3020e vs A9-9410

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.00

3020e outperforms A9-9410 by an impressive 60% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9410 and 3020e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24652093
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeAMD Raven Ridge (Ryzen 2000 APU)
Power efficiency6.0724.27
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Dali (Zen) (2020)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)4 August 2020 (4 years ago)

Detailed specifications

A9-9410 and 3020e 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 speed2.9 GHz1.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz2.6 GHz
L1 cacheno data192 KB
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB
L3 cacheno data4 MB
Chip lithography28 nm14 nm
Die size125 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on A9-9410 and 3020e 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 configuration1no data
SocketFP4FT5
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and 3020e. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and 3020e are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and 3020e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2133DDR4
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R5 GraphicsAMD Radeon RX Vega 3
iGPU core count3no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and 3020e integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9410 and 3020e integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and 3020e.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes8no data

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.

A9-9410 1.00
3020e 1.60
+60%

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.

A9-9410 1523
3020e 2439
+60.1%

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.

A9-9410 23.95
+21.1%
3020e 29

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

A9-9410 130
3020e 196
+50.8%

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.

A9-9410 63
3020e 92
+46%

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.

A9-9410 1
3020e 1.1
+10%

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.

A9-9410 879
3020e 1232
+40.2%

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.  

A9-9410 10
3020e 13
+26.4%

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.  

A9-9410 54
3020e 65
+22.1%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.00 1.60
Recency 31 May 2016 4 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 6 Watt

3020e has a 60% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The 3020e is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9410 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and 3020e, 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 A9-9410
A9-9410
AMD 3020e
3020e

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.


2.8 113 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 795 votes

Rate 3020e on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9410 or 3020e, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.