A9-9410 vs A8-3510MX

VS

Aggregate performance score

A8-3510MX
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 45 Watt
1.03
+7.3%
A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.96

A8-3510MX outperforms A9-9410 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A8-3510MX and A9-9410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24562503
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency2.176.06
Architecture codenameLlano (2011−2012)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A8-3510MX 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 speed1.8 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz3.5 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)2048 KB
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 A8-3510MX 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 configuration11
SocketFS1FP4
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3510MX and A9-9410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620GVirtualization,
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3510MX and A9-9410 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3510MX and A9-9410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2133
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon HD 6620G (444 MHz)AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
iGPU core countno data3
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A8-3510MX and A9-9410 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A8-3510MX and A9-9410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A8-3510MX and A9-9410.

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.

A8-3510MX 1.03
+7.3%
A9-9410 0.96

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.

A8-3510MX 1631
+6.7%
A9-9410 1528

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.

A8-3510MX 6158
+33.3%
A9-9410 4619

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.03 0.96
Recency 14 June 2011 31 May 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 15 Watt

A8-3510MX has a 7.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

A9-9410, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between A8-3510MX and A9-9410.


Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3510MX 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 A8-3510MX
A8-3510MX
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.


4.2 42 votes

Rate A8-3510MX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 115 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 A8-3510MX or A9-9410, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.