.90
Architecture codename	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date	6 March 2012 (12 years ago)	27 July 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$162	$105

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-2640 has 100% better value for money than A12-9800E.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2640 and 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 cores	6 (Hexa-Core)	4 (Quad-Core)
Threads	12	4
Base clock speed	2.5 GHz	3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed	3 GHz	3.8 GHz
Bus rate	7.2 GT/s	no data
L1 cache	64 KB (per core)	no data
L2 cache	256 KB (per core)	2048 KB
L3 cache	15360 KB (shared)	0 KB
Chip lithography	32 nm	28 nm
Die size	435 mm2	246 mm2
Maximum core temperature	73 °C	90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)	no data	74 °C
Number of transistors	2,270 million	1,178 million
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2640 and 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 configuration	2	1
Socket	FCLGA2011	AM4
Power consumption (TDP)	95 Watt	35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2640 and A12-9800E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions	Intel® AVX	no data
AES-NI	+	+
FMA	-	+
AVX	+	+
FRTC	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
PowerTune	-	+
TrueAudio	-	+
PowerNow	-	+
PowerGating	-	+
VirusProtect	-	+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)	+	no data
Turbo Boost Technology	1.0	no data
Hyper-Threading Technology	+	no data
Idle States	+	no data
Thermal Monitoring	+	-
Flex Memory Access	-	no data
Demand Based Switching	+	no data

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2640 and A12-9800E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT	+	no data
EDB	+	no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2640 and A12-9800E are enumerated here.

AMD-V	-	+
VT-d	+	no data
VT-x	+	no data
EPT	+	no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2640 and A12-9800E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types	DDR3	DDR4-2400
Maximum memory size	384 GB	no data
Max memory channels	4	2
Maximum memory bandwidth	42.6 GB/s	no data
ECC memory support	+	-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card	no data	AMD Radeon R7 Graphics
iGPU core count	no data	8
Enduro	-	+
UVD	-	+
VCE	-	+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E5-2640 and A12-9800E integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort	-	+
HDMI	-	+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Xeon E5-2640 and A12-9800E integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX	no data	DirectX® 12
Vulkan	-	+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2640 and A12-9800E.

PCIe version	3.0	3.0
PCI Express lanes	40	8

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.

---

Pros & cons summary

---

Performance score	3.98	2.19
Recency	6 March 2012	27 July 2017
Physical cores	6	4
Threads	12	4
Chip lithography	32 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	95 Watt	35 Watt

---

Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2640 and 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.

---