A9-9420 vs A6-3400M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A6-3400M
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
0.75
A9-9420
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.95
+26.7%

A9-9420 outperforms A6-3400M by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-3400M and A9-9420 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26682521
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency2.035.93
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A6-3400M and A9-9420 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 speed1.4 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz3.6 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)160 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB (shared)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size228 mm2125 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 A6-3400M and A9-9420 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 A6-3400M and A9-9420. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6480GVirtualization,
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-3400M and A9-9420 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-3400M and A9-9420. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon HD 6520G (400 MHz)Radeon R5

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-3400M and A9-9420.

PCIe versionno data3.0
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.

A6-3400M 0.75
A9-9420 0.95
+26.7%

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.

A6-3400M 1193
A9-9420 1502
+25.9%

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.

A6-3400M 211
A9-9420 325
+54%

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.

A6-3400M 522
+4.4%
A9-9420 500

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.

A6-3400M 1512
A9-9420 2875
+90.1%

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.

A6-3400M 4922
+1.7%
A9-9420 4841

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.

A6-3400M 26
A9-9420 21.29
+22.1%

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.

A6-3400M 2
+8.5%
A9-9420 2

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.75 0.95
Recency 14 June 2011 31 May 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

A6-3400M has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

A9-9420, on the other hand, has a 26.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The A9-9420 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-3400M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-3400M and A9-9420, 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 A6-3400M
A6-3400M
AMD A9-9420
A9-9420

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.


3.6 174 votes

Rate A6-3400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 513 votes

Rate A9-9420 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-3400M or A9-9420, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.