A9-9425 vs A4-3305M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A4-3305M
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.47
A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
+268%

A9-9425 outperforms A4-3305M by a whopping 268% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A4-3305M and A9-9425 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29212043
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency1.2710.91
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A4-3305M and A9-9425 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.9 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache128K (per core)128K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size228 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors1,178 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A4-3305M and A9-9425 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 configuration11
SocketFS1FT4
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-3305M and A9-9425. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480GMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-3305M and A9-9425 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-3305M and A9-9425. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6480G (593 MHz)AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 900 MHz)

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.

A4-3305M 0.47
A9-9425 1.73
+268%

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.

A4-3305M 751
A9-9425 1513
+101%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

A4-3305M 236
A9-9425 320
+35.6%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

A4-3305M 361
A9-9425 482
+33.5%

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.

A4-3305M 1812
A9-9425 2686
+48.2%

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.

A4-3305M 3395
A9-9425 4338
+27.8%

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.

A4-3305M 1614
A9-9425 2314
+43.4%

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.

A4-3305M 40.28
A9-9425 25.83
+55.9%

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.

A4-3305M 1
A9-9425 2
+33.9%

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.

A4-3305M 0.56
A9-9425 0.9
+60.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.47 1.73
Integrated graphics card 0.66 1.48
Recency 14 June 2011 31 May 2016
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

A9-9425 has a 268.1% higher aggregate performance score, 124.2% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-3305M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-3305M and A9-9425, 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 A4-3305M
A4-3305M
AMD A9-9425
A9-9425

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.


3.3 114 votes

Rate A4-3305M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1537 votes

Rate A9-9425 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A4-3305M or A9-9425, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.