A6-9225 vs A9-9410

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads
0.99
+15.1%

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 15% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

Comparing A9-9410 and A6-9225 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking23402424
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeAMD Bristol Ridge
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date31 May 2016 (7 years old)1 June 2018 (5 years old)
Current price$722 $451

Technical specs

A9-9410 and A6-9225 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 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz3.1 GHz
L1 cacheno data160 KB
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB
Chip lithography28 nm28 nm
Die size124.5 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on A9-9410 and A6-9225 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
SocketFP4BGA
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and A6-9225. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSingle-Channel DDR4-2133, Virtualization,DDR4-2133 RAM (1 channel), PCIe 3, MMX, 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++
FRTC1no data
FreeSync1no data
PowerTune-no data
TrueAudio-no data
PowerNow-no data
PowerGating-no data
Out-of-band client management-no data
VirusProtect-no data
RAID-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and A6-9225 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data
IOMMU 2.0-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and A6-9225. 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 R4 (Stoney Ridge)
iGPU core count3no data
Enduro+no data
Switchable graphics1no data
UVD+no data
VCE+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and A6-9225 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+no data
HDMI+no data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9410 and A6-9225 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan1no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and A6-9225.

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 0.99
+15.1%
A6-9225 0.86

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 15% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

A9-9410 1528
+14.9%
A6-9225 1330

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 15% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

A9-9410 2694
+6.4%
A6-9225 2532

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 6% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A9-9410 4619
+10.2%
A6-9225 4193

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 10% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A9-9410 2455
+15.2%
A6-9225 2132

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 15% in 3DMark06 CPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

A9-9410 23.95
+9.7%
A6-9225 26.28

A6-9225 outperforms A9-9410 by 10% in wPrime 32.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

A9-9410 2
+28.2%
A6-9225 1

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 28% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A9-9410 130
+19.8%
A6-9225 109

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 20% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A9-9410 63
A6-9225 73
+15.9%

A6-9225 outperforms A9-9410 by 16% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

A9-9410 0.82
A6-9225 0.85
+3.7%

A6-9225 outperforms A9-9410 by 4% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A9-9410 1
A6-9225 1
+1%

A6-9225 outperforms A9-9410 by 1% in TrueCrypt AES.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A9-9410 879
+3.2%
A6-9225 852

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 3% in WinRAR 4.0.

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.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A9-9410 54
+9.4%
A6-9225 49

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 9% in x264 encoding pass 1.

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.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A9-9410 10
+11.3%
A6-9225 9

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 11% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A9-9410 2134
+15%
A6-9225 1855

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 15% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A9-9410 3299
+6.3%
A6-9225 3103

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 6% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 2

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A9-9410 4260
+8.2%
A6-9225 3936

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 8% in Geekbench 2.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

A9-9410 3182
+4.8%
A6-9225 3035

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 5% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

A9-9410 2133
+11.1%
A6-9225 1920

A9-9410 outperforms A6-9225 by 11% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 0.99 0.86
Integrated graphics card 1.17
Recency 31 May 2016 1 June 2018
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 15 Watt

The A9-9410 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-9225 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and A6-9225, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote

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 A6-9225
A6-9225

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.

User Ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 107 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 2210 votes

Rate A6-9225 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9410 or A6-9225, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.