AMD PRO A12-9800 vs AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
Vergleichende Analyse von AMD PRO A12-9800 und AMD Ryzen 3 2200G Prozessoren für alle bekannten Merkmale in den folgenden Kategorien: Essenzielles, Leistung, Speicher, Grafik, Grafikschnittstellen, Unterstützung der Grafik-API, Kompatibilität, Peripherien, Fortschrittliche Technologien, Virtualisierung. Benchmark-Prozessorleistungsanalyse: PassMark - Single thread mark, PassMark - CPU mark, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench 4 - Single Core, Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD PRO A12-9800
- Etwa 14% höhere Taktfrequenz: 4.2 GHz vs 3.7 GHz
Maximale Frequenz | 4.2 GHz vs 3.7 GHz |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
- CPU ist neuer: Startdatum 1 Jahr(e) 4 Monat(e) später
- Der Prozessor ist entsperrt, ein entsperrter Multiplikator ermöglicht eine einfachere Übertaktung
- Etwa 6% höhere Kerntemperatur: 95°C vs 90°C
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht einen leistungsfähigeren, aber dennoch kühleren laufenden Prozessor: 14 nm FinFET vs 28 nm
- Etwa 22% bessere Leistung in PassMark - Single thread mark: 2052 vs 1686
- Etwa 83% bessere Leistung in PassMark - CPU mark: 6767 vs 3705
- Etwa 9% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 28.581 vs 26.268
- Etwa 27% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 356.091 vs 279.396
- Etwa 15% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.276 vs 1.975
- Etwa 13% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 38.679 vs 34.196
- Etwa 3% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 136.274 vs 131.8
- 2.4x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2802 vs 1176
- 7.9x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3768 vs 477
- 6.4x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 10990 vs 1715
- 2.4x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2802 vs 1176
- 7.9x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3768 vs 477
- 6.4x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 10990 vs 1715
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 12 February 2018 vs 3 October 2016 |
Freigegeben | Freigegeben vs Gesperrt |
Maximale Kerntemperatur | 95°C vs 90°C |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm FinFET vs 28 nm |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - Single thread mark | 2052 vs 1686 |
PassMark - CPU mark | 6767 vs 3705 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 28.581 vs 26.268 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 356.091 vs 279.396 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.276 vs 1.975 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 38.679 vs 34.196 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 136.274 vs 131.8 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2802 vs 1176 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3768 vs 477 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 10990 vs 1715 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2802 vs 1176 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3768 vs 477 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 10990 vs 1715 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
CPU 1: AMD PRO A12-9800
CPU 2: AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
PassMark - Single thread mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - CPU mark |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD PRO A12-9800 | AMD Ryzen 3 2200G |
---|---|---|
PassMark - Single thread mark | 1686 | 2052 |
PassMark - CPU mark | 3705 | 6767 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.268 | 28.581 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 279.396 | 356.091 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.975 | 2.276 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 34.196 | 38.679 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 131.8 | 136.274 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1176 | 2802 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 477 | 3768 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1715 | 10990 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1176 | 2802 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 477 | 3768 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1715 | 10990 |
Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 852 | |
Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 2736 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score | 1678 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
AMD PRO A12-9800 | AMD Ryzen 3 2200G | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Family | AMD PRO A-Series Processors | AMD Ryzen Processors |
Startdatum | 3 October 2016 | 12 February 2018 |
OPN Tray | AD980BAUM44AB | YD2200C5M4MFB |
OS Support | Windows 10 - 64-Bit Edition, RHEL x86 64-Bit, Ubuntu x86 64-Bit | Windows 10 - 64-Bit Edition, RHEL x86 64-Bit, Ubuntu x86 64-Bit |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 994 | 311 |
Serie | AMD PRO A-Series A12 APU for Desktops | AMD Ryzen 3 Desktop Processors with Radeon Vega Graphics |
Vertikales Segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Architektur Codename | Zen | |
OPN PIB | YD2200C5FBBOX | |
Jetzt kaufen | $97.99 | |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 22.31 | |
Leistung |
||
Base frequency | 3.8 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 14 nm FinFET |
Maximale Kerntemperatur | 90°C | 95°C |
Maximale Frequenz | 4.2 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
Anzahl der Adern | 4 | 4 |
Number of GPU cores | 8 | 8 |
Freigegeben | ||
64-Bit-Unterstützung | ||
Matrizengröße | 246 mm | |
L1 Cache | 384 KB | |
L3 Cache | 4 MB | |
Anzahl der Gewinde | 4 | |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 4500 Million | |
Speicher |
||
Maximale Speicherkanäle | 2 | 2 |
Supported memory frequency | 2400 MHz | 2993 MHz |
Unterstützte Speichertypen | DDR4 | |
Grafik |
||
Enduro | ||
Grafik Maximalfrequenz | 1108 MHz | 1100 MHz |
Prozessorgrafiken | R7 | Radeon Vega 8 Graphics |
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Video Codec Engine (VCE) | ||
iGPU Kernzahl | 8 | |
Grafikschnittstellen |
||
DisplayPort | ||
HDMI | ||
Unterstützung der Grafik-API |
||
DirectX | 12 | |
Vulkan | ||
Kompatibilität |
||
Unterstützte Sockel | AM4 | AM4 |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
Configurable TDP | 46-65 Watt | |
Maximale Anzahl von CPUs in einer Konfiguration | 1 | |
Thermal Solution | Wraith Stealth | |
Peripherien |
||
PCI Express Revision | 3.0 | 3.0 x8 |
Fortschrittliche Technologien |
||
AMD Secure technology | ||
Enhanced Virus Protection (EVP) | ||
FreeSync | ||
Fused Multiply-Add 4 (FMA4) | ||
Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) | ||
Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
Out-of-band client management | ||
PowerGating | ||
PowerNow | ||
PowerTune | ||
System Image Stability | ||
TrueAudio | ||
AMD SenseMI | ||
AMD VR Ready Processors | ||
Enmotus FuzeDrive | ||
Virtualisierung |
||
AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | ||
IOMMU 2.0 |