A9-9410 vs A10-7300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A10-7300
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 19 Watt
1.12
+13.1%

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A10-7300 and A9-9410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking22942380
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD KaveriAMD Bristol Ridge
Architecture codenameKaveri (2014−2015)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date4 June 2014 (10 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)
Current price$453 $722

Detailed specifications

A10-7300 and A9-9410 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.9 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz3.5 GHz
L2 cache4096 KB2048 KB
Chip lithography28 nm28 nm
Die size245 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors2410 Million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on A10-7300 and A9-9410 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 configurationno data1
SocketFP3FP4
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt25 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-7300 and A9-9410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA, DDR3-1600 ControllerSingle-Channel DDR4-2133, Virtualization,
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC11
FreeSyncno data1
PowerTune--
TrueAudio+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
Out-of-band client management+-
VirusProtect+-
RAIDno data-
HSA1no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-7300 and A9-9410 are enumerated here.

AMD-V1+
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-7300 and A9-9410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2133
Max memory channels21

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R6 GraphicsAMD Radeon R5 Graphics
iGPU core count63
Enduro++
Switchable graphics11
UVD++
VCE++

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A10-7300 and A9-9410 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort++
HDMI++

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A10-7300 and A9-9410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12DirectX® 12
Vulkan11

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-7300 and A9-9410.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data8

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.

A10-7300 1.12
+13.1%
A9-9410 0.99

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

A10-7300 1739
+14.1%
A9-9410 1524

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 14% in Passmark.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

A10-7300 1992
A9-9410 2694
+35.2%

A9-9410 outperforms A10-7300 by 35% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A10-7300 5192
+12.4%
A9-9410 4619

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 12% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A10-7300 2518
+2.6%
A9-9410 2455

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 3% in 3DMark06 CPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

A10-7300 23.8
+0.6%
A9-9410 23.95

A9-9410 outperforms A10-7300 by 1% in wPrime 32.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

A10-7300 2
+13.2%
A9-9410 2

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 13% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A10-7300 158
+21.5%
A9-9410 130

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 22% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A10-7300 58
A9-9410 63
+8.6%

A9-9410 outperforms A10-7300 by 9% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

A10-7300 0.67
A9-9410 0.82
+22.4%

A9-9410 outperforms A10-7300 by 22% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A10-7300 1.2
+20%
A9-9410 1

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 20% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A10-7300 1510
+71.8%
A9-9410 879

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 72% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A10-7300 12
+17.8%
A9-9410 10

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 18% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A10-7300 62
+15.9%
A9-9410 54

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 16% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A10-7300 3758
+13.9%
A9-9410 3299

A10-7300 outperforms A9-9410 by 14% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A10-7300 1565
A9-9410 2134
+36.4%

A9-9410 outperforms A10-7300 by 36% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.

Geekbench 2

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A10-7300 3865
A9-9410 4260
+10.2%

A9-9410 outperforms A10-7300 by 10% in Geekbench 2.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.12 0.99
Recency 4 June 2014 31 May 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 25 Watt

The A10-7300 is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9410 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A10-7300 and A9-9410, 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 A10-7300
A10-7300
AMD A9-9410
A9-9410

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.


3.4 74 votes

Rate A10-7300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 111 votes

Rate A9-9410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A10-7300 or A9-9410, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.