AMD PRO A12-9800 versus AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G
Analyse comparative des processeurs AMD PRO A12-9800 et AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G pour tous les caractéristiques dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Performance, Mémoire, Graphiques, Interfaces de graphiques, Soutien des graphiques API, Compatibilité, Périphériques, Technologies élevé, Virtualization. Analyse de référence de la performance des processeurs: 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD PRO A12-9800
- Environ 8% vitesse de fonctionnement plus vite: 4.2 GHz versus 3.9 GHz
| Fréquence maximale | 4.2 GHz versus 3.9 GHz |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G
- CPU est plus nouveau: date de sortie 1 ans 7 mois plus tard
- Processeur est ouvert; un multiplicateur ouvert soutien le overclocking plus facile
- Environ 6% température maximale du noyau plus haut: 95°C versus 90°C
- Un processus de fabrication nouveau soutien un processeur avec plus de pouvoir, mais moins chaud: 14 nm FinFET versus 28 nm
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en PassMark - Single thread mark: 2154 versus 1686
- 2.3x meilleur performance en PassMark - CPU mark: 8512 versus 3705
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 42.509 versus 26.268
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 393.562 versus 279.396
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.082 versus 1.975
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 49.002 versus 34.196
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 208.928 versus 131.8
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1858 versus 1176
- 4.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1994 versus 477
- 3.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 5566 versus 1715
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1858 versus 1176
- 4.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1994 versus 477
- 3.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 5566 versus 1715
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 10 May 2018 versus 3 October 2016 |
| Ouvert | Ouvert versus barré |
| Température de noyau maximale | 95°C versus 90°C |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm FinFET versus 28 nm |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 2154 versus 1686 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 8512 versus 3705 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 42.509 versus 26.268 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 393.562 versus 279.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.082 versus 1.975 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 49.002 versus 34.196 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 208.928 versus 131.8 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1858 versus 1176 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1994 versus 477 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 5566 versus 1715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1858 versus 1176 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1994 versus 477 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 5566 versus 1715 |
Comparer les références
CPU 1: AMD PRO A12-9800
CPU 2: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G
| 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) |
|
|
| Nom | AMD PRO A12-9800 | AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 1686 | 2154 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 3705 | 8512 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.268 | 42.509 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 279.396 | 393.562 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.975 | 3.082 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 34.196 | 49.002 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 131.8 | 208.928 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1176 | 1858 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 477 | 1994 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1715 | 5566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1176 | 1858 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 477 | 1994 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1715 | 5566 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD PRO A12-9800 | AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Family | AMD PRO A-Series Processors | AMD Ryzen PRO Processors |
| Date de sortie | 3 October 2016 | 10 May 2018 |
| OPN Tray | AD980BAUM44AB | YD240BC5M4MFB |
| 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 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 994 | 238 |
| Série | AMD PRO A-Series A12 APU for Desktops | AMD Ryzen 5 PRO Desktop Processors with Radeon Vega Graphics |
| Segment vertical | Desktop | Desktop |
| Nom de code de l’architecture | Raven Ridge | |
Performance |
||
| Base frequency | 3.8 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Cache L2 | 2 MB | 2 MB |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 14 nm FinFET |
| Température de noyau maximale | 90°C | 95°C |
| Fréquence maximale | 4.2 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Nombre de noyaux | 4 | 4 |
| Number of GPU cores | 8 | 11 |
| Ouvert | ||
| Soutien de 64-bit | ||
| Compute Cores | 15 | |
| Taille de dé | 210 mm | |
| Cache L1 | 384 KB | |
| Cache L3 | 4 MB | |
| Nombre de fils | 8 | |
| Compte de transistor | 4950 million | |
Mémoire |
||
| Réseaux de mémoire maximale | 2 | 2 |
| Supported memory frequency | 2400 MHz | 2933 MHz |
| Genres de mémoire soutenus | DDR4 | |
Graphiques |
||
| Enduro | ||
| Freéquency maximale des graphiques | 1108 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Graphiques du processeur | R7 | Radeon Vega 11 Graphics |
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Codec Engine (VCE) | ||
| Compte de noyaux iGPU | 11 | |
Interfaces de graphiques |
||
| DisplayPort | ||
| HDMI | ||
Soutien des graphiques API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Compatibilité |
||
| Prise courants soutenu | AM4 | AM4 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Configurable TDP | 46-65 Watt | |
| Nombre de CPUs maximale dans une configuration | 1 | |
| Thermal Solution | Wraith Stealth | |
Périphériques |
||
| Révision PCI Express | 3.0 | 3.0 |
Technologies élevé |
||
| 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 | ||
| The "Zen" Core Architecture | ||
Virtualization |
||
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | ||
| IOMMU 2.0 | ||
Navigation
Choisir un CPU
Comparer les processeurs
Comparer AMD PRO A12-9800 avec des autres
AMDPRO A12-9800 vs
IntelCore i5-2390T
AMDPRO A12-9800 vs
AMDA10-7860K
AMDPRO A12-9800 vs
IntelCeleron G3900T
AMDPRO A12-9800 vs
IntelCore i3-9300T
AMDPRO A12-9800 vs
AMDAthlon Gold PRO 3150G
AMDPRO A12-9800 vs
AMDRyzen 5 4500
