Celeron N2815 vs A9-9410

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing A9-9410 and Celeron N2815 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking2382not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)1 December 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107
Current price$722 $270 (2.5x MSRP)

Detailed specifications

A9-9410 and Celeron N2815 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 GHz1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz2.13 GHz
L1 cacheno data112 KB
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB
L3 cacheno data1 MB
Chip lithography28 nm22 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--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on A9-9410 and Celeron N2815 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
SocketFP4FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N2815. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSingle-Channel DDR4-2133, Virtualization,no data
AES-NI+-
FMA+no data
AVX+no data
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
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Smart Connectno data+
Statusno dataDiscontinued
RSTno data-

Security technologies

A9-9410 and Celeron N2815 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Identity Protectionno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N2815 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
IOMMU 2.0-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N2815. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2133DDR3L-1066
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channels12

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 GraphicsIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
iGPU core count3no data
Enduro+no data
Switchable graphics1no data
UVD+no data
VCE+no data
Graphics max frequencyno data756 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A9-9410 and Celeron N2815 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
DisplayPort+no data
HDMI+no data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N2815 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan1no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9410 and Celeron N2815.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes84
USB revisionno data3.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


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 1527
+208%
Celeron N2815 495

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 208% 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
+152%
Celeron N2815 1068

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 152% 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
+127%
Celeron N2815 2038

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 127% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

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
+141%
Celeron N2815 57.8

Celeron N2815 outperforms A9-9410 by 141% 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
+130%
Celeron N2815 1

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 130% 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
+134%
Celeron N2815 56

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 134% 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
+93.8%
Celeron N2815 33

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 94% 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
+128%
Celeron N2815 0.36

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 128% 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
+900%
Celeron N2815 0.1

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 900% 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
+48%
Celeron N2815 594

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 48% in WinRAR 4.0.

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
+124%
Celeron N2815 5

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 124% in x264 encoding pass 2.

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
+122%
Celeron N2815 24

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 122% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A9-9410 3299
+146%
Celeron N2815 1343

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 146% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A9-9410 2134
+173%
Celeron N2815 781

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 173% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.

Geekbench 2

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A9-9410 4260
+122%
Celeron N2815 1917

A9-9410 outperforms Celeron N2815 by 122% in Geekbench 2.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 31 May 2016 1 December 2013
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 7 Watt

We couldn't decide between A9-9410 and Celeron N2815. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9410 and Celeron N2815, 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 N2815
Celeron N2815

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.


2.8 111 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 35 votes

Rate Celeron N2815 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 N2815, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.