Celeron B815 vs A9-9410

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9410
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.96
+109%
Celeron B815
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.46

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron B815 by a whopping 109% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9410 and Celeron B815 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24932923
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency6.061.24
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)1 January 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

A9-9410 and Celeron B815 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 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data16
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB256K (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm32 nm
Die size125 mm2131 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9410 and Celeron B815 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFP4FCPGA988,PGA988
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and Celeron B815. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
FMA++
AVX+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

A9-9410 and Celeron B815 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and Celeron B815 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and Celeron B815. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2133DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channels12
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 GraphicsIntel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors
iGPU core count3no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
Graphics max frequencyno data1.05 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and Celeron B815 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9410 and Celeron B815 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and Celeron B815.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes816

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 0.96
+109%
Celeron B815 0.46

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 1522
+108%
Celeron B815 731

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.

A9-9410 2694
+28.7%
Celeron B815 2093

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.

A9-9410 4619
+14.6%
Celeron B815 4029

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.

A9-9410 2455
+49.2%
Celeron B815 1645

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
+85%
Celeron B815 44.3

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.96 0.46
Recency 31 May 2016 1 January 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

A9-9410 has a 108.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The A9-9410 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B815 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and Celeron B815, 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
Intel Celeron B815
Celeron B815

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
2.5 250 votes

Rate Celeron B815 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9410 or Celeron B815, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.