Ultra 7 265K vs A6-9400

Aggregate performance score

A6-9400
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
1.74
Core Ultra 7 265K
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
38.23
+2097%

Core Ultra 7 265K outperforms A6-9400 by a whopping 2097% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A6-9400 and Core Ultra 7 265K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking203783
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data90.94
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency2.4928.41
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date16 March 2019 (5 years ago)24 October 2024 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$394

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A6-9400 and Core Ultra 7 265K 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)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads220
Base clock speed3.4 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz5.5 GHz
L1 cache160K112 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (shared)3 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm3 nm
Die size250 mm2243 mm2
Number of transistors3,100 million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on A6-9400 and Core Ultra 7 265K 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
SocketAM41851
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-9400 and Core Ultra 7 265K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
TSX-+
SIPP-+

Security technologies

A6-9400 and Core Ultra 7 265K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-9400 and Core Ultra 7 265K are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A6-9400 and Core Ultra 7 265K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR5 Depends on motherboard

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardRadeon R5Arc Xe2 Graphics 64EU

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-9400 and Core Ultra 7 265K.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes820

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.

A6-9400 1.74
Ultra 7 265K 38.23
+2097%

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.

A6-9400 2717
Ultra 7 265K 59587
+2093%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.74 38.23
Recency 16 March 2019 24 October 2024
Physical cores 2 20
Threads 2 20
Chip lithography 28 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 125 Watt

A6-9400 has 92.3% lower power consumption.

Ultra 7 265K, on the other hand, has a 2097.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 833.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Core Ultra 7 265K is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-9400 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A6-9400 and Core Ultra 7 265K, 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 A6-9400
A6-9400
Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
Core Ultra 7 265K

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.


2.7 26 votes

Rate A6-9400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 60 votes

Rate Core Ultra 7 265K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A6-9400 or Core Ultra 7 265K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.