A12-9800 vs Xeon L5638

A12-9800 vs Xeon L5638 Performance Spectrum

A12-9800

4 / 4

3,695

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon L5638

6 / 12

3,707

+0.3%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A12-9800 vs Xeon L5638 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A12-9800 vs Xeon L5638: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A12-9800

2017

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R7, while Xeon L5638 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon L5638.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon L5638 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,695 vs 3,707).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon L5638, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads.

Xeon L5638

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads.
✅Draws 60W instead of 65W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while A12-9800 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A12-9800.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon L5638 better than A12-9800?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon L5638 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A12-9800 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon L5638 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.8% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon L5638 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Xeon L5638 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon L5638 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A12-9800 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A12-9800 vs Xeon L5638 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A12-9800

The A12-9800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 27 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 3,695 points. Launch price was $139.

Xeon L5638

The Xeon L5638 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 60 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,707 points. Launch price was $90.

⚡

Processing Power

The A12-9800 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon L5638 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon L5638 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the A12-9800 versus 2.4 GHz on the Xeon L5638 — a 54.5% clock advantage for the A12-9800 (base: 3.8 GHz vs 2 GHz). The A12-9800 uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Xeon L5638 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A12-9800 scores 3,695 against the Xeon L5638's 3,707 — a 0.3% lead for the Xeon L5638. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A12-9800 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon L5638.

Feature	A12-9800	Xeon L5638
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz+75%	2.4 GHz
Base Clock	3.8 GHz+90%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2048 kB+700%	256 kB (per core)
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	3,695	3,707
Geekbench 6 Single	635	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A12-9800 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon L5638 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A12-9800	Xeon L5638
Socket	AM4	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	8	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A12-9800) / not specified (Xeon L5638). The A12-9800 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R7), while the Xeon L5638 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A12-9800 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A12-9800 rivals Pentium G4600.